Jump to content

Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Current state of the draft

I originally set out to just remove the BLP violations and revdel those, but in the process of doing so it became necessary to overhaul the article. I've removed material that I couldn't see a source for, and made it clear that (per sources) this is a conspiracy theory with no evidence coming from some doubtful sources. James spencer moulson (talk · contribs)'s original version was topic-ban worthy, if not block worthy. Without combing through every single edit after his, I get the impression that most other users didn't exacerbate the BLP violations he posted, but still failed to address them. Had someone else fixed the draft before me (leaving me undeniably uninvolved), and had he been notified about discretionary sanctions relating to post-1932 American politics, I would have personally topic banned him.

I have not yet moved this into article space because of concerns over WP:EFFECT as well as waiting for more admin support. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

need to move it now. coverage in BBC [1] shootup in NYT [2] snopes [3] local coverage [4] it is not one event, and there are lots of reliable sources, although it may be a honey pot for conspirators. Beatley (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Adl-Tabatabai and simplification

Adl-Tabatabai was not the conspiracy theory forum poster, he was the conspiracy theorist who cited the conspiracy theory forum post (in addition to the Tweet and the 4chan post). If we are going to simplify it, then:

BuzzFeed traced the start of the conspiracy theory to Sean Adl-Tabatabai (a former associate of professional conspiracy theorist David Icke), who cited previously unrelated posts from a conspiracy theory forum, 4chan, and a Tweet written by an alt-right account as supposed evidence that emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop purportedly revealed the existence of a pedophilia ring. Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, one going so far as to claim that the NYPD had raided Hillary Clinton's property.

Is slightly shorter than:

BuzzFeed traced the start of the conspiracy theory to a Tweet written by an alt-right account claimed that emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop purportedly revealed the existence of a pedophilia ring and an initially unrelated forum post on a conspiracy theorist website, both of which were imagined to be related by Sean Adl-Tabatabai (a former associate of professional conspiracy theorist David Icke), citing a 4chan post. Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, one going so far as to claim that the NYPD had raided Hillary Clinton's property.

However, the tweet got the ball rolling and was the origin of the core of the conspiracy theory (which Adl-Tabatabai developed into its current form). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy peddlers continue pushing debunked 'pizzagate' tale

  • Alam, Hannah (5 December 2016), "Conspiracy peddlers continue pushing debunked 'pizzagate' tale", Miami Herald, retrieved 7 December 2016, One might think that police calling the motive a 'fictitious conspiracy theory' would put an end to the claim that inspired a gunman from North Carolina to attack a family pizzeria in Washington over the weekend.

We now have an actual police statement, and reporting by secondary sources, using this wording. Note the word "fictitious" in front of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in its first appearance in the article by the Miami Herald.

We should take our cue from these secondary sources and use similar wording to the Miami Herald and to the police. Sagecandor (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As you've already seen, Sagecandor, I've added a citation to the word "debunked" - fingers crossed, that might settle down the silly argument over semantics that keeps taking place here. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Exemplo347, will try to bring the citations for that particular part to a total of maybe three. And also add citations to the introduction section as it now appears to satisfy the "contentious" part of WP:CITELEAD due to incoming Internet trolls. Sagecandor (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2nd cite, 2nd quote for "debunked":

Sagecandor (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

3rd cite, 3rd quote for "debunked":

  • Ruth, Daniel (December 6, 2016), "The lunacy of fake news", The Seattle Times, retrieved December 7, 2016, the dangerous and damaging fake allegations against a businessman and his employees simply trying to make a living have been repeatedly debunked, disproved and dismissed.

Sagecandor (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

None of these sources provide any factual evidence that the conspiracy is 'debunked'. Theyre just claiming its debunked, with no actual proof or evidence. Better source needed. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We just go by what are reliable sources. These are reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
No. No, they are not. Perhaps you need to read this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability --Bitsnake420 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they are, and simply saying otherwise means nothing. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. It is verifiable that a wide array of reliable sources have stated that the claims are false. To my knowledge, no reputable reliable source has stated that they are true. Therefore, among reliable sources, it is uncontested and uncontroversial that they are false, and the NPOV policy directs that Wikipedia must accept the factual conclusion of these reliable sources. Unless you can present reliable sources which state otherwise, we are done here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Those sources have no evidence or proof to support their claims. They are unreliable. You're telling me if the daily dot says that the world is going to end in 10 minutes, that's a reliable source that the world is going to end in 10 minutes. You're ridiculous. We are indeed done here. --Bitsnake420 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the verifiability policy. You might want to read through Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. clpo13(talk) 18:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Bitsnake420 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Sagecandor (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Request to add text to intro

It was determined to be false by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia who called it a "fictitious conspiracy theory".[1] The conspiracy theory was investigated and discredited as fake by fact-checking website Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference hannahalam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference snopes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference DCGunman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference douglaswashburn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Please add above text as a 2nd paragraph for the intro.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done ...mostly. I modified it some, primarily to shorten it while conveying basically the same information. TimothyJosephWood 19:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks great thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: anyone is free to disagree, so long as the argument is grounded in reliable sources, and not in original research and personal opinion, as in the collapsed section above. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Torture threats to New York restaurant

Could be added to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's relevant, I'll add it in now. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It's been added to the article at the end of the "Debunked" section (it seemed like the best place for the info to go, to fit with the flow of the article) Exemplo347 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe under "Comet Ping Pong shooting" somehow and make it a section about violence and also now threats of torture ? Sagecandor (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is to create a section for reports of threats and harassment, and then combine that with the first paragraph of the "Comet Ping Pong shooting" section. I've read other accounts of harassment (mostly about Comet Ping Pong's neigbors). FallingGravity 22:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"Threats and harassment" yeah that sounds like a good section name. Sagecandor (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

TIME and New York Daily News have more info. Sagecandor (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspect Name

Reminder: the individual arrested for the shooting is not WP:WELLKNOWN and is covered under WP:BLPCRIME unless convicted. TimothyJosephWood 20:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post has significantly more info that could be used in the article. The arrested individual does actually have a conviction: "has one conviction, for driving while impaired in 2013 in Salisbury. He has been arrested several times in North Carolina, once on a drug charge, in 2007". Sagecandor (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes he does, but none of those prior convictions make him WP:WELLKNOWN for the purposes of Wikipedia. I have already added some of this information into the article though. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay that makes sense, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:Suspect has chosen to use his real name in a public interview with The New York Times to explain his action: "The Comet Ping Pong Gunman Answer's Our Reporter's Questions", also The Daily Beast reported on this development at "Pizzagate Gunman: 'I Regret How I Handled the Situation'". Sagecandor (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WP has an obligation to be restrictive on this issue across the board as a matter of policy, partially because it helps uphold our fundamental principles, but also because it opens the Wikimedia Foundation to legal action if not adhered to. WP is WP:NOTNEWS, and although we want articles to be as accurate as possible, we take the long view, and it is perfectly acceptable to wait on a relatively minor detail, as far as an encyclopedic understanding is concerned, and see what comes of it.
All the average reader would gain from this is a name, which means nothing more than "a man" in any meaningful sense, because the person is not previously known to the public. We have an obligation to be conservative (in the literal, not political sense) in cases like these. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood:Sure that all makes sense. However, those sources could be good to update the article, could paraphrase or quote the individual's intentions, without naming his name in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I will try to look more into them tomorrow. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment BLPCRIME merely emphasises the need to be judicious. The suspect's name has been reported by multiple sources and has granted an interview, under their own name. The latter is a public action, and we should have no problem with using their name. That man from Nantucket (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This comment also makes sense. Sagecandor (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood:Secondary sources now reporting themselves on The New York Times interview include ABC News [5] The McClatchy Company newspapers [6] Global News in Canada [7] and TIME [8]. Sagecandor (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael G. Flynn dismissal section

This section needs expanding (see Michael G. Flynn#Presidential transition of Donald Trump for comparison). In particular, I think the fact that Flynn had previously promoted the PizzaGate conspiracy and that his father published similar rumors on social media (spirit cooking, Wiener fake news) should be mentioned in the article. All of this is mentioned at the Michael G. Flynn page and is relevant here. HelgaStick (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It also might be good to add "Jr." after Michael G. Flynn's name. Many people might be confused regarding which Michael Flynn was dismissed from the Trump team. The Armchair General (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Texas police investigating threats to pizzeria in Austin

Suggested sources to add to update article.

New development. So now real world impact with violence and threats of violence in Washington, D.C., New York, and now Texas. Sagecandor (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

How is this related? Pizza does not a PizzaGate make.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Have you bothered to click on the links above and read the 2 articles? Sagecandor (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, though these are copycats, they are apparently unrelated to the first outside of the hashtag. Or are we writing about a meme now?--That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Copycats of what? These are all actual violence and threats of violence investigated by multiple police departments and reported by reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is why I think we should have a section on harassment reports, much like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories#Harassment by conspiracy theorists. FallingGravity 08:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Very much agree with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with FallingGravity and Volunteer Marek here. Sagecandor (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Debunked conspiracy theory

There are no reliable sources contradicting the claim that this is debunked, many supporting it, and good reasons to include the term. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I've always found the language that "X is a false/debunked conspiracy theory" to be a bit overwrought, and most often seen on Wikipedia. Are there any conspiracy theories that are true? Debunked is better than "false" I supoose; the latter sounds like a double negative. Consider

Pizzagate is a conspiracy started in Sept. 2016 that tied a number of pizzerias and members of the Democratic Party to a child-sex ring. The theory has been soundly debunked by news media (strongest source fist) and law enforcement (list) says the theory is without merit. The theory occured amongst the backdrop of the US election.

.We are currently missing the "when" and are missing context. I'm proposing a shortened description, including when it started, followed immediately by a description of of thoroughly and by whom the theory was discredited. And then finally provide some context, which is sorely missing in the lead. The idea that this is bit related to the election is nonsense, but we don't see it.That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree - Pizzagate has been reported as debunked in a wide range of reliable sources. It is important that Wikipedia articles do not give undue weight to points of view that are not supported by a single reliable source. In this case, an unequivocal statement that this conspiracy theory has been debunked, supported by reliable sources, is the only way to go. The alternative would be to give the impression that this might actually have some basis in fact (without any evidence to support that possibility). Exemplo347 (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
"Pizzagate is a conspiracy" doesn´t work, does it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Pizzagate appears to be the ONLY conspiracy theory on Wikipedia that is being described as "debunked" or "false". Funny, isn't it? I guess we give other conspiracy theories, such as the one regarding reptilians the benefit of a doubt. 217.91.160.59 (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That is not true. There are many conspiracy theories that are properly described in our articles as disproved or without evidentiary support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
What are some of your examples? The "Moon landing conspiracy theories" article mentions how the conspiracy had been debunked, but the word "debunked" doesn't appear in the lead paragraph nor has an entire section dedicated to debunking the conspiracy theory. The word "false" isn't even mentioned in that page too. The "Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories" article only mentioned the word "debunked" once by Snopes; the word "false" is not mentioned in that page too. The Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article mentioned that the theories were "falsely asserting that [Barack Obama] was not a natural-born citizen of the United States", and not a "debunked" conspiracy theory. In fact, the only time where the media's role in debunking the theory had been mentioned was in the "Release of the birth certificates" section, stating "These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations", not in the Lead paragraph. Finally, the phrase "debunked conspiracy theory" only appeared in three wikipedia articles, with only one (this article) featuring the phrase in the lead paragraph. In conclusion, the IP user was only half-right, that this theory seems like it is pushing "false" and "debunked" far more than any other conspiracy article. However, the IP user is wrong asserting that Pizzagate is the "ONLY conspiracy theory" to be described by those terms. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
You will note that the common thread here is that conspiracy theories which make specific and actionable claims about living people, such as that Barack Obama was born in Kenya or that a pizza restaurant is a front for a child sex ring, are treated differently — that's because of the biographies of living persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This language does not match the WP:NPOV standards, and none of the sources given offer material proof against this because proof cannot simply be given. See Russell's teapot. For this reason I would motion that this should say "alleged", "unsubstantiated" or otherwise something to that effect. Another example of a silly conspiracy theory for which we have empirical evidence of its debunking is the chemtrails conspiracy, and that itself opens with the word "unproven". --Simtropolitan (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course it meets policy. You just refuse to read the policy. See WP:YESPOV, Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. It is an uncontested and uncontroversial fact among reliable sources that these claims are false, fabricated and malicious lies. Until and unless you or anyone else presents reliable sources which claim otherwise, this is not up for debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We go by Reliable Sources, not what other articles say or do. This dangerous fraud has been debunked, by police, by fact-checkers, by media from the left and the right. Sagecandor (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh I'm reading it, avoid stating opinions as facts, again, this is the kind of issue for which no contestable evidence exists. It is an allegation which cites leaked but confirmed communications between officials. It is an interpretation, it may be false, however again none of the material cited by these reliable sources actually addresses the language therein. This seems very heavy handed compared to the language addressing much crazier allegations which have been documented on articles on Wikipedia.--Simtropolitan (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Unless you have reliable sources saying that this is not a debunked false conspiracy theory, I believe this conversation is over. TimothyJosephWood 17:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
That these claims are false, malicious lies is not an opinion, it is a factual statement made by dozens of reliable sources. Your personal agreement or disagreement with these reliable sources, or your personal belief or disbelief in what they are saying, is not at issue here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, and the reliable sources say this. Your problem is with the sources, and we can't solve that here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
What you are saying, is the definition of opinion and to address this as a personal agreement or disagreement goes outside the conduct of Wikipedia. This is not a matter of a personal belief, this is a matter of upholding Wikipedia's factual validity, which is to address why this conspiracy theory has even been put forward. I will leave it at that until further sources are addressed, but the language of this article as well as the discussion surrounding is very troubling in the scope of Wikipedia's purpose. --Simtropolitan (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The language of your own argument is troubling only in so far as it is vacuous, because it appears to consist only of your opinion of the sources provided by others, and no actual sources that back up what you are trying to say. The only meaningful definition of opinion, in this case, is making claims without sources, and since you have provided none, I will assume you have none. Now please stop wasting out time until you do. TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission, purpose and policies. When The New York Times publishes an article in its news section which makes a factual statement, Wikipedia does not treat that factual statement as an opinion. A reputable, fact-checked news source and anonymous Internet vigilantes are not given equal validity in Wikipedia's eye. We aren't an "alternative media" site and we aren't a place to spread debunked libelslander nonsense about innocent people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We explicitly state that, for example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are forgeries. We really aren't interested in how many websites claim they're true, we go by the preponderance of reliable sources and explicitly state that they're a false canard. This is a malicious campaign of fabrications designed to cause harm to living individuals, is devoid of any basis in fact, and has been explicitly described as such by reliable sources, up to and including police agencies. If this was something that happened in the past we would have an opportunity to discuss the matter from the point of view of historical moral panics, but since it's ongoing with actual threats made against actual people, we have no room to tiptoe around the central point for readers who come here to understand what's going on. It's false, and Wikipedia has no business assisting the spread of malicious rumors by granting them credence by omission or false balance. This is an encyclopedia, we're not obligated to take fringe ideas seriously: rather the reverse. Just because the credulous or the promoters of hate can edit Wikipedia doesn't mean the encyclopedia has to take them seriously. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the issue here is who decides that they are the arbiter of truth? Is it simply by how much media influence you have, how much money you spend on advertising or your editorial team, etc.? Solntsa90 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As per the NPOV policy, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That Wikipedia's coverage of this issue accurately reflects the fact that reliable sources publishing on this topic are effectively unanimous in declaring this to be a series of malicious lies is a feature, not a bug. Again, your disagreement is with the reliable sources, not Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Close Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about the subject of the article, the larger philosophical questions regarding US media, or corrupting epistemology. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Two things... First is that the OP, That man from Nantucket, started this thread with the absolute best, hands-down-no-contest argument for excluding qualifiers like "debunked" that I've ever read on WP. That being said, its fatal flaw is that it ignores the facts that conspiracy theories aren't necessarily false; just overwhelmingly so, and that "false" is not synonymous with "debunked".
Finally: there's nothing to discuss here. If one side is asking for sources, and the other side is ignoring that in favor of vague, rhetorical arguments that my seven-year-old could see through, then this has more potential to turn into the seed of an ANI case than to improve the article. I'm closing this discussion.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 8 December 2016 (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.

Can we fix the run on sentence in the lead?

Does it really add anything to the lead that we mention who started the conspiracy theory and how it spread in the lead? Perhaps, but this belongs AFTER we mention the concept of the theory.--That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow haha I agree that is a long run on sentence. Sagecandor (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Since when is Buzzfeed considered a credible source?

I've been a Wikipedia for years now, and I've never, EVER seen Buzzfeed listed as an acceptable source. So why is Buzzfeed, a content-rehosting blog, being given so much credibility here?

Solntsa90 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is cited once, and is accompanied by a PolitiFact citation which also credits BF with identifying the source of the claim. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is the leading sentence, and is credited with 'debunking' the story--That alone leaves me suspect, as Buzzfeed is not a credible source for anything, even if Politifact re-hashes what they say (and Politifact is not entirely credible either). Solntsa90 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a better one? TimothyJosephWood 19:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This comes up so often that I suspect people aren't paying attention: [9]. Buzzfeed is not just a "content-rehosting blog" these days: [10], [11]. clpo13(talk) 20:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
In general Buzzfeed easily meets the criteria of our reliable sources guideline. It has a high reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, an established editorial team, and is regularly cited by other highly reliable media. In fact just this morning I read multiple articles at the Columbia Journalism Review (just about the most reliable outlet there is) citing Buzzfeed on stories about fake news. Buzzfeed is regularly cited across Wikipedia and has withstood many challenges at WP:RSN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Participation also appreciated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fake_news_website#BuzzFeed_News Sagecandor (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair warning, it's a bit WP:CANVASSy to post that in a thread where nearly everyone has already agreed with a conclusion you are forwarding elsewhere. TimothyJosephWood 20:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
One link, to one location, about exact same discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, I saw the comment by Clpo13, and I read from Clpo13: "This comes up so often that I suspect people aren't paying attention" -- and so from Clpo13 I concluded this was a settled matter and not really up for repeated perpetual debate any longer. Sagecandor (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

In general Buzzfeed easily meets the criteria of our reliable sources guideline. It has a high reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, an established editorial team,

Is this a joke? Let me know, so I can respond accordingly. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's like you're not even reading the links given. clpo13(talk) 20:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Because they're not. TimothyJosephWood 20:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It doesn't matter what source is used, I doubt you'll be satisfied since according to you the "jury is still out" about the conspiracy theory. If The New York Times isn't good enough for you nothing will be. There's no point in others having a serious dialogue. APK whisper in my ear 20:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you stop pretending like Wikipedia is free and democratic and just jump right away to "semi-protecting" this talk page like you guys usually do. 217.91.160.59 (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Omg. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is most definitely NOT a reliable source. In fact, most of what is in that article was simply made up the the editor. Pizzagate actually was started by people who were reading Podesta's emails on Wikileaks, and the Buzzfeed article doesn't even mention that. All the Buzzfeed nonsense is unreliable, unverifiable, and needs to be immediately deleted. Ag97 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidence please? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"Why don't you stop pretending like Wikipedia is free and democratic". It is free and participation is voluntary. Nobody said that it is democratic. Quite the opposite. Per the policy statement: Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee). Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution." Dimadick (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

White supremacist

The article has this referenced claim, but it is not explained in the article how this conspiracy theory is related to racial minorities. Can this be improved? --Pudeo (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That particular info in the article is backed up to two citations to sources [13] and [14]. Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I´m pretty new to wikipedia editing, but I would have never thought that a buzzfeed article and another article only referencing the buzzfeed article are considered appropriate evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C3:33CC:B057:88CD:3E75:82D:23A0 (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why we should have a lead sentence which singles out a particular Twitter user, essentially giving that user bragging rights for starting the Pizzagate "investigation". I think it's better to just say "started on Twitter" or "started on alt-right Twitter". More detail is fine in the "Origins" section. FallingGravity 19:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor, the issue is not that the statement is unsourced. It is simply given without context, leaving its significance unclear. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Renaming Section "Debunked" to "Responses"

Although the media had debunked the conspiracy theories, I do not believe that the word should be a title of this section. The title "Responses" would be more accurate because the media had responded to the incident, debunking it. Also, I believe that the owner's response to the incident should also be included in that section, such as his interview with NPR on November 27, 2016 where he referred to the conspiracy theory as "an insanely complicated, made-up, fictional lie-based story" and a "coordinated political attack" Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity:How about one section "Debunked" and another one "Responses" ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, "Debunked" is very informal for a section title. "Responses" has precedent in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories#Responses. FallingGravity 04:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I was about to post the same thing too. In the "Sandy Hook" article, there is a "Response" section with both Snopes debunking and responses by Sandy Hook victims. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Alright, as long as it continues to say debunked prominently in the introduction. Sagecandor (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that the conspiracy had been debunked was mentioned in both the Lead Paragrah and the "Response" section. Debunking is a type of Response, not a separate meaning. To debunk something is to "expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)" - a response to that false myth. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Then I would ask that you self-revert your change back to the original consensus; this discussion has been open less than three hours. Being clear about the falsity of this is important, and the most important thing about the entire conspiracy theory is that it has been definitively declared false and debunked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

We obviously have Pizzagate "truthers" commenting on this page. (I can provide diffs if necessary) I don't understand why the same arguments need to be rehashed and the same links provided that will be ignored since they're part of the "lamestream media". The reasons this libelous and ludicrous story is false have been provided. If the conspiracy theorists want to argue about it, I suggest they do it on another site; one that doesn't care about WP:BLP issues. I suggest closing discussions when people start repeating the same arguments. APK whisper in my ear 19:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

While I have noticed some rather peculiar comments myself, I hope this does not translate to shutting down all discussions before they can even begin. Dimadick (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Identity of the person who started "Pizzagate"

According to this article by Toronto Star, the person who had started the Pizzagate theory was a woman from Belleville, Ontario who was a contributor of the conspiracy site "Planet Free Will". Should I include this information in the article? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm...given the BLP implications, I would personally wait a little while and see if anyone else takes this seriously. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, the article doesn't say that that woman "started" the conspiracy theory, only helped spread it. FallingGravity 06:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, the article states that she shared the story from someone else. This is of questionable significance to the overall article and should not be included - I'm sure the information has been shared by countless people and we can't add every single one of their names to the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we're okay to write about this. The Toronto Star is a reliable source, and The Washington Post covered MacMillian's role too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So...this exists on commons

See here. I'm not posting directly on talk because I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't constitute a BLP violation. I think it may be useful for the article as an example of the things that are being spread around, but...again...I'm not sure we even have the option of using it. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I posted on COM:AN about the pic. If they don't find it to be a problem maybe we can discuss whether its usable here. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it's already been deleted from Commons Exemplo347 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Well that settles that then. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Nominated category for deletion, at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Pizzagate. Sagecandor (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove unsourced content

This sentence "Several sites noted that purported evidence cited by the conspiracy theory's proponents had been fabricated or taken from entirely different sources and photoshopped to appear as if they supported the conspiracy." appears to be original research and unverifiable. No reputable sources are given to back up the claims, so I propose the sentence should be deleted. Ag97 (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the "photoshopped" may need to be taken out. I looked through a half dozen or so of the sources and didn't see one that directly said "photoshopped". Plenty (e.g., Snopes) point out how the images were taken out of context from unrelated sites or profiles. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
100% with Tim, here. (Hope you don't mind me calling you that). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Brittany Pettibone

The article briefly names a "Brittany Pettibone" and her role in the story. Who is she? We do not have other articles that mention her. A few online sources mention a "Brittany Pettibone" as co-author of a science fiction novel called "Hatred Day", but do not mention political activities. Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton speaks out after attack

Days after the attack, Hillary Clinton spoke out on the dangers of fake news in a tribute speech to retiring Senator Harry Reid at the United States Capitol.[1][2] Clinton called the spread of fraudulent news and fabricated propaganda an epidemic that flowed through social media.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).[2] She said it posed a danger to citizens of the U.S. and to the country's political process.[1][2] The week of her speech, legislation on The Pentagon policy which included a bipartisan measure to found a new division within the U.S. State Department to from an inter-agency effort to combat incoming propaganda originating from foreign nations.[1] Clinton said in her speech she supported bills before the U.S. Congress to deal with fake news.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Kane, Paul (8 December 2016), "Hillary Clinton attacks 'fake news' in post-election appearance on Capitol Hill", The Washington Post, retrieved 9 December 2016
  2. ^ a b c "Hillary Clinton warns of 'fake news epidemic'", BBC News, 9 December 2016, retrieved 9 December 2016

Suggest some or any or all of this could be added to the article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the BBC article, it seems like it would be appropriate for Fake news website, but the content about Pizzagate is all context added by the BBC and not anything addressed by Clinton directly. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but both sources say she spoke about it shortly after the attack, and she said it was not what she had been planning to talk about in her speech that day. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that combining the BBC article with another article to reach the conclusion that this specifically is what she was implying, is pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, good point, no problem. Sagecandor (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

I've spent probably too much time trying to find a reliable source on social media trends in the hope of uploading a graph of popularity over time. Aaand...I've not really found anything. Anyone more social-media-savvy than me know of a good source? TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Something like this [15] ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem with Google trends is it only gives data as a percentile of the highest popularity of the term. I was really looking for actual data (numbers of searches, uses, etc), specifically on the use of the hashtag, since its widely reported in the sources, but no one seems to give actual numbers. TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay well we'll just have to keep looking. Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Ag97

Now at AE. Neutralitytalk 17:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am quite concerned by a number of recent edits by Ag97. This user has made a number of edits they describe as "minor" that are not at all minor. Here and here they significantly weaken the description of the hoax as false. Please do not describe significant changes as minor edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The edit you described is a well-justified edit. I considered it to be a minor change in wording, that more accurately describes what the articles describes. The article never uses the word "debunked," instead it uses the words "fake news" so how can you get mad at me for changing the words to match the article's wording? Ag97 (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The article never uses the word "debunked,"...This would be 100% true...if the article didn't use the word five times, and thrice in reference quotes. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
What article are you talking about? Ag97 (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This one? TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Ag97 has previously been blocked for a 3RR violation on this very article. I think it is time for AE on this. Neutralitytalk 16:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
First of all, that was not for this very article, that's a lie. It was for the disambiguation page. Secondly, you were guilty of edit warring just as much as I was, so you should have been blocked too. Ag97 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. I stand behind all of my edits, and will defend every one of them. You have no right to ban me for making good faith edits. Ag97 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Including this one, where you add a lengthy description of the issue to another article never mentioning that the claims are false, malicious lies - despite the fact that both sources you cite use the term "fake" in their headlines? It's time you understood that Wikipedia is not going to be a party to spreading this garbage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I stand behind that edit one hundred percent. First of all, one sentence is not a "lengthy description." Second of all, I described the claims as "conspiracy theory." The words "conspiracy theory" mean that the allegations have not been proven, so there is no need to describe them as "fake, malicious lies." That is editorialized language, and Wikipedia must be neutral. The words "conspiracy theory" alone are enough. Third of all, Pizzagate is something that has received notable media attention. The creation of the theory was a significant consequence of the Podesta emails, so me adding a "lengthy description" of one short sentence to the article was completely justified. Are the New York Times and Washington Post, and all the other mainstream media outlets "spreading this garbage" by reporting on the story? Pizzagate meets all criteria for notability and does not censor. Ag97 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to discuss content, this is the place. If you want to discuss editors, go to ANI or AE, because this is not the place. TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Now at WP:AE. Sagecandor (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Citations in the intro

Strongly recommend keeping citations in the intro from this version [16].

Makes it much harder for drive-by-cite-tagging and vandalism removal of content. Sagecandor (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This change looks spectacular, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits by NorthBySouthBaranof

Now at WP:AE. TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am concerned by the number of recent edits by NorthBySouthBaranof. This user made a large amount of changes, without talk page consensus, that violate Wikipedia policy of neutrality. I, and many editors and readers of this article, disagree with these changes. This user is purposefully rewriting the article to remove neutral language and make it biased, reducing the overall quality of the article. In addition, he and his friend Neutrality have threatened to use their administrator rights to block me from Wikipedia in retaliation for voicing my opposition and concerns about their changes. It is very disturbing to see that these two administrators have teamed up to worsen the quality of an article and bully and threaten anyone who tries to stop them. Ag97 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you got that wrong too. I am not an administrator. I'm a longtime editor with a thorough understanding of the Biographies of Living Persons policy, reliable sourcing guidelines, the NPOV policy and others. I am merely interested here in ensuring that our coverage of this dangerous, libelous, malicious hoax provides accurate information based upon reliable sources, and does not serve to disseminate false claims about living people or dissimulate about their innocence in this matter. If you object to a particular edit, please provide a diff and we'll discuss it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This talk page section title and wording seems like WP:BATTLEGROUND violation in direct retaliation to [17]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to discuss content, this is the place. If you want to discuss editors, go to ANI or AE, because this is not the place. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Dot is the only source for this story, BBC Online is copying their prose verbatim, as is was Wikipedia. Sloppy, guys. SashiRolls (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What stories are you exactly referring to? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The BBC story added nothing substantial to the Daily Dot story they mentioned briefly. Perhaps now that the Turkish media frenzy is a little trimmed down it will appear a little more neutral to people. I haven't read any further on the issue than this article and the two articles that were cited in that section. Hoping to keep it that way. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Turkey and Turkish media involvement in spreading Pizzagate

  1. Sozeri, Efe Kerem (23 November 2016), "How the alt-right's PizzaGate conspiracy hid real scandal in Turkey", The Daily Dot, retrieved 9 December 2016, In the last week, all Turkish pro-government papers, including mainstream publications like Sabah, A Haber, Yeni Şafak, Akşam and Star, ran similar stories about the PizzaGate, using the very same images and claims from a (now banned) subreddit to convince their readers on how serious and deep-rooted the scandal was. Columnists penned articles that the PizzaGate is a part of the globalist conspiracy against Turkey, and one article even remarked that the "Teenage" in pizza-eating Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles now makes sense as a pedophilia reference after PizzaGate.
  2. "The saga of 'Pizzagate': The fake story that shows how conspiracy theories spread", BBC News, 2 December 2016, retrieved 9 December 2016, The fake story remained the preserve of 4chan and alt-right Reddit until mid-November, when Turkish pro-government media outlets suddenly took an intense interest. Their tweets were in Turkish, but they used the English hashtag: #Pizzagate.
  3. King, Cecilia (21 November 2016), "Fake News Onslaught Targets Pizzeria as Nest of Child-Trafficking", The New York Times, retrieved 9 December 2016, Soon, dozens of fake news articles on sites such as Facebook, Planet Free Will and Living Resistance emerged. Readers shared the stories in Saudi Arabia and on Turkish and other foreign language sites.
  4. "What is Pizzagate and how did it get cooked up?", The Week, 9 December 2016, retrieved 9 December 2016, In November, Turkish pro-government media suddenly started tweeting about the conspiracy theory using the hashtag #Pizzagate.
  5. Sebastian, Michael (3 December 2016), "Even the Pizzagate Suspect No Longer Believes the Conspiracy Theory", Esquire, retrieved 9 December 2016, Also, the nation of Turkey is involved in the spread of Pizzagate. Around mid-November, the BBC explained, a pro-government media outlet in Turkey started tweeting the conspiracy theory using the hashtag #pizzagate. The reason, according to The Daily Dot, is that supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan were trying to accuse opponents of hypocrisy. An actual child-abuse scandal had rocked a foundation connected to the Turkish government, and Erdogan's supporters were asking why people weren't also outraged over Pizzagate. In other words, it was meant as a distraction.
  6. Tempey, Nathan (5 December 2016), "What On Earth Is Pizzagate And How Did It Result In Gunfire At Comet Ping Pong?", DCist, retrieved 9 December 2016, It first appeared on the politics message board of 4chan, a hive of internet trolling, metastasized on the biggest pro-Donald Trump subreddit, served as a convenient distraction for institutions loyal to Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and is now percolating on forums across the internet, as self-identified "investigators" comb the web for further clues. In the process, the frenzied pedo-truthers have published the personal information of numerous private citizens and bombarded their social media accounts, homes, and places of business with graphic threats.
  7. Carlson, Margaret (23 November 2016), "A Fake Pizzagate Conspiracy for Our Fevered Age", Bloomberg News, retrieved 9 December 2016, his Instagram account got clogged a week before the presidential election with violent messages like, 'I will kill you personally.' He wondered why until he found out that on social media sites like 4Chan and Reddit and Facebook, and in the Twitter feed of Breitbart News, and as far away as Saudi Arabia and Turkey

Please use some of the above sources to add info to the article on Turkey and Turkish media involvement in spreading Pizzagate. Sagecandor (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to write a sentence from the Dot article, which is good, without plagiarizing them. I spoke too quickly, I meant "our" only source for this story, as I'm suree you can imagine, Sage. I came her via the morality plays at AE.SashiRolls (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood:Perhaps more could be added from above sources, maybe to expand the section on Turkish press reports? Sagecandor (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The Ayes have it. See bottom-most comments. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Not seeing any suggested WP:SECONDARY sources recommended on this talk page to add something missing.

Therefore, the NPOV tag should be removed from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not feel the NPOV Tag should have been added to this article. Experienced editors have gone to extensive pains to remove non-neutral language and revert non-neutral edits. The two posts referenced in the edit history when this NPOV tag was added were parts of discussions on the talk page that were both resolved. Maintaining a neutral point of view does not mean that every single point of view on a subject should be given equal weight. Wikipedia articles maintain a balance based on the significant, reliable, verifiable sources on a given subject. In this particular case, the Unanimous view of the press from all across the political spectrum means that to suggest there is a likelihood that this particular subject matter - Pizzagate - may actually have some truthful basis would be to give undue weight to something that has no reliable source to back it up.

I therefore see no point in adding the NPOV tag and I would be interested in hearing the motive behind its addition. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The rationale given was that two editors raised NPOV concerns here. However, one of them has never edited this page, and the other simply raised concerns over whether the article was complete enough. I haven't gotten extended confirmation yet (this is an alt account), or I would have reverted by now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have removed. {{POV}} is not a source, and is not the correct response to a request for a source. This is not 'nam. There are rules here. TimothyJosephWood 20:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
There are several discussions about neutrality on this talk page. Many users feel that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. No other article on wikipedia about a conspiracy theory is written like this one. The article is written as an editorial page attempting to debunk the theory, rather than give facts in a neutral way. No other wikipedia article on conspiracy theories, like 9/11 or Sandy Hook, does this. Ag97 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Source. TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
[18] and [19] are just a few examples of unresolved discussions. The article makes no attempt to describe the claims of the theory's supporters, and uses editorializing language throughout the article. Many users have commented about this in the talk page. Ag97 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
As a WP:USERGENERATED content, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I too would like to see a source that says this article is deliberately setting out to debunk the Pizzagate issue. The fact that all the sources used by this article debunk Pizzagate is not Wikipedia's fault. It's an indication that reliable sources that say Pizzagate is true are 100% non-existent. If there was a reliable source, I'd add it to the article myself and fight for its continued inclusion because I believe Wikipedia articles should contain all relevant, reliably sourced information on a particular subject. In this case, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that this conspiracy theory is based on fact. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no issues with the sources, I have issues with editorializing language. For example, the article should read, "the theory has been described as fake news by the New York Times" rather than "the theory is debunked." Ag97 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
So rather than "the theory is debunked", you would prefer The Seattle Times describes the theory as "Debunked" ? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the Seattle Times article you described is an opinion piece. Thanks for pointing that out. I will remove that reference, opinion pieces aren't valid sources. Ag97 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Various reliable sources say the theory has been debunked. Sorry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The issues raised are just some users (a few of which are now blocked) rehashing the same arguments. APK whisper in my ear 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. Some people will never be satisfied until this article casts doubt on whether or not the accusations are true or false. I can't even provide the diffs since they've been deleted, but edit summaries like "removed word 'falsely'. That is only the opinion of the writer, the conspiracy theory has neither been proven nor disproven" and "Article isn't a biography, so WP:BLP doesn't apply" tell me all I need to know about how serious users are about the site's policies. APK whisper in my ear 21:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributor. TimothyJosephWood 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
All I'm saying is we shouldn't have to repeat "the theory is debunked" to the same people over and over. But I understand your point. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 21:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that articles should be written "without editorial bias." This article contains high amounts of editorial bias, directly violating WP:NPOV. Ag97 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You are essentially contenting that an article which reflects what the sources say accurately is biased. That is utterly nonsensical, and the reason for the current AE complaint filed against you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Blanket statements like this aren't constructive. Keep it specific and try to suggest ways the article can be improved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's some specific suggestions. Remove the word "debunked" from the lead. This word is redundant, the words "conspiracy theory" alone mean it's false. No other wikipedia article calls a conspiracy theory "debunked." Secondly, remove the heading "debunked" and merge that content with the responses section. Several users have expressed support of these changes, and they would make the article better. Ag97 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Asked and answered and discussed and beaten to death already, higher on this talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This latest reply strays a little bit from your original concern regarding NPOV. I'm not sure how it pertains to removal of the tag. As far as inclusion of the word "debunked" see the consensus that emerged on this talk page yesterday. Lizzius (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. Tags are for issues that lack consensus, and the consensus appears to be against you on both of these issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I counted 4 people supporting the change to merge the sections, and also 4 people opposed to the change, so I don't see any consensus there. Ag97 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This is just a Red Herring argument - it has nothing to do with your addition of an NPOV tag to this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ag97:This word is redundant, the words "conspiracy theory" alone mean it's false.
No, it doesn't. "The DNC helped Hillary win against Bernie" is a conspiracy theory. It is also true.
I counted 4 people supporting the change to merge the sections, and also 4 people opposed to the change, so I don't see any consensus there.
I strongly suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a vote. Furthermore, there are others who support the inclusion of the word who did not voice their opinion there, such as me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but there are also others who agree with me who did not voice their opinion. Especially new editors, who might agree with me but can't edit because the article is locked. Ag97 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I find your arguments so ridiculous I'm reminded of Poe's law and I don't feel they're worth responding to, but I'm a patient man who takes WP:AGF seriously, so here goes an attempt to help you understand:
The editors I made reference to have, since the end of that discussion, expressed agreement with it here on this page. The editors you make reference to may or may not exist only in your imagination. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and again: Consensus is not a vote. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If my arguments really are ridiculous, then they would be easily rebutted on this talk page and you wouldn't need to attempt to silence me by threatening to get me blocked. Ag97 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
They have been. Many times. In fact, they were rebutted in the comment you just replied to. They were rebutted in the addendum I posted to that, which you rather carelessly bumped out of place with your rhetorical response. They were rebutted in the very opening of this section, and in my first comment here. They were rebutted in the closed discussion about the word "debunked". They have been rebutted at AE, and elsewhere. Your refusal to accept correction is not a failure on our part, but on yours. And as this has now descended into a thread where you and I discuss your behavior, and the rest of the participants simply cheer on those who've rebuked your attempts to change the POV of this article, it's time to close this discussion, too. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Reading over the article and Talk, I see no need for the NPOV tag. Pizzagate puts forth extremely serious charges. I think that it is important to include the word debunked exactly where it is so that the reader instantly understands that this small business is not a danger to the community. As for merging sections, that’s an issue of style. I don’t see the relevance to an NPOV tag. Objective3000 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, close and collapse Exemplo347 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, close and collapse per WP:NOTHERE and WP:DENY. Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It's snowing. At some point, we have to stop wasting the time of volunteers. Objective3000 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2016 (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.

Public opinion polling

Whole section for one sentence seems WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.

Could just go up in general Responses section. Sagecandor (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly an UNDUE issue. Choice of headers is mainly stylistic. See WP:HEADER. A minor detail perhaps, but just FYI. TimothyJosephWood 23:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe when there is more polling on this issue and more discussion of it for like a couple paragraphs. But not now. Sagecandor (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that it's not an area covered by policy AFAIK. TimothyJosephWood 23:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Done and done. TimothyJosephWood 03:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Stelter comments in "responses" section

Could this be added into the "Responses" section? It's from Brian Stelter of CNN (Source: Schwartz, Ian (December 5, 2016) "Stelter: Trump A "Conspiracy Theorist," It's Up To "Us" To Call Out Nonsense". RealClearPolitics.):

"Following Michael Flynn Jr.'s comments on Pizzagate, CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter linked the conspiracy theory to the election of Donald Trump as President-elect of the United States, saying that Trump "is a conspiracy theorist" who "in a few different cases tweeted out links to clearly fake news stories". Steller commented that Trump promoted fake news about Muslims cheering in New Jersey on the day of the September 11 attacks and claimed that millions of illegal immigrants had voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election, which Trump won." HelgaStick (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that comment probably belongs in the article about Fake News, rather than this one. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added it to Fake news in the United States. I think that article should be included in the "See also" here. HelgaStick (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a good idea and I've implemented it for you. Keep up the good work! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bias against infowars

The article calls infowars a "fake news site" without any citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrimsorrywhat (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it calls Infowars a "fake news site" with a large number of citations. Thanks for posting. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comet Ping Pong's (Schrodinger's?) Basement

Borrowing from the main Comet Ping Pong Talk page, there is an apparent contradiction regarding the resturant's basement.

This Metro Weekly interview from 2015 where Alefantis claims Comet Ping Pong has a basement, used for storing canned vegetables and sauces:

Like our sauce — we harvest a whole crop of organic tomatoes — 10 tons of tomatoes every year. Can them all, store them in the basement, have like a harvest party when it gets loaded in.

And this one from the BBC from late 2016, where he emphatically denies having a basement:

"They ignore basic truths," Alefantis tells BBC Trending. For instance, the conspiracy supposedly is run out of the restaurant's basement. "We don't even have a basement."

The Metro interview as also mentioned in an recent article by Inquisitr. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Violates WP:SYNTH without a WP:SECONDARY source analysis that meets WP:Identifying reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Which source does one use in ascertaining whether or not the property has a basement? Solntsa90 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably one that actually does investigative journalism. FallingGravity 23:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
"However, a reporter can confirm that there is no basement in Comet Ping Pong." Case closed. FallingGravity 06:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"During" election cycle

The opening of this article said this took place during the election cycle, but it happened after. Any correction to relect this would be appreciated. Ahraaar (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The article says it emerged during the election cycle. Most of the fallout occurred after the election, but it began in early November. APK whisper in my ear 04:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In what way did the "pizzagate" conspiracy theory begin (as a theory) in early November? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahraaar (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read the citations in the article. Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 04:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This information was added to the article as a response to a direct request on this talk page. It provides vital background context and the words were carefully chosen - "election cycle" does not necessarily just mean the days leading up to the day that voting takes place. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

AR-15 Assault Rifle

This story lists one of the weapons as a "Colt AR-15 type Assault rifle." While this has been misreported in the media, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are selective fire weapons, which the AR-15 is not.

The weapon in question was apparently a true AR-15 as listed in an "incident report." [1] It should probably be listed as "AR-15 rifle." "Semi-automatic AR-15" would be also technically correct, but unnecessary, since all AR-15's are semi-auto.

Note: there WERE a small number of select military AR-15 rifles produced, but the modern AR-15 is not select fire, and I believe the select fire models were only sold to the military and not resold to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangle0 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This all depends on whether it was a Colt AR-15, an Armalite AR-15 (which is definitely an assault rifle) or one of the many AR-15 variants - once again, we risk getting bogged down in pointless semantics here. Why not wait until you find a reliable source (presumably after any trial - I can't see how it's more than just a guess until then) that specifies exactly which rifle it was? Let's leave it there until you find one. After all, it's not exactly a story-changing detail.Exemplo347 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ . ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-police-pizzeria-gunman-ar-15-rifle-handgun-43982089. Retrieved 2016-12-07. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

The source is already provided. It's a Colt AR-15. Calling it an "assault" rifle is sensationalism.Archangle0 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Other sources, including the screenshot of the police report shown in The New York Times, refer to it simply as an AR-15. I see no reason to change this at the present time.Exemplo347 (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Allegations / Conspiracy theory claims

This article is missing any detailed information about the claims or allegations of this conspiracy theory. The other conspiracy theory articles on wikipedia focus on the conspiracy theory allegations rather than debunking them. This article does the opposite. In fact, it seems this article is only including information to disprove the conspiracy theory. That's fine, this is a crazy theory, but in the interest of being unbiased and created a complete article, we need to create a section with detailed allegations. I will gladly add the allegations if there is consensus to do so. Iksnyrk (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The article is highly biased, and should be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Ag97 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. To do so would violate WP:BLP and defame living people regarding baseless unsubstantiated fraud. Sagecandor (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
violate WP:BLP - Not necessarily. Have to remember, you can still say terrible awful things about someone on WP, it just has to be very well sourced. I'm not really seeing that much is needed to explain things other than pizza + sex ring. If there's a reliable source for this information, it can certainly be presented. Keeping in mind, that presenting content of a conspiracy theory as a fact that it is content of the theory is not the same as presenting the content of a conspiracy theory as fact. TimothyJosephWood 20:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. But also agree I'm not really seeing that much is needed to explain things other than pizza + sex ring. Sagecandor (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Meh. If they want to include content, the WP:ONUS is on them to provide sources for it. TimothyJosephWood 20:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
There's plenty of ways to explain the allegations without revealing personal information. First and foremost, this article needs to include the code words and links to the suspicious emails that supposedly use them[1][2][3], the pentagon underage children's photo investigation that has been stopped[4], the "do not forward" email from Clinton's campaign with the pizza logo on top of their logo[5], and others. Of course, we would have to include that all of these except for the pentagon pedophile investigation are hearsay and circumstantial at best. Iksnyrk (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
None of those sources are RELIABLE sources. What part of "please provide reliable sources" is so hard to understand? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Can I also add that one of the links you've added is a strong BLP violation and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the link that is the BLP violation, however the rest of the sources are CNN and Wikileaks and both satisfy RELIABLE. Iksnyrk (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Come on now, that Youtube video of a CNN episode is from 2011. Linking it to Pizzagate is beyond tenuous. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikileaks is no way no how a reliable source. (News articles based on Wikileaks sources and published by reputable outlets are a completely different story.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on that? I couldn't find anything or any discussion that shows that Wikileaks is an unreliable source. I will gladly start the process to include Wikileaks as a RS if that hasn't happened yet. Iksnyrk (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Any site that is based on self-generated content is not considered reliable - in this case, the clue is in the "Wiki" part of the name. This is a long-established guideline and it really doesn't need discussing here. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I haven't bothered to go through WP:RSN to verify that, but I'm 100% certain of what the outcome of a discussion there would be. Wikileaks simply doesn't meet our WP:RS standard in any way whatsoever. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Your sources definitely need some work. Your sources only cite Wikileaks emails and Youtube videos instead of articles that actually discuss these concepts. Any fool can make YouTube videos; I have been making them for about a decade. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The sources should be included. Wikileaks is a reliable source, and the emails are highly significant to the article. Not including Wikileaks is censorship. Ag97 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, the C word. It's not censorship to exclude unreliable sources from Wikipedia articles. It's been the policy for years. There's no point in you discussing it here - if you want the policy changed, you need to look for the appropriate page and apply there. Until it's changed, Wikileaks will remain a source seen as Unreliable and any references that link to it will be removed from this article. There's nothing more to say on the matter. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there is no consensus on Wikileaks being an unreliable source. The consensus actually seems to be that Wikileaks is quite reliable. There is no evidence of Wikileaks publishing fake articles, and most cybersecurity experts believe that most of the emails are unaltered. Also, many of the emails have been authenticated by DKIM. So you're making a pretty wild allegation by implying that the emails are fake and unreliable.Ag97 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikileaks counts as a Self-Published Source. The "Wiki" part is the clue. It is, therefore, not a reliable source. What part of this is confusing you? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that WikiLeaks is a primary source, and it's not our job to interpret them. FallingGravity 00:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem with using Wikileaks documents as primary sources is that there's no way to authenticate them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm arguing that we should not use them because they are primary sources. FallingGravity 00:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy clearly states that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia." No one is suggesting that the sources should be interpreted. I'm just saying they should be included. Since Wikipedia policy undeniably states that this is allowed, I'm not sure what the issue is here.Ag97 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Not reputably published. No one will vouch for their authenticity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Like I said before, Wikileaks is generally considered to be reliable. They have a strong record of consistently publishing accurate documents; they have published hundreds of thousands, if not millions of documents in the past that were accurate. In addition,many cybersecurity experts agree that the vast majority of the emails are accurate, and many have been authenticated by DKIM, a digital signature that undeniably proves the email has not been altered. Ag97 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Pulling a single email with a picture of a pizza out of tens of thousands of emails is selective quotation of the primary source material and you have provided no reliable source which ascribes any particular meaning to that email which would justify selecting it out of context. "Here is a picture of a pizza in an email, therefore OMG CHILD SEX SCANDAL" is conspiratorial lunacy at its most absurd. The same goes for all the emails quoted there - no reliable source describes them as "suspicious" and so neither will Wikipedia. Similarly, you have cited no reliable source which ties an apparent 2011 CNN news segment to anything which relates to this issue. What it all amounts to is precisely nothing. And that is why Wikipedia treats the theory as precisely nothing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources cited in the article, such as Time, state that wikileaks emails about pizza are the origin of this entire conspiracy theory. So yes, selecting these emails is justified. The meaning of them is that they are the origin of the theory. I never said that they have to be described as "suspicious," I'm just saying that they should be described as the origin of the theory, which has been reported by many reliable sources and is indisputable.Ag97 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, we can say that e-mails discussing or related to pizza were the genesis of this; that doesn't require us linking to hacked e-mails to do so. We can link to reliable secondary sources which discuss the matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
DKIM ensures such as a receiver. I have never seen anyone claim it ensures such about a copied and published e-mail. Also, these e-mails are all out of context and subject to interpretation within the context that we don't possess. Objective3000 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No one is saying that the emails should be interpreted. I'm just saying that they should be included in the article. They are relevant because they are the origin of the theory, as reported by reliable sources.Ag97 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You stated the e-mails were: ...authenticated by DKIM, a digital signature that undeniably proves the email has not been altered. This is false as they went through a third party. Objective3000 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about a third party. DKIM is universally considered by cybersecurity experts as a reliable way to prove that the emails have not been altered. Stories about the emails being faked are fake news that has been debunked by reliable sources and cybersecurity experts. This Fox news article does a good job debunking the fake claims.[20].Ag97 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Based on a blog that doesn't even have an article in WP. DKIM is accurate when you have the original source. This e-mail was published by a wiki. They could have generated a new DKIM signature. Objective3000 (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
As an IT pro who knows how DKIM works, I can vouch for the above comment. Once copied and published, DKIM is as worthless as a photocopied signature. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to trust your opinion over a cybersecurity expert. The consensus among cybersecurity experts is that DKIM is reliable.Ag97 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The irony is respecting the security of e-mails in the same breath as one would talk about Wikileaks, which made its reputation on the insecurity of e-mails. Objective3000 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I never said DKIM was unreliable, at least not in any sense that anyone who understands the first thing about DKIM would disagree with. It would really behoove you to actually read comments before replying to them. Or better yet, read this and figure out for yourself how ignorant that claim is. But as I said before, I'm a patient and helpful man. So allow me to illustrate how insecure it really is:
DKIM verified email proving that Tony Podesta thinks I'm the greatest Wikipedian
Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com

Received: by 10.25.88.78 with SMTP id m75csp149353lfb;
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.66.146.196 with SMTP id te4mr26911337pab.125.1458338163299;
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <podesta@podesta.com>
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0099.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [157.56.111.99])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z13si10466876pas.7.2016.03.18.14.56.01
for <john.podesta@gmail.com>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128);
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of podesta@podesta.com designates 157.56.111.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.111.99;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of podesta@podesta.com designates 157.56.111.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=podesta@podesta.com;
dkim=pass header.i=@PodestaGroup.onmicrosoft.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=PodestaGroup.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-podesta-com;
h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;
bh=ScYGYbpMc8qohEq/Y9/J0e5oHmpNg48Kt4PEv4RFd74=;
b=zXUWsdIaSJF4MUovQ/o4OoDhHoJ1Vtn/OL2Ykmhns2TTRYwpO+WO/WQn2q4JI/ZP5mnJOriHDTbnKyW8Fqu4B/SQiwHGDZBCt79qu+1IVhczLqWsnn/iCy2O1LCv0fcqlQiYiOoMIOmVEmq6HBrsTVycTUhcMI4WNpApouOxGFE=
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1525.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.203.11) by
BY1PR0501MB1528.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.203.139) with Microsoft
SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.434.16; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:55:59 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0501MB1525.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.203.11]) by
BY1PR0501MB1525.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.203.11]) with mapi id
15.01.0434.021; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:55:59 +0000
From: Tony Podesta <podesta@podesta.com>
To: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>
Subject: Greatest Wikipedian
Thread-Topic: Greatest Wikipedian
Thread-Index: AQHRgV1Mv0JzpvqYe0GXmBDweu0RSJ9fvveA
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 21:55:59 +0000
Message-ID: <BY1PR0501MB15258D98CB161348879BF9E8B58C0@BY1PR0501MB1525.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <D6524ECF-93C3-4DB9-84B6-1120970CF49A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6524ECF-93C3-4DB9-84B6-1120970CF49A@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed)
header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=podesta.com;
x-originating-ip: [38.88.33.130]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e862e952-cb2c-4631-7fbb-08d34f781732
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;BY1PR0501MB1528;5:euuE5EPiOlctdAdzAf6QoOSc9gCCyWXRlK9ctT6Lsk/yku1kKqVSjlpE2kOZP6b7ZirL+0+oqroNbRzwdeYM1zNvISTc81Gc+TWcC8mzmJMwquGZ3M0gYP8bjoycleM/A2G17j8xHpdB+bW9LMDZ2w==;24:/tsPQgwblsjOXvMiNsNlL/44DwnW3FFB+Td6zDxMYeLCFuigwGnN6DZVve5IhJ2OGl1p25h4LUUIcns00yPupybv/T6DMdGB9iKig1wCprE=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1528;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY1PR0501MB1528EA95C467514AA943009BB58C0@BY1PR0501MB1528.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(102415293)(102615271)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001);SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1528;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1528;
x-forefront-prvs: 088552DE73
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(13464003)(46034005)(377454003)(3280700002)(107886002)(87936001)(110136002)(1096002)(1220700001)(77096005)(92566002)(33656002)(86362001)(3660700001)(76576001)(122556002)(5002640100001)(5003600100002)(50986999)(66066001)(54356999)(2906002)(5008740100001)(76176999)(99936001)(5004730100002)(106116001)(10400500002)(558084003)(81166005)(2950100001)(74316001)(450100001)(586003)(189998001)(102836003)(6116002)(3846002)(2900100001)(99286002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(11100500001);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:BY1PR0501MB1528;H:BY1PR0501MB1525.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;MLV:sfv;LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="_003_BY1PR0501MB15258D98CB161348879BF9E8B58C0BY1PR0501MB1525_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: podesta.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Mar 2016 21:55:59.0727
(UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: aa7e357c-6692-4433-9f38-dcfe9592339c
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0501MB1528

--_003_BY1PR0501MB15258D98CB161348879BF9E8B58C0BY1PR0501MB1525_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

MjolnirPants is the greatest editor of Wikipedia EVAR!!!!!11!!!!!11!1!11!!11!1!!1!



You see? DKIM proves that Tony Podesta really wrote that I am "the greatest editor of Wikipedia EVAR!!!!!11!!!!!11!1!11!!11!1!!1!" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do, but I'm pretty sure you just wrote a fake email and then put DKIM verified in the title to try to trick inexperienced readers. By the way, if you can really forge an email that verifies with DKIM, congratulations! You've just won a free bitcoin worth $600! [21]. If you've really managed to accomplish what all the cyberexperts have failed to do, congratulations! You can claim your prize, and get your accomplishment published in a reputable source. But until you do that, I think that you're just trying to scam all of us by writing some random email that wasn't verified by anyone and just writing DKIM verified in the title to trick people. Ag97 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The article debunks the fake claim that DKIM signatures can be altered, saying "Graham says this is unlikely, since to do so they would have needed to access the HillaryClinton.com server." The opinion of a cybersecurity expert, reported by a mainstream media source, is a reliable source. Ag97 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No-one has made that "false claim". No-one has suggested that the DKIM key was altered. What I have been trying to explain to you is that the text posted on wikileaks is not necessarily the email that had its DKIM hash confirmed. In fact, after checking one in particular (the same one I used for the example), I'm 100% sure it's not the same. It failed the DKIM test at https://9vx.org/~dho/dkim_validate.php. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Curious. Exactly what reliable source reports that these emails in particular are the important ones? TimothyJosephWood 02:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This Daily wire article [22] explicitly mentions the pizza map handkerchief. This Washingon City Paper[23] article does the same thing, as does the Snopes article that is cited in the main article. Ag97 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. There is nothing wrong with describing the claims as long as we make clear that they're false. Not doing so is confusing to the reader. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories provides an excellent example of how this can be accomplished. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Support - Reliable sources have described things proposed by the conspiracy theory before debunking them. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently, The New York Times came out with an article dissecting the claims of the conspiracy theory. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Update: The New York Times released a new article an article that includes the Wikileaks emails. This makes irrelevant all of the ridiculous, nonsensical claims on this page that Wikileaks should not be included. I propose that the pizzagate article immediately be updated with detailed descriptions of the claims described in the NY Times article, especially the first and second claim, as they are the most significant ones. I propose the full pizza handerchief email be included in the article, as well as this image [24] taken from the NY TImes article. Don't try to argue that NY Times is an unreliable source, as it is well accepted on Wikipedia that NY TImes is very reliable.Ag97 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you look at the edit just above yours? It's the same ref and has already been added to the article. I don't see any reason to include all the gory details of this fake news story. Objective3000 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
See WP:UNCENSOREDAg97 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I said nothing about censoring. I said I see no need to include the details of a fake story. Frankly, the claims are goofy -- to be very generous. Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Cmt Okay...This is actually not a terrible idea. This is just a suggestion, but personally I'm a whore for footnotes, and I like using them in cases like this, to provide extended information from WP:PRIMARY sources, while avoiding undue weight by including that content in the body. (Compare gratuitous footnotes in this article.) So I'm certainly open to specific proposals for exactly how this content would be incorporated. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk archive

Dear Pants 1 and Pants 2.

I suspect, as a savvy but modest Wikipedian, that you may have an overwhelming but unconscious desire to put an archive bot on this talk page.

I've never actually done it myself without horribly screwing it up.

TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You got the order of my pants wrong! This is a horrible slander! I'll not stand for this! I demand you laugh at this jest in due compensation for the offense you have given me. ;)
Actually, I've never put an archive bot on any page (the appearance of one on my page is just that: I did it all by hand, as it doesn't require that much work.) But it seems someone may have beaten me to the punch: [25] MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by original research tagging

Drive-by original research tagging by Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs) is inappropriate and should be removed. [26]

There are multiple citations to reliable secondary sources before each tag.

This has been discussed on this talk page already above ad nauseam.

Already debunked as false and fake by Fox News "became a center of conspiracy theories driven by fake news stories" and The Wall Street Journal "widely debunked conspiracy theory, known as Pizzagate". Sagecandor (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

See § Debunking, below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Supposed "Code Words"

Sorry bros. But at some point we have to save us from ourselves. TimothyJosephWood 00:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

“hotdog” = boy “pizza” = girl “cheese” = little girl “pasta” = little boy “ice cream” = male prostitute “walnut” = person of colour “map” = semen “sauce” = orgy


How do you propose we improve the article?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"stromboli" = clown, "teacup" = mud wrestling, "anal sex" = grilled cheese, "turkey baster" = turkey baster TimothyJosephWood 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an imaginary code, thought up by... who knows? And it means... who cares? Until I see a confirmed, reliable, substantial source that definitely states this is a code that is used for the reasons that is claimed, this is irrelevant. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just realised that the person who has posted this here has never posted before (or is not logged in) so it can pretty much be totally discounted. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"Marinara" = Saturday morning cartoons, "penne alla vodka" = that weird twitch you get when someone tickles your stomach, "hamburger" = gym shorts, "french fries" = nose hair. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about penne, but ramen a la vodka I'm pretty sure is what sustained me through most of college. TimothyJosephWood 23:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

And on that note, realizing my own penchant for nonsense, recommend closing and collapsing this. TimothyJosephWood 23:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Actayly I can see why a discussion of the origin and validity of these "codewords" might have some value in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Were there an RS for it; absolutely. I think it would be a wonderful addition. But this is not something we can use a primary source on. Also, Timothyjosephwood; "ramen alla vodka" = the specific pain that comes from whacking your funny bone hard on the edge of a study desk at three in the morning while trying to cram for a chemistry final. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a reliable source to back this, but I thought it was a condition where you get scurvy in a developed country because you are consuming the absolute cheapest varieties of the only two things a grad student needs to survive: "food" and alcohol. TimothyJosephWood 23:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That's why you put a lime in your beer. Objective3000 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Bro, do you even college? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Not close.:) Objective3000 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Joking aside, the supposed "code words" have been mentioned in WP:RS related to PizzaGate. The New York Times mentioned "cheese pizza" (already mentioned in article w/ same citation), but has a 4chan screenshot about "hotdog", "pizza", "cheese", "pasta", "ice cream", "walnut", "map" and "sauce", as well as a WikiLeaks email about "Walnut sauce". The Washington City Paper notes that "To the alt right, though, "pizza" became a suspected code word for illegal sex trafficking", and TIME magazine notes "Users claimed some words in Alefantis’ emails (for example, “pizza” and “cheese”) were code words for criminal activity.". Shouldn't this be expanded upon somewhat? HelgaStick (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Already linked to in the article. The NYT article is excellent and quite large. Taking parts from it would be out of context. Objective3000 (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
But the "code words" are (in essence) the evidence. I think it would be useful for us to have a section on them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think actually listing the code words would service little purpose other than to perpetuate the conspiracy theory. A general statement about code words being associated with child pornography should be sufficient. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DrFleischman on this one. I'm not seeing how listing the code words is going to really improve the article, and I'd bet dollars to donuts there are multiple, contradictory lists of code words in the RSes. It's an unfortunate side effect of people making stuff up. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(Minor edit) Misplaced "{" in "Debunking" section

Small typo in the "Debunking" section. :) HelgaStick (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

{ Done TimothyJosephWood 14:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

it is not debunked Habshockeylover97 (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Not done Reliable sources consistently and overwhelmingly verify that the theory has been thoroughly debunked. TimothyJosephWood 15:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • sure, but this is not objective: every conspiracy theory "has been debunked" by those rejecting it, while those who embrace it reject the "debuking". In this sense "debunked" is not an objective statement. This has to be handled under WP:FRINGE (because it is, of course, fringe). See Moon landing conspiracy theories for a topic that has been much, much more credibly "debunked" and note how Wikipedia properly doesn't slap a "debunked" judgement on them. What we do instead is say something factual, like "expers are ovecrwhelmingly dismissive". In this particular case, there has not been any time for any expert judgement, it's too new to have been properly investigated, and hence to have even been "dismissed" properly. Doesn't mean it has any merit, of course, just that even the most ludicrous claim cannot be said to have been "debunked" by experts as long as no experts have bothered to look into it properly. --dab (𒁳) 17:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources consistently and overwhelmingly verify that the theory has been thoroughly debunked. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dbachmann: I would ask that you immediately revert your edit to Pizzagate - there is extensive consensus for the prior version as discussed on the talk page and your edit through protection against this consensus must be seen as a violation. Otherwise, I will ask other administrators to step in. It is a BLP issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The edit was basically immediately reverted by user:Strongjam, based on the fact that reliable sources consistently and overwhelmingly verify that the theory has been thoroughly debunked.. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
They edited the disambiguation page too, which is hard-protected and I just wrote it on the wrong talk page. I have opened a thread at Talk:Pizzagate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you wouldn't think an Administrator would need to be told that Wikipedia doesn't give equal weight to uneven sources because it causes false balance, but here we are. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh. It's a twelve year old mop. You should take some time and look up what the RfAs were like back then. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes; this one got resolved quickly and I'm sure they'll treat it as a learning experience/reminder to make sure when they click that edit button, there isn't that funny little lock hanging out at the top. :) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

sorry, sorry, I thought it was just semiprotected. I never even look at, let alone touch, "controversial" articles of this type these days. Still, I would argue my edit was a no-brainer based on policy alone. Won't edit this again, but since at the very least it is obvious there is nothing resembling "consensus" on the state of the article as it stands (I hope it is obvious I am editing in best faith), you should at least add an npov template. cheers, --dab (𒁳) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus has been established and re-established ad nauseum for the current wording. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring aside, an admin's gross misunderstanding of our policies/guidelines on neutrality, fringe theories, and consensus make me very worried about the fate of the encyclopedia. Time to brush up if you're going to edit in controversial article spaces (or even if you're not). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Aaand that will be quite enough commentary on contributors. Also, statements about the impending death of Wikipedia are usually less than helpful. TimothyJosephWood 19:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about the death of Wikipedia. And in this case a little razzing is entirely appropriate. I was pointing to policies and guidelines that hadn't been mentioned. And I don't like seeing mop holders embarrass themselves or the project. And with that I'll step away from the carcass. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request - "cheese pizza"

I feel this sentence should be edited or removed for being inflammatory given that "cheese pizza" cannot be found in the emails. 17:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.141.171 (talk)

I have edited the sentence referring to this phrase, clarifying its sourcing - it's from the New York Times and they're stating something they found on 4chan. It's important to the article as it helps trace the origin of the conspiracy theory, and as it's from a reliable source I see no reason to remove it. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Exemplo. "Cheese pizza" is central to the convoluted origin of this conspiracy theory. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Stefanie Macwilliams, Planet Free Will?

"Stefanie Macwilliams, a contributor to Planet Free Will, wrote an article that took off on social media. In it, she recounted a man's claims about a politically connected pedophile ring housed at the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlour in the U.S. capital. ...

"I kind of wanted to put out the information that was there with the statement. I've not accusing anyone of anything, there's no concrete evidence of anything," Macwilliams said Wednesday. Planet Free Will was among the websites called out for sharing fake news." (source)

Should any of this information be included? HelgaStick (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Reading her own attempts to distance herself from the claim "I've not accusing anyone of anything, there's no concrete evidence of anything,"", no I do not think her views add anything other then just one more voice. Why are her views even notable?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
A) Wow, is that a really freaking annoyingly designed website.
B) This may actually fit fairly well in the reaction section. It's fairly telling to come out and say "there's no evidence for anything we published about" ... "but I don't regret anything because it grew our readership" (read, this complete lie made us a ton of money) TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
But why is her opinion notable, anymore then say mine or yours? Was this website even cited in our article, if not why is it notable?Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, she wrote a viral Pizzagate-related article, which is more than any of us three have done. I hope. HelgaStick (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
She was written up in multiple reliable sources for writing the fake news about Pizzagate. That makes her notable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm working on this now. It's only going to be a single sentence, but it'll be in the article Exemplo347 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
All done. Reference and information added. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Debunking

I tagged a couple of statements here that looked like original research – is there a published source directly stating that "sources across the political spectrum" have debunked the rumor, or that it has been described as false by the sources named, "among others"? Often, when glib statements such as these are followed by multiple inline citations, it looks like a Wikipedia editor is trying to shore up their own personal interpretation with references that only indirectly support it – hence the need for several at once. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Widely debunked. The Wall Street Journal "widely debunked conspiracy theory, known as Pizzagate". Sagecandor (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Where does the WSJ source refer to "the political spectrum" or imply that "others" besides the D.C. police, Snopes, and the NYT have labeled the rumor false? It's a genuine question, since the article requires payment to read. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 05:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC))
That is editorial wording backed up by citations to reliable sources. Please remove your inappropriate tagging now, Sangdeboeuf. Sagecandor (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Please have a look at Wikipedia:No original research: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research". The tags look appropriate to me unless it's shown that a published source makes these statements explicitly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf:Then would you please remove that particular wording you object to, and remove your tags now? Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the need to remove it – I don't doubt the truth of the present wording, just the verifiability of it. I think it could be improved, but I'm not as familiar with the source material as others probably are, hence the tags, which merely signal a need for attention. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf:This is a highly active talk page and well watched. You can rest assured people will see this discussion and you have succeeded in bringing attention to it. Can you therefore remove the tags please? Sagecandor (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you to Exemplo347 for cleaning this up. [27]. Sagecandor (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I'm always happy to listen to a reasonable suggestion! Exemplo347 (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Savile

Should we include mention of this latest addition to the conspiracy?

http://russia-insider.com/en/all-news-thats-fit-print-former-bbc-boss-who-covered-decades-child-abuse-now-ceo-nyt/ri18135

(note there is not a lot of RS for this)???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

1) I wouldn't consider Russia Insider an unbiased source. 2) That article is full of "it might be true" language which is idiotic and panders to conspiracy theorists. Just a few of the quotes: "The claims made by PizzaGate are serious and deserve close scrutiny. But is the New York Times really the correct outlet for an impartial investigation into an elite pedo ring?" and "The New York Times has now run numerous stories in an attempt to debunk PizzaGate and shame anyone who thinks such a theory could even be possible." It's nonsense and should be treated as such. APK whisper in my ear 11:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Even if the source were reliable, the story is basically the definition of an ad hominem argument. If the CEO of the NYT actually did sympathize with child molesters, it wouldn't have anything to do with how likely it is to be true that ... oh ...
  1. there is a national conspiracy to molest children in the basement of a pizza shop that doesn't have a basement,
  2. that reaches to the highest echelons of the government,
  3. and despite their practically limitless access to resources with which to cover it up,
  4. (which could have been done with a $30 anonymous prepaid phone from Wal-Mart anyway)
  5. it was somehow uncovered by teenagers at 4chan because they cracked the cryptographic equivalent of a third grader's club house password,
  6. with zero actual evidence to detect what the code would have corresponded to
  7. but this happened to be picked up by the worst media outlets in the country
  8. who spent a month flatly making things up and adding information from nowhere
  9. but none of that matters because they inadvertently publicized the story
  10. and the teenagers at 4chan were right all along.
I mean, the CEO of the NYT isn't even supposed to be implicated in the conspiracy itself. TimothyJosephWood 12:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No, and it shouldn't be on the Talk Page either. Objective3000 (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No. Preposterous. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No, the last thing this article needs is more fabrication, conjecture and hyperbole from questionable sources (after all, it already has plenty!) Exemplo347 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"debunked[1] conspiracy theory"

I don't care for the opening phrase "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory" as it implies that some conspiracy theories are true, which is ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length. Let's not kick that hornet's nest again. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to this article. Can you point me to the discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
There are two other article headings with "debunked" in them. Either one will do. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The first one doesn't address the issue I raised, the second sort of does. In any case, WP:CONSENSUS can change, especially when new editors start working on the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, unless you're about to add a reliable source that explicitly states that "Pizzagate" has NOT been debunked, I have no idea where you're going with this query. It's been discussed before. That's it really. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that it hasn't been debunked or anything of the sort. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that this wording gives too much credit to conspiracy theories because it implies that some conspiracy theories are correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, as have others in the previous discussion that we are now inexplicably repeating. The language was strengthened to remove any possibility of a loophole that makes anyone believe that Pizzagate may have any truth in it at all, and "debunked" is based on the fact that multiple sources have called Pizzagate "debunked" - I don't see any reason to go over the same ground and I don't intend to reply any further about this. My responses are already in previous discussions that have gone over this exact same ground. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
In multiple cases some conspiracy theories are correct. See for example: 5 US national security-related conspiracy theories that turned out to be true and 6 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True. Sagecandor (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No, there aren't. This is one of those cases where you need stronger sourcing. I doubt if any of those were actual conspiracy theories at the time. Those are just click-bait articles that retroactively apply the term 'conspiracy theory'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably the highest profile true conspiracy of the 20th Century. TimothyJosephWood 19:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
So far... TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, not a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes? TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I also don't think Pizzagate is real, but I also agree with the other editors. I just think that leading straight off with "debunked" is very strong wording, especially considering the contents of the sources, most of which amount to "pizzagate has been debunked by other places". I'd like to see more convincing sources, better wording, or maybe move the debunk down into another sentence/section. – 🐈? (talk) (ping me!) 20:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Please don't try to close down honest discussion. You've made 4 replies to my comment and not one actually addressed the issue that I raised. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed ad nauseam and there is a clear editorial consensus to include a direct statement of its falsity in the first line of the article. If you have a better way of phrasing it, by all means propose a change. But simply removing it is not going to fly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Open -I agree with A Quest For Knowledge 100%. The behavior of some people on this talk page is very disturbing; it's concerning to see discussion being shut down. Even though I'm most likely going to get blocked for saying this, I will not be silent. There is no reason for "debunked" to be in the article, as this is a biased and editorialized statement, when Wikipedia should be neutral. This is common sense that most uninvolved editors should agree with. The fact that people who agree with this are being censored or threatened with blocks, and that discussion is being shut down is a serious concern. Ag97 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:AGF. No one has been threatened or censored for disagreeing with this. But, we can't keep going over the same things time and time again. Objective3000 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been reported to AE in retaliation for making several minor good faith edits on this page as well as for participating in discussion on this talk page.Ag97 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ag97: Woah, hold on there. I didn't say that article shouldn't say that this conspiracy theory has been debunked. It absolutely should explain this and go into some depth of why it is wrong. What I am saying is that particular phrase in the opening sentence should be changes as it implies that some conspiracy theories are correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
New editors coming to this page is a valid reason to reopen discussionAg97 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it's a valid reason to start new discussions, assuming those editors have new arguments for the changes that failed to gain consensus previously. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Response to OP:
  1. Some conspiracy theories are true. For example: "The DNC secretly helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders" was making the rounds long before it was shown to be true with the leaked emails.
  2. Some conspiracy theories are not debunked. For example: Every conspiracy theory ever at some point before they gained mainstream attention, including this one.
  3. The consensus has been extremely strong here to keep this language.
  4. This conspiracy theory is different, in that its very nature is extraordinarily slanderous to the persons around whom it centers. Indeed, the allegations are arguably the worst possible allegations one could make against anyone in Western Culture (or indeed, in many other cultures). That means this conspiracy theory should be handled differently. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the 4th point. There are plenty of slanderous conspiracy theories that make horrible allegations. For example, 9/11 theories accuse George Bush of killing thousands of people. Ag97 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants:
  1. I don't recall reliable sources describing the DNC helping HRC as a conspiracy theory at the time. Not all theories or speculation is a conspiracy theory.
  2. True, but if a conspiracy theory becomes notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it almost has certainly been debunked.
  3. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the article can't say it's been debunked. It should say it's been debunked, and should go into detail about why it's wrong. What I would suggest is that you can remove the word "debunked' from the opening sentence and the rest of the paragraph stands just fine.
  4. Virtually all conspiracy theories involve living people at some point.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. Just because you don't recall it... (Here's the search result, I just grabbed the first. There are many more in this link.)
  2. No disagreement, here. I'm not suggesting that there are "unverified" CSs on WP, I'm simply pointing out that "Debunked conspiracy theory" is neither syntactically redundant nor meaningless.
  3. I don't disagree with that, either. But I prefer the word be put into the lead sentence because the BLP problems with describing this CS (and detailing its claims, which I believe we should do) means we need to write the article in such a way that it's emphatically clear that these are untrue.
  4. That does nothing to rebut, or even address my fourth point. I don't think you understood my fourth point, and I suggest you check it again if you wish to attempt a rebuttal.
MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: #1 Meh...most of those are opinion articles, not straight news, and a few are false hits. Also, you need to look at the totality of reliable sources, not just handful. Regarding #4, I think it does. 9/11 conspiracy theories allege Bush killed 3,000 Americans. That trumps the Pizzagate accusations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
That myth that all conspiracy theories are false, has been effectively debunked 6 conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true 4 Conspiracy Theories That Have Proven To Be True. Sagecandor (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
None of those are conspiracy theories. This is another click-bait article that retroactively applies the term conspiracy theory. This is an example of why we prefer peer-reviewed academic journals over the popular press. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
None? Not a one? So all of [28] [29] [30] [31] - none of those are conspiracy theories? Sagecandor (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
A Quest for Knowledge has a point. It's a known fact that the NSA spies on people, that's their job! There's no conspiracy there.Ag97 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that book or the authors. I can't tell if that quote is being taken out of context or if they're using a different definition of "conspiracy theory". But even if not, there are literally hundreds, if not, thousands of sources on Watergate and Iran-contra, the vast majority of which don't describe them as conspiracy theories. IOW, this is not a mainstream viewpoint. At best, it's a minority or perhaps fringe POV (again, assuming it's not taken out of context or that they're using a different definition). This is covered in WP:DUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

4th point has been rebutted. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that have made claims just as bad as this one. 9/11 claimed that George Bush caused the deaths of thousands of people; those are worse claims than the ones here, and also slanderous to a living person. Sandy Hook suggested that Obama was involved in the shooting of kids in a school; those claims are also terrible and slanderous to a living person. Yet neither 9/11 nor Sandy hook are described as debunked, even though they both are. Ag97 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, you can't actually, legally slander a president (IANAL). Calling a guy that owns a local pizza joint a pedophile is a very different matter. Objective3000 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
All the people in the conspiracy theory are public figures. The pizza shop owner was described as the 49th most powerful person in Washington so he isn't just some random guy.Ag97 (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if there are problems with other articles, they don't justify creating more problems in this one. I happen to think the Sandy Hook article should state that it's false and debunked, but one battle at a time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
And the 9/11 conspiracy theory article not? I like how you grab the second example and completely overlook the first and much more outrageous one. Doesn't make you look biased at all. 217.91.160.45 (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"The circumstances surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[1] have been doubted or disputed by a number of people, leading to several conspiracy theories. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza fatally shot his mother, then 20 students and 6 staff members at the elementary school before committing suicide,[2] but conspiracy theorists question the circumstances of the shooting, whether Adam Lanza was the sole perpetrator, and are using early media reports that included inconsistencies about the identity of the shooter, wrong photos, incorrect location of victims,[3] and weapons used[4] as evidence for their claims. Others have suggested the shooting was orchestrated by government officials for political reasons,[5] similar to some 9/11 conspiracy theories, claiming that the shooting was deliberately set up to push stricter gun control laws. These conspiracy theories have been described by mainstream news sources as contradictory, implausible, without evidence, and offensive to those affected.[6][7][8][9] Several sources also published articles debunking various claims put forward by conspiracy theorists.[6][10][11][12]"

I suggest we do the same thing with this article and use this lead:

"During the 2016 presidential election cycle, Internet users began to speculate that John Podesta's emails, released by wikileaks, contained coded messages, using words such as "pizza" and "pasta" to refer to human trafficking. This speculation resulted in the creation of a conspiracy theory called Pizzagate, which suggested that John Podesta, politicians from the Democratic Party, and several Washington DC pizza shops are involved in a child-sex ring.
This theory has been described by mainstream news sources as "debunked" and "fake news," and the claims were denied by James Alefantis, owner of the affected Comet Ping Pong pizza shop, who described it as an "insane, fabricated conspiracy theory."

This lead resolves the legitimate issue raised by A Quest for Knowledge, but also makes clear that the media debunked the claim, satisfying those who want the word debunked to be in the lead. Ag97 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of unjustified weakening of the language that currently has you up at WP:AE. You're attempting to give undue balance to a Fringe theory without providing any sources for it. Why isn't this sinking in? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm describing the origins of the theory and summarizing the claims, and then describing that the claims were debunked. The Sandy Hook article does the exact same thing. It's not providing any undue balance.Ag97 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. Pizzagate is not just described as "debunked" - it IS debunked. It's a deliberate weakening of the language. I have nothing more to say to you on this because obviously you're not going to change your mind. Luckily, Wikipedia's rules on undue balance (see wp:undue) are not on your side. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's just cut to the chase here, the "theory" is false. That it is false is verifiable, an overwhelmingly so. If you think it is not, then produce sources. If you cannot, then your opinion is not important. This is how Wikipedia works.

We are not going to guise arguments about the veracity of the theory in claims about neutrality, or specious arguments about what other articles do, because those articles are not precedent setting. They are not policy. They are not guidelines. They mean nothing.

If you contend that the theory is true, or may likely be true, then provide reliable sources that back up your claim. Otherwise, we are done here. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Open This is ridiculous: I make a proposal, and your reaction is to immediately attempt to close the discussion? This proposal has not been been "discussed, over and over" like you claim, and also does not in any way "contend that the theory is true, or may likely be true." How do you come up with this ridiculous, untrue nonsense? Ag97 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Negative. This comment does not include sources, and so is irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Sagecandor (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? Everything in my lead is using information already in the article. There's no new information there. Everything can be sourced.Ag97 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
And Sandy Hook parents, that have lost children, are getting death threats and asked to prove their children ever existed. Propose that article be more like this. It is important to state, right off the bat, that this theory has been debunked. But then, that's already been stated over and over like everything else. 23:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Objective3000 (talk)
@Objective3000:Tragically depressingly true. Sagecandor (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree, If anything, the strong reaction that people keep having to the word "Debunked" just makes its inclusion in other articles (like Sandy Hook especially) that much more important - it's clear, unequivocal and has an instant impact, leaving no room for misinterpretation. The language of the lead of this article is crucially important - the fact that people keep trying to weaken it to suit their thinking is justification enough for keeping it as it is. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This argument is completely ridiculous. You're essentially saying that because the majority of people disagree with you, you're right.Ag97 (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous that people are attempting to shut down this discussion before it even began. If you don't like my lead, you should be able to explain why the current one is better. Saying "we are done here" before the debate even started is a very rude and arrogant thing to do. It seems to me like you're attempting to shut down discussion because you have no good reasons why the current lead is better than my lead.Ag97 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your wording uses Scare quotes to diminish the fraud [32]. Sagecandor (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If you have an issue with the quotes, we can remove them. I'm ok with that.Ag97 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is Ag97's original response without "scare quotes":
"During the 2016 presidential election cycle, Internet users began to speculate that John Podesta's emails, released by wikileaks, contained coded messages, using words such as "pizza" and "pasta" to refer to human trafficking. This speculation resulted in the creation of a conspiracy theory called Pizzagate, which suggested that John Podesta, politicians from the Democratic Party, and several Washington DC pizza shops are involved in a child-sex ring.
This theory has been described by mainstream news sources as debunked and fake news, and the claims were denied by James Alefantis, owner of the affected Comet Ping Pong pizza shop, who described it as an "insane, fabricated conspiracy theory."
Although it takes the word "debunked" out of the first sentence, it presents it like the media is calling it a "debunked" conspiracy theory. The way I would have changed his proposal is to change the last sentence to "Many sources have debunked the conspiracy theory, including Snopes Reference 1 and New York Times Reference 2" with refrences to analyses of the theories proposed. That way the content of the article would retain some neutrality (keeping "debunked" from the first sentence) while still proving that the ideas in this conspiracy theory have been debunked. Also, unlike Ag97's proposal, I would still keep the reference to the DC Police Department's official statement. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Negative. This comment does not include sources, and so is irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 00:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I still have no idea what you're trying to say. You're not making any sense.Ag97 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean I didn't include sources? Of course I intend to do that. I just submitted the rough draft for feedback, and intend to fully source everything. There is no new information in this lead, everything can be sourced using sources currently used in the article.Ag97 (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
What part of "does not include sources" exactly is ambiguous? TimothyJosephWood 00:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
What part of "I intend to fully source everything" do you not understand? I just posted a rough draft without sources for feedback first. Everything can be fully sourced using the current sources in the article.Ag97 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm just not going to waste my time sourcing everything just so people can close the discussion and criticize me without even considering my suggestion. If we can come to a consensus to change the lead to something similar to what I proposed, then I'll submit here an updated version that is fully sourced. Ag97 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Once when I was a child, I poured my intentions into my left hand, and spit into my right. My right filled up first. I will take this to mean that you have no sources saying the theory is, in fact, not debunked. As stated above, this means your opinion is not important to Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 00:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I do not have any sources that claim the theory is not debunked. I never said that I have sources that claim the theory is not debunked. I also NEVER SAID THE THEORY IS NOT DEBUNKED. I am not, and never was, making a claim that the theory is not debunked. Where exactly do you see me claim the theory is not debunked? You are making up things about me that I never said. Ag97 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to completely not understand what I am trying to do. I'm saying we should start the article with a short summary of how the theory started and what the claims are, and then say that these claims have been debunked by the media. I am NOT saying the article should say the claims weren't debunked. Ag97 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
So, since we both agree that it is debunked, neither of us would naturally have a problem with the article saying it is debunked. I'm glad we could reach an agreement. TimothyJosephWood 00:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
My version does say that it is debunked. The only difference is that it is slightly more descriptive by saying that it is debunked by the mainstream media rather than just debunked. I'm glad that we have come to an agreement to use my version.Ag97 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't care about the mainstream media. Wikipedia only cares about reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 00:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
To be clear: What reliable source are you using to say its been debunked only by the mainstream media? TimothyJosephWood 00:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't need to find a source to prove that the theory was NOT debunked by someone, you DO need to find a source to show that someone debunked the theory other than the media. What exactly are your sources to your claim that someone other than the media debunked the claims? I would be genuinely very interested to see this. As far as I know, the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked. If you can prove me wrong, please do.Ag97 (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That's seriously disingenuous. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there's now a consensus (again) for the inclusion of the word "Debunked" in the lead. Good work guys, I'm glad you could settle this issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I never said said that I was against the use of the word "debunked" in the lead. In fact, my version uses that exact word. Have you even read what I proposed? I'm just rewriting the lead in a slightly different order and style of writing. All the same information is there, and what I propose does say the theory is debunked, just like what you want.Ag97 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If, as you say, the same information is there then what is the point in changing the lead at all? Let's just leave it as it is if you're not proposing adding or removing any information. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Because of the issue A Quest for Knowledge made at the very beginning of this heading. It seems like this debate came in a complete circle. He disagrees with the opening statement of the lead beingPizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory. I agree that this is not a good phrase, for the same reasons he gave. By doing this, I am NOT claiming that the lead shouldn't say that the theory is debunked, I'm just objecting to that specific phrase being used to start the lead. You seem to completely misunderstand the entire argument here. No one is saying the theory is true, I'm just saying the way the lead is written right now isn't very good, and can be improved. Ag97 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that revisiting this issue for the 4th or 5th time has achieved absolutely nothing. There are still no sources that say Pizzagate is true, and it's been days & days now. You'd think something would have emerged, but no - we're still bogged down in pointless semantics, the talk page is flooded with repetitive discussion and it's all added absolutely nothing of value to the article. Accurate summary? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's true that your discussion is not adding anything of value to the article, but that's because you don't even understand what the argument is. No one is suggesting pizzagate is true, and never was. The argument is whether the lead should be written in a different way or not. There is no argument about whether Pizzagate is true or not (other than in your imagination). We are all in agreement that Pizzagate is false. there is no argument there. The issue is that the lead can be improved by writing it in a different way, that still says the theory is debunked.Ag97 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that we're revisiting this issue for the 4th or 5th time is because new visitors to the page keep raising the concern that the lead is badly written. Again, these people are NOT claiming pizzagate is true, they just don't like the way the lead is written. That many different people have concerns about how the lead is written is an indication that it should be improved, not that we should keep it as is and shut down all discussion, like what you are suggesting.Ag97 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347:This section is getting nuts. Sagecandor (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that we all disengage until the AE discussion is closed with what appears to be its inevitable conclusion; there doesn't seem to be any reasoning to be done here and the endless dissembling proves its own point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the same thing Exemplo347 (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked. I couldn't have said it better myself. TimothyJosephWood 01:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, so now you want to block me from Wikipedia for having a discussion on a talk page and suggesting an improvement to an article? That's not how it works. If you disagree with me, you state a coherent reason why, rather than trying to silence me by getting me blocked. I'm not even the one who started this discussion, I'm just participating in it because I want to improve the article. Seems to me that you disagree with me, but are unable to form a coherent argument about why you are right and why I am wrong, so you want to silence me instead.Ag97 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Were we discussing a block? TimothyJosephWood 01:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That was in response to NorthSouthBaronOf. He wants to get me banned because he's unable to rebut any of my claims.Ag97 (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That's incorrect; I think you should be topic-banned, which means that you are unable to contribute this topic productively and unable to understand when to drop the stick. The last 24 hours of this talk page are evidence of that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, multiple editors want you banned because you've been using incredibly low standards of sourcing for edits that imply the Pizzagate conspiracy is plausible, but have been railing against perfectly reliable sources which don't support that view, obsessing over an email (which, if relevant, is a primary source and so requires professionally published mainstream sources for any interpretation). You clearly on some sort of not-so-subtle crusade to "expose" the conspiracy, and you're not fooling anyone. That is why multiple users want you banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I have never intentionally made any edits that violate Wikipedia policy. The only thing that I ever did wrong was accidentally violate the 3 revert rule, and I already got blocked for that. You can't block me twice for the same thing. None of my other edits were wrong. On the contrary, I have successfully made several productive edits to this very article. I never have, and am not, claiming that Pizzagate is real. It's pretty cowardly that you want to topic ban me for expressing my opinion on a talk page. I'm not even the one starting these discussions. They've all been started by other users, I've simply been participating. You're just angry that someone dares disagree with you. In your ideal world, you would be always right and everyone would always agree with you. The real world does not work that way. If you're so confident in yourself, you should be able to rebut my arguments rather than trying to silence me. On the contrary, I'm not just saying the same thing over and over again, I've participated in several different discussions about different topics started by several different users.Ag97 (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Straw men and red herrings. You're being disruptive on this talk page, trying to gaming the system to push a Pizzagater POV. Your arguments were rebutted. You would repeat those arguments, ignore explanations from others, stubbornly deny the reliability of mainstream professional journalistic sources people brought up (despite supporting InfoWars and an out-of-context email that you so strongly want us to include), all in a patter that fits advocacy. The only difference between your posts here and JAQ-ing off is the punctuation. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong for the same reason that everyone in the history of Wikipedia has ever been wrong: you have an argument with no sources. TimothyJosephWood 01:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? This argument is going in circles. I already responded to that.Ag97 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I must have missed your sources then. TimothyJosephWood 01:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. Like I said before I'm not making any new claims. I'm not saying the theory has not been debunked. What exactly do you want me to source?Ag97 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, you want to say that they were debunked by the MSM, which is obviously code for the unreliable media. So...what source are you using for that? TimothyJosephWood 01:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm just gonna put this here in the hopes that it sinks in. The horse-shit media accuses the MSM of being mainstream, implying that because they are mainstream, they report horse shit. But they forget that the defining feature of the MSM is that they stop reporting horse shit, and start doing actual reporting.
The reason you haven't produced any sources is flatly because any sources you could provide are simply too embarrassing, and would be immediately ripped apart as horse shit peddlers whose horse shit only sounds plausible because they accuse everyone else of doing worse. TimothyJosephWood 01:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The only one who's calling the MSM unreliable is you. PLease stop making false statements about me. Also, there's no reason to use profanity.Ag97 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
So, if they are reliable, why is it so important that it be specified the theory was debunked by the MSM? TimothyJosephWood 02:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to make sense of why one editor is trying to change this from "debunked" to "debunked by the 'MSM'." The only conclusion I can imagine, and it's just my opinion, is that half the people in the country believe the "MSM", and the scare quotes are purposely included, shouldn't be trusted, to weaken the belief in the minds of half the readers that this conspiracy theory has in fact been debunked, and perhaps there are odd code words in some stolen e-mails indicating that this pizzeria is a Democratic pedophilia ring. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Otherwise, what's the point of the change? Objective3000 (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you pretty much nailed it. On a side note, I noticed the comment above by Ag97 that was a reply to Timothyjosephwood - "I also NEVER SAID THE THEORY IS NOT DEBUNKED." On the Pizzagate dab page you made an edit on December 1 (I can't link to it since it's been revdel) with the edit summary "removed word 'falsely'. That is only the opinion of the writer, the conspiracy theory has neither been proven nor disproven." This despite all RS saying otherwise. APK whisper in my ear 04:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Refocusing the discussion

I think this discussion has gone off topic. The issue isn't whether this conspiracy theory is true or false. Of course, it's nonsense. The issue, as I see it is that "debunked conspiracy theory" implies that some conspiracy theories aren't bunk. If you look at our other articles on conspiracy theories, such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, none of them have this language in the opening sentence. What I propose is that we remove the word "debunked" from the opening sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So why didn't you add a comment to the first discussion on the talk page (where the exact thing you just suggested is being discussed), instead of undoing a perfectly reasonable manual archiving of a section that hadn't had a comment for 6 days? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This thread had not been used since the 12th, except by an IP address tweaking their own edits. So what was the fucking point of undoing the archive instead of starting a new thread? This page is huge and extremely difficult to read, and this combative approach is making it worse by making every thread a giant wall of text that's all but impossible for a newcomer to read through. Hasn't anyone wondered why every drive-by editor has an ideological agenda? Because thoughtful people see how much crap they have to read to understand the discussion and just "nope nope nope..." the hell away from this page!
@A Quest For Knowledge and AQFK: Your proposal was discussed, and the consensus was clearly against it. If you want to start a new proposal, be my guest, but forcing us to read through this giant discussion to understand what's going on is incredibly rude and disruptive. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Not everybody edits Wikipedia on a daily basis. I've been busy this week and today was the first day I was able to comment on it. @MjolnirPants: OK, I'll create a new thread. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: For the love of god, please don't create another thread! There's already a thread discussing your proposal! Why aren't you getting it? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"debunked"

Please refer to the RfC below. TimothyJosephWood 18:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Like all too many articles on Wikipedia, this reads as though it was written by the DNC. Some liberal should rewrite this article to make it more neutral. Moderates and conservatives should not even bother trying to write or rewrite articles on Wikipedia because liberals will simply claim they are vandals and their efforts will be destroyed quickly. Sadly, Wikipedia has become Liberalpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improvements that can be made, or was this just a random rant? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Came here from AIV, with no prior involvement with the page. Just want to say that even though this is a conspiracy theory, the wording is a little over the top. "Conspiracy theory" already implies no basis in reality. Using language that sounds like "completely disproved and debunked conspiracy theory with no basis in reality that's been disproved and debunked" is actually counterproductive, because it stops sounding like a neutral presentation. Vanamonde (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Same exact line of reasoning already been discussed to death at Talk:Comet Ping Pong. Sagecandor (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Vanamonde--this was one of the issues that led me to support deletion at the MfD. The polemicism has been toned down a little since then, but the article now gives more of an illusion of completeness than before (and it's still way too polemical). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
[33] was a good edit that shouldn't have been reverted. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
"reveal that" implies that it's true, and so far only alt-right "sources" and fake news sites support that claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh good catch, "revealed" should be kept as "claimed". Other than that, the reverted edit had calmer wording, and calmer is a good thing. Frankly the intensity of denials in the current version makes the theory sound more credible rather than less. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I have made the neutral change, changing "revealed" to "alleged". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct section to make this suggestion vs creating a new section but I wanted to add my two cents. The wording in the article "and has been promoted by "alt-right activists" such as Mike Cernovich and Brittany Pettibone" should be revised. Labeling either of those two as "alt-right activists" could be libelous. From what I know about Cernovich who is an attorney and author, he would not approve of that label. Maybe the term "independent journalists" or another term that is more neutral would be more appropriate. Again just my two centsCllgbksr (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Cernovich isn't actually an attorney btw or has presented no evidence to that effect. He's also self identified as Alt-right before Battleofalma (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to take the time to research whether Cernovich has a JD or not. He's mentioned he's an attorney. If you can find a credible source quoting Cernovich saying he is alt-right I'd love to see it. Someone saying he's alt right isn't going to cut it. The alt-right label Cernovich has been pinned with is being discussed in the talk page of his main article.Cllgbksr (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


This is the most biased article I have ever seen. "(Conspiracy Theory)", "which falsely claims", and that's what I found in the first 5 seconds of reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.242.53 (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, I find no issues with this article's balance. If you feel that it is incorrect in any way, please add references to Reliable sources that offer Significant coverage and nobody on Wikipedia will have any reason to remove it. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The Daily Dot had recently reported the problem with mainstream news sources referring to the incident as "fake news", arguing that people who actually believe in this theory would more likely believe in it. Instead the report referred this conspiracy as an "illogical speculation that got a bunch of people lathered up." Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That's how I see it too. The issue is that people don't fact-check things they see on the internet - luckily Wikipedia editors are required to provide evidence in the form of reliable sources which is why, unlike the rest of the internet, conspiracy theories are usually labelled as such pretty quickly here. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Crazy idea: How about experienced users stop reverting each other over a minor wording preference and figure it out on talk first? There's enough outright vandalism without this unnecessary back and forth. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Debunked is not neutral at all. It's BS. There are sources that support it and sources that don't. It hasn't been proven or disproven. Remove the word debunked.68.226.203.167 (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

If you have Substaintial, Reliable Sources then please post links to them. If you're unable to do so (and many of us have looked for them) then that settles the argument all by itself. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's a source. Pizzagate is not debunked. There are no Substaintial, Reliable Sources that are even close to debunking Pizzagate. Remove the word 'debunked'. https://aceloewgold.com/2016/11/26/the-new-york-times-snopes-was-pizzagate-debunked/ 68.226.203.167 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@68.226.203.167: a single blog (also referenced only on r/thedonald & r/conspiracy) that says "no its not" is also not sufficient as a source or as evidence. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk
Random blog != reliable source. Please try again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, the word "debunked" is not accurate, and no sources have been referenced that actually disprove (i.e., debunk) this THEORY - just more of the same articles that summarily label this as untrue. Rather, this is an UNSUBSTANTIATED theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.6.206 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

YOU mean apart form all those articles pointing out falsification of evidence (such as lying about where photos were found or police raid?), or the fact that not one eye witness or victim has come forward? Debunked means they have found the evidence (where actual "evidence" has been presented and not hearsay conjecture) has in fact been falsified or wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Articles that simply claim a theory is debunked cannot serve as sources for the claim that such theory is actually debunked. Have they debunked any of the Jeffrey Epstein/Lolita express leads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.16.118 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2016‎ (UTC)
Have any been presented?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This article isn't about Epstein. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
That is not how Wikipedia works. See our policy on verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one outraged by "debunked" when the citations are just other sites saying "it's a lie! Fake news!"

Prosecution has presented evidence. Defense just says "whatever. It's all a lie" FerroR (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Prosecution presents no evidence, the grand jury decides the case is too weak to even go to trial. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a trial. We only look at the reliable sources, and the reliable sources say unanimously that the theory was debunked. You are free to be outraged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Outsider input - Hey, i checked the sources that "debunk" this thing trying to do outside research and i was perversely disappointed. Does anywhere exist on the internet where they debunk the Instagram posts and the code in the emails? They all seems to avoid theses subjects, and as they are the primary basis for the theroy it seems imporant to include a source that actually debunks them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basedbrawl (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

None of which is relevant, RS say it has been debunked. If you have issue with that take it up with them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


HERE IS A SOURCE THAT SHOWS HOW PIZZAGATE IS NOT DEBUNKED. SOMEONE FIGURE OUT HOW TO EDIT THIS BS WIKI PAGE. STOP SPREADING FAKE NEWS AND PROPAGANDA. PIZZAGATE IS NOT DEBUNKED. MY CAPS LOCK IS STUCK, SORRY. https://aceloewgold.com/2016/11/26/the-new-york-times-snopes-was-pizzagate-debunked/ 68.226.203.167 (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Your personal opinion of Pizzagate is totally irrelevant, as is mine - what matters here are Reliable Sources.Exemplo347 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to make it clear for anyone else who happens to read a blog, get enraged and then come here to claim Pizzagate is "not debunked": if you're not going to provide Reliable, Verifiable and Independent Sources then don't expect the word "debunked" to be removed from the article. I'd also like to caution against personal attacks on editors if you want to be taken seriously. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2016 (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.

Requested move 15 December 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. SSTflyer 10:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


– Per WP:TWODABS, this is clearly the WP:PTOPIC due to the immense coverage this has received, compared to the much more obscure 2004 event. SSTflyer 10:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I was surprised to see this Requested Move suddenly appear as this issue has already been discussed on the article's Talk Page. I therefore oppose the move as the consensus does not support it, and I really think it would have been courteous to state your reasoning in the relevant section on the talk page before starting this discussion. Doing things this way risks overriding the existing consensus among active editors of the article. I'd like to add that initially (in the discussion that I assume you haven't read) I did support a move or a change in title but I'm voting with the consensus on this one. Please thoroughly examine the talk pages of articles before you unilaterally start page move discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why this again? We have been through this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Russian hackers

Hi, do we have an article about russian hackers scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.181.169 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not in a page about Pizzagate no.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe you are looking for 2016 United States election interference by Russia‎. TimothyJosephWood 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The separate page regarding alleged Russian election interference should be similarly renamed to, for example, "2016 United States election interference by Russia‎ (conspiracy theory)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.16.118 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you're suggesting a rename for another article on this page. Go to that article's talk page if you want to do that. But one reason it might not be moved is because U.S. intelligence has concluded there was interference in the election. Lack of intelligence is why the Pizzagate conspiracy theory started. APK whisper in my ear 19:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Lack of intelligence is why the Pizzagate conspiracy theory started. Now. Some might construe that as a personal attack.[FBDB] TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree, can we keep it polite.Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, that wasn't directed at the IP. It was a general statement about the creation of such a bizarre conspiracy. APK whisper in my ear 01:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
As well as on those (such as the IP) who promote and believe it. A PA is a PA, even if only indirectly targeting a user. It may not be what you intended to imply, but it is how your choice of words can be read.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"debunked conspiracy theory"

NOTE: Another editor requested that I create a new thread.

I think the opening sentence should be changed slightly. The opening phrase "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory" implies that some conspiracy theories are true, which is ridiculous. If you look at our other articles on conspiracy theories]], such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, none of them have this language in the opening sentence. What I propose is that we remove the word "debunked" from the opening sentence. The sentence, "The theory has been discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum, described as a 'fictitious conspiracy theory' by the District of Columbia Police Department and determined to be false by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News." Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No reason for this thread. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Gunman's name

The suspect has been interviewed by The New York Times and is facing federal charges. I think his name has been disseminated enough to be included in the article. The relevant policy is WP:BLPNAME. FallingGravity 04:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason to exclude the name under these facts, so long as we are careful not to imply that he's been convicted. This is also consistent with our past practice. --Neutralitytalk 05:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I see no reason not the include is name, as the alleged gunmen of course.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added this information to the article - I've chosen the language carefully but if anyone thinks I've made any errors, dive in and change it! Exemplo347 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I personally would not include the name, because it doesn't actually add any information beside providing a name. For all that's worth, any pseudonym would add just as much information as the actual name. ...And with all due respect to FG, the appropriate policy is WP:BLPCRIME. TimothyJosephWood 13:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Both WP:BLPCRIME & WP:BLPNAME are relevant. Personally I'd leave his name out, I don't think it helps the readers understanding. However, I have to admit both policies seem to be satisfied, his name has been widely published and hasn't been intentionally concealed, and the wording in the article right now makes it clear he's accused not convicted. — Strongjam (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that he's given an interview is what swung it for me really Exemplo347 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we can include his name, and I don't think there's any need for "alleged." His actions were widely reported and he admitted them publicly. There is no dispute as far as I know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Images

Given that this has been ruled fake news, and has already caused damage to the targeted business, I think images of the business should be removed from the article as to avoid any participation of WP in further damage. Objective3000 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the harm. Are there specific photos you're particularly concerned about? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem that I see is that scores of sites are repeating claims that children are in danger if they go to this small business. I don't think WP should put an image of the business (worth a thousand words, I hear) in the minds of readers. There is little gain in adding such images, and possible harm. Objective3000 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The very first sentence in this article is that this is a debunked conspiracy theory. I doubt that this Wikipedia article will have any negative influences toward businesses, especially when the shooter went to Comet Ping Pong while this article was a Draft page. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I suspect, that if nefarious actors are going to try to find information on how to do nefarious things, they will likely look elsewhere. TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
IMO, one of the worst sayings ever invented is "where there's smoke there's fire." Pedophilia is considered by many the ultimate crime. And the current paranoia level is high. Just trying to err on the side of caution. But, just a suggestion. Objective3000 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd wager that anyone who can't imagine a worse crime is lacking in imagination. TimothyJosephWood 23:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that I thought it was the worst crime -- I stated that some people do --- nevermind, this is pointless. Objective3000 (talk)

Also, for the sake of putting this on talk for discussion, the photo of the memorial is fairly evidently the most relevant photo currently on the article, and was requested by myself on WikiProject:DC, specifically so it could be used here. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accused 'fake-news' pizza gunman planned raid for days

Source can be used to update article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I added it. If it's too much detail for that section, I'm sure others will chime in. APK whisper in my ear 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fresh details, charges emerge in Pizzagate DC shooter’s case

Secondary source for above U.S. federal affidavit.

Also has more info on investigation and criminal proceedings. Sagecandor (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

US v Welch Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint

US v Welch Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint

File could be added to this article.

Public domain as from United States District Court for the District of Columbia and federal employees. Sagecandor (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I added it and rearranged a bit. I could have sworn that there was guidance against using images of text, but I'm not finding it at the moment so, why not. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Should infowars be described as fake news?

I'm no fan of that site, but I'm concerned that this wording is potentially defamatory. As user NorthSouthBaranOf helpfully pointed out on my talk page, "Wikipedia has emplaced extremely strong policies regarding material about living people, particularly negative (defamatory) claims about living people." However, the edit that he made without consensus accusing infowars of being fake news could itself be a defamatory claim about a living person. Alex Jones denied that infowars is a fake news site and said that it is legitimate.[34]. He also expressed concern that labelling infowars "fake news" might result in his site being shut down, which would remove his primary source of income. BLP states that when an article says something defamatory about a person, and that person denies the claim, that should be mentioned in the article. Since Jones has denied the claim, and infowars being fake news isn't properly cited, right now the recent edit made about Inforwars violated BLP by adding poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Ag97 (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

InfoWars is a fake news site, per reliable sources. Where does WP:BLP say that we have to include his denial of spreading fake news? Because I re-read the whole thing just now and saw nothing about that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Your first source lists infowars as a "clickbait website," not a "fake news website," which is a much more accurate description. Your second source is a list complied by a partisan, leftist professor who has previously expressed great contempt for Donald Trump. That list also received heavy criticism for including several legitimate news websites, and in no way meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. See WP:GRAPEVINEAg97 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the first link? The USNews article says "Here are several fake news sites" and then lists Infowars. That's their words. You are citing a different source. As for the second, that list is considered reliable enough to be included as a subsection of WP:RS with no objections -- see the first link at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations. Your attempt to dismiss the author based on her political views, despite being an associate professor of communications, borders on being an ad hominem. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, you arguing against professional news sources based on your interpretation of their WP:PRIMARY sources is original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The USNews article links to this [35] article, which lists Infowars as clickbait, not fake news. The chart on the USNews article seems to be described as taken from the fakenewswatch.com page, so this seems to be an error made by the USNews editor. Ag97 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
As for the list, it has received heavy criticism for including real news websites that have a conservative lean and excluding fake liberal media. [36]. The list is just the opinion of one person, and one person's opinion does not meet wikipedia criteria for reliable source.Ag97 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If you'd actually look at the citation within this article, you'd see that your comments about the USNews article are irrelevant. The citation within this article that calls Infowars "fake news" is from CBS News. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but that's just a single picture in a slide show. I would argue that isn't a very good source. Ag97 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
An unverified email with a picture of a hankie with a pizza on it is a source you've been pushing to include in this article. Where is your bar set, exactly? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Against WP:RS, looks like. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Like I've said before, the email is relevant as the source of the conspiracy theory. The email itself isn't making a potentially defamatory claim about a living person, like your source is. Ag97 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If the email is relevant, then it is a primary source and too open to editor interpretation to use. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This is just another pointless attempt to chip away at the article's assertions. It doesn't matter what your personal opinion is on the quality of the sources, what matters in a Wikipedia article are exactly the things you've failed to provide: Substantial Reliable Sources. Personal feelings or opinions are meaningless. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, my rationale for inclusion is along the lines of:
  1. Many people call infowars fake, and that's definitely worth mentioning.
  2. Dude defended his site, and it got picked up by secondary sources, so it is self-said, but no longer self published.
  3. There is a potentially important "fake news difference" to be noted between infowars and, for example, the Onion (which appears in the same US News list), in that one agrees that it is fake, and the other is at least purportedly not fake.
  4. While it may add relevant context for interested readers, it does not deserve to be in the body, because it is about infowars, and only related to Pizzagate.TimothyJosephWood 15:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, the "fake news" claim was already cited in the article. I know because I added the citation myself - it's from CBS News. There was no real reason to raise this query and I'm not sure how far "Assume Good Faith" is going to keep stretching before it snaps. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This whole little discussion here gives undue weight to a minor part of the article. It doesn't deserve to be mentioned, even as a note, that Alex Jones says his site isn't fake news. Add it to the page for Infowars if you're really that concerned about it. WP:PROPORTION says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" - so basically, Infowars is called Fake News by a wide range of reliable sources. Why do we need to say that Alex Jones says it isn't? It's giving undue weight and false balance. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You say "Infowars is called Fake News by a wide range of reliable sources." What exactly is this wide range of reliable sources? You just have a single picture from a slideshow, I wouldn't describe that as a wide range of reliable sources. Ag97 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, another issue is that you called Vigilant Citizen fake news, but Vigilant Citizen was never mentioned in the source for fake news that you gave. Calling Vigilant Citizen fake news appears to be your original research. Ag97 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
My citation is next to Infowars because it's only about Infowars. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a legitimate criticism. I have added a citation that should cover this fairly well. TimothyJosephWood 15:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the problem. You called Vigilant Citizen fake news, but you never cited that. Ag97 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No I didn't. I didn't add that sentence to the article. I added a citation to one part of it. You'd know this if you actually read through the history of the article before commenting. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
At any rate, "Fake News Onslaught Targets Pizzeria as Nest of Child-Trafficking" mentions Vigilant Citizen as an example. It's also listed at Fake News Checker. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, Business Insider also calls Vigilant Citizen and the New Nationalist "right-wing fake-news sites", and CNN's "Fake news is domestic terrorism" article lists the Vigilant Citizen as an example. HelgaStick (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm just saying the claim needs to be cited in the article, which right now is not. The Business Insider article is a good source, but it also mentions that the article was deleted, which is significant. Ag97 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I literally just included a citation for this, because you were correct, that the source previously cited didn't address VC directly. This is how dissent can be productive. TimothyJosephWood 16:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a note, but please do NOT use fakenewschecker.com as a source or even a starting point, since it's not a reliable source by Wikipedia or even ordinary standards. It contains absolutely no sources or examples, and just repeats boilerplate descriptions: ShareBlue, CounterPunch, Democracy Now, Bay Area Reporter, AND Mother Jones are ALL listed under "Fake News Sources" and have identical, unsupported descriptions. It's clearly empty clickbait.
Still not convinced? Here's the description for Vigilant Citizen:

The Vigilant Citizen publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

Pretty bad, right? Now here's the description for The Onion, the satirical newspaper, which they' ve also listed under "Fake News Sources":

'The Onion publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

So no, they're not even a reliable starting point for learning anything. --Calton | Talk 05:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
It's quite simple: Wikipedia policy states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. " Saying that Inforwars is fake news is poorly sourced contentious material about a living person, directly violating BLP.Ag97 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not unsourced or poorly sourced to say that InfoWars is fake news, despite your original research arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
There's really no shortage of sources calling Infowars fake, and otherwise questioning its reliability. There are currently I believe six included in the article, counting the body and footnote. We can include more, but that's probably overkill. You provided one source contesting this, and I think that's legitimate to note. But beyond that, you need sources to question the legitimacy of sources. It's not an exercise that happens in a vacuum. TimothyJosephWood 15:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you provide some of these sources? The only one I've seen is the CBS slideshow. I've read many articles mentioning Infowars, and some describe Alex Jones as someone who supports conspiracy theories, but not one describes it as fake news. I think calling Infowars a clickbait website or a website that has promoted conspiracy theories in the past is a more accurate claim that can backed up by mainstream media sources. Reliable sources calling infowars fake news are very thin. Ag97 (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
They're in the article? See footnote a. TimothyJosephWood 16:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is all just a red herring, a transparent attempt to discredit the article as a whole by chipping away at a tiny part of it. Why not just remove Infowars from this article completely and replace the specific site names with "Fake News Sites" and citations. Problem solved, no reason for tenuous "BLP" arguments. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, if you can find reliable sources proving that fake news sites actually did spread the story. Ag97 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Come now. That's just disingenuous. I'm all for a spirited dissent, but it has to be grounded in reality to be of any use. I'm pretty much the only one giving you the time of day. Don't waste that by making claims directly contradicted by basically every citation currently in the article. TimothyJosephWood 16:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not making any claims other than saying the sentence about Infowars and Vigilant citizen is poorly sourced in the case of Infowars and not sourced at all in the case of Vigilant citizen. Ag97 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well now they're sourced, multiple times. Can we leave it at that now? It's a single sentence in the article and it's being blown way out of proportion. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is an improvement. Only concern is that the note should say "Jones defended Infowars against the characterization of it as fake news" rather than "Alex Jones defended the characterization of Infowars as fake news." Right now the note makes it seem as if Jones actually agrees with the claim that infowars is fake news.Ag97 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dun. Good catch. TimothyJosephWood 16:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Everyone try to keep up with the fact that this article is being edited in response to this discussion. TimothyJosephWood 16:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No. In terms of a description for this Wikipedia page, Alex Jones should properly be termed a conspiracy theorist (as it says on his page), and Infowars a conspiracy theory site. Besides using a foundation of real information - things that internet searches show exist, such as, say, artist Marina Abramovic "spirit cooking" pictures - he attempts to logically explain the information he presents. People can disagree with his conclusions and/or the logic and assumptions he employs, but his show is clearly in the range of conspiracy theory - dealing with real information - not fake news.

Infowars is not in the least a "fake news" site, and it's a shoddy thing that this article describes it as such, and its description should be changed to something with more solid, objective evidence for it as soon as possible. The current description is indeed a BLP violation. It stretches the idea of what's "fake news" into any alternative source of information that some or many people don't like, and if this exaggerated standard for "fake news" was actually established throughout our nation, it would be the end of America as a free society. The Chinese government seems to consider real news on Tiananmen Square and its ongoing human rights violations to be "fake news." The "fake news" label could and surely would be applied to ANY reporting without the right backing from on high.

And for how long has "fake news" been a thing in the public discourse? And where are the scholars who define it, and the studies about it? Right now, "fake news" is a nebulous politicized buzzword and fad which just showed up months ago, and has been parroted and thrown around in the mainstream media with not a lot of care, and little evidence about what constitutes it. In its exaggerated form, it's really a loaded term. And if and when there are actually studies done of all the sites presently being labelled "fake news," even such studies would need to be referenced with care, to not overstate, expand or distort the findings.

THE FOLLOWING, however, IS fake news, and what the present understanding of it here needs to be limited to: ABCNews.com.co tries to pass itself off as ABC News, and as I saw some months back, posted made-up polls. And here's a current headline on their site: "Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring Investigation Into Election Results; Revote Planned For Dec. 19th." A story from another fake site, WTOENews.com (apparently passing as news from a t.v. station) about Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump is similarly made up out of whole cloth and untrue. And have people noticed the frequent ads on Facebook that say this or that famous person has suddenly and tragically died? Pure fiction since those people haven't died. The truth can be verified easily in seconds.

The bar should be set high and unequivocal for something to be described as a "fake news site," and that especially goes for an encyclopedia where iron-clad evidence is demanded. The matter of appropriate sourcing for such a label to be used applies. The news media are sufficient sources for labelling sites like ABCNews.com.co fake news, but that isn't good enough for sites that base their reports on verifiable information, as Infowars does. Actual scholarly study is needed. (I don't see the term "fake" used in the Wikipedia entries for old-media publications like the National Enquirer and the Globe.)

Mere description by some journalists isn't scholarly study Personal opinion, even by someone who *might* be some sort of an expert - which is another main "source" for the use of this label here - also isn't that. (Nor is something that claims to be a "study" of fake news good enough, either. BuzzFeed did that "study" on fake news which concluded that the top 20 fake news stories got more total Facebook attention than the top 20 "real" news stories - actually many were opinion pieces, published by mainstream outlets. And this "study" was used to bolster the claim that "fake news" influenced the election, even though many elements of the situation were left unstudied by the study, like the fact that most of the information in the "real" stories was also being covered in hundreds if not thousands of other print and television stories, attention the fake news didn't receive - and the fact that "the amount of Facebook attention a story receives" says nothing about how many people either didn't believe it or were told it wasn't true. And Infowars didn't even make it into that "study." Also, did Buzzfeed commission a poll to see how much penetration the information in the fake stories got versus the information in the stories from the mainstream media? No.)

As is often said here, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not news. When we're talking about using the phrase "fake news site (blank)," such sites have to be flat-out, incontrovertibly fake. And to make a statement that a site is believed to traffic in fake news, the results of real studies or opinions of scholars have to be cited *with care,* accurately explaining what the opinion or findings mean. Psalm84 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's quite a wall of text, and while we're all entitled to our own opinions, Wikipedia has a phrase - Verifiability, Not Truth - provide reliable sources to support your argument. Oh, and keep it succinct! Exemplo347 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Psalm84, you could really benefit from reading our policy on verifiability. "Scholarly study" isn't needed. A single fact-checked article in a reputable newspaper is enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I've done a lot of work here in the past on different articles, including highly controversial ones which I worked on at length over periods of time. I've read and studied the verifiability page many times, as well as many others. I don't have any more time today for this, but in short different types of material require different types of sources. As for news media material, its usefulness is along a continuum - for current events, they're highly appropriate. At the opposite end, they are least useful and often inappropriate for physical sciences articles, despite news coming from what's consideredreputable news outlets. At this point, "fake news" - which as an article here has only existed since November 15 - is a media and political buzzword that should be treated with extreme caution by an encyclopedia. "Fake news" Wikipedia articles should be based on proper scholarship and social sciences study, and the fact that they're instead largely based on unsubstantiated opinions right now should be reflected in the use of the "fake news" concept in articles. Especially under these terms, "fake news" really shouldn't be used as a label for a site. Psalm84 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Can you cite something in WP:V that supports your view of how it works? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, for someone who has internalized the narrative that "the mainstream media is untrustworthy because it is mainstream," this explanation probably looks a lot like blind faith. Does that help this article at all? No. But is it something that we should consider in our discourse with someone who may become productive editors because they're already here? TimothyJosephWood 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that perspective, but it's utterly inconsistent with our verifiability policy, which is the bedrock of the encyclopedia. And this isn't the place to challenge the validity of our policies. The place for that is either WP:VPP or WT:V. I urge Psalm84 and others who reject our reliance on the "mainstream media" to go to one of those fora if they wish to continue with this line of argument. In the meantime, we have an article to write. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Your personal remarks directed at me aren't appropriate here, including the suggestion that I go elsewhere. And what you claim about me is also a straw man, for that matter. I've been heavily involved with writing here and all the in-depth research through external sources that goes along with it. In no way am I advocating adding unsourced material. Now, on the subject of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia policies and guidelines in general, it appears to me that you have some inaccurate ideas. You speak of verifiability as if it's a rule to be blindly and mechanically applied. See this:
"Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
"Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording..."
WP:5P1
And this is from another page on the subject of verifiability:
"Our core policy of neutral point of view (NPOV) is primarily concerned with truth. A long-standing summary of NPOV was "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves.".[1] A "fact" is something that is objectively true. So, NPOV directs us to state only objectively truthful things using Wikipedia's voice. Evaluations of the truth of a claim are central to following the policy of NPOV."
That page also quotes Jimbo Wales: "Verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake." - Jimbo"
And this: "We generally have two ways of presenting claims without resorting to weasel phrasing. In Wikipedia's voice as a plain assertion of fact, or assigned as the position of a specific third party ("According to foo....")." WP:TRUTHMATTERS
But all this is mostly tangential to the matter here. The fact is that the label "fake news" isn't even properly and sufficiently sourced. Between this page and Alex Jones, there are three articles that claim his site is fake news without providing any evidence whatsoever. Certainly the wording on the Alex Jones page is not as bad - saying his site "has been labelled a fake news site" - because the claim isn't made in Wikipedia's voice. Yet it still isn't sufficiently backed up. "Has been labelled a fake news site"? Well, by whom? I just read - forget in which Wiki policy - that vague expressions like "many people think" are to be avoided here.
What's more, the only "evidence" is that a reporter at US News, another at CBS News and a single professor say Infowars is "fake news," and the Daily Dot published that opinion. That is flimsy, and merely an appeal to authority, that these three news sites make this claim and their reputations can be substituted for reasoned argument with evidence, and that's not the case. And SCHOLARSHIP is not only the foundation of this web site, but it IS what ANY encyclopedia is. Newspapers are great for keeping up to date with facts like the police reports say that the CPP suspect watched an Infowars video. In the absence of some legitimate study or work of scholarship that specifically examines Infowars - and in that case the study/work should be explained in the article - calling Infowars "fake news" isn't warranted, much less in such a definitive way as in Wikipedia's voice and using a label. Psalm84 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You haven't provided much of a justification for why we should ignore all rules. I see two justifications in your comments. First, that the contention that Infowars is fake news is supported by "only" two journalists and a professor. This is incorrect. It's also supported by both news outlets' editorial staffs and the professor's publisher, all of which have established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. The consensus of the community is that this is more than enough. Your justification that these are contentions of the "mainstream media," as if that's a problem. If we throw out all of the material supported by the "mainstream media" then we throw out most of the encyclopedia. The bottom line is that These arguments will never survive if we have to go to the noticeboards. Do we have to go that route? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Either you're just not getting it, or you're choosing to pretend that you're not getting it. I'm not sure which is worse. Anyway - Wikipedia Editors are not here to carry out analysis of the reporting that Reliable Sources carry out. That's "Original Research" and has no place in Wikipedia. Remember, it's Verifiability, not Truth that counts. You can post all the walls of text that you want to, but you're not going to be able to change Wikipedia's policies by posting it here - and Wikipedia's policies are being applied to this article, regardless of your feelings towards them. If you feel the need to reply, please keep it short - don't flood the page with waffle. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Webpages Linked To Pizzeria Shooting Go Dark Even As Prosecution Moves Forward

"But as the case moves forward, a website that amplified the conspiracy theory has removed content related to it, although archived versions are still accessible to authorities.

The website Infowars.com has removed a misleading page titled: "PIZZAGATE IS REAL: SOMETHING IS GOING ON, BUT WHAT?" as well as a YouTube video about the fictitious plot.

Another video on the same site, which matches a video described in the criminal complaint against Welch, is still active.

Another potential source of the type of misleading information cited by Welch was shut down not by the people posting the information but by the website on which it was hosted."

and also this bit of new info

"The tweet remained visible on Flynn's Twitter account until at least this Monday, according to an Internet archive that stores copies of webpages. More than 9,000 people shared it.

By early Tuesday morning, the tweet had been deleted. It no longer appears on Flynn's twitter profile. NPR reached out to the president-elect's transition team, but did not hear back."

Two pieces of important info to update this article and other relevant articles. Sagecandor (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 14:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Potential RfC

I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful, in the long term, to go ahead and do an RfC on the "debunked" issue. It's already been raised several times, and while there is currently a moderate consensus for inclusion, it's nothing that wouldn't require another moderate consensus to override.

Actually doing an RfC would set a stronger local precedent, and likely save a good deal of time as something solid to point to when this issue inevitably comes up again. Basically, if you have a strong enough argument to open a new RfC, then go ahead, but otherwise this issue has been semi-officially settled.

Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm willing to defend the current wording against the usual confused arguments and nebulous walls of text Exemplo347 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it, though I think a better forum would be WP:FRINGEN, as fringe is what this is really about. If you decide to go forward with the RfC please at least post a notice of it there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

References to "Trump voters"

  •  Not done Rather than remove the data from the article I decided to add more detail instead. The figures from respondents who stated that they voted for Clinton have been added. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference to Trump voters in relation to percentages who believe in this theory or those who do not should be removed. The two "references" are at best questionable, and go against Wiki's policy regarding acceptable reference materials. At the very least, if someone is going to report the supposed percentages related to one candidate, then shouldn't the same courtesy be given towards the other candidate in the election? If the two websites only reported on one candidate, then that in itself should lead one to question the validity of such a study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.108.253.2 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Great, another IP user. We're not here to perform analysis about the validity of reporting carried out by Reliable Sources. We are just here to add verifiable statements from those reliable sources. No original research is allowed when creating Wikipedia articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
What a lovely unbiased approach you have towards a differing opinion. Rest assured this is my first post on this page, I do not believe in the Pizzagate garbage, and I am not using a proxy. Those are not reliable sources, they are basically biased blogs. You contradict yourself by basically admitting that while the content is not valid the source itself is? That's laughable, and quite a precarious position to put yourself into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.108.253.2 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Picking and choosing information from reliable sources based on my own opinion of their reporting would be biased. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I’d remove it. It’s one poll, and pollsters haven’t been faring well lately. Also, the difference between Trump and non-Trump voters in this poll isn’t all that significant. Objective3000 (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


would tend to agree, unless better sources are forthcoming.Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
1) pollsters haven’t been faring well lately is not a terribly convincing argument. 2) Per the first source, 90% of HRC voters saw her as unconnected compared to 54% of DJT voters. So, that's a pretty big difference. I think the real question is why are we not simply providing the polling data and instead WP:CHERRYPICKING only the data about DJT voters? TimothyJosephWood 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, let's show all the data. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
LETS DO IT! ...as soon as we find someone who is good at tables...TimothyJosephWood 21:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
On that note, "we" definitely doesn't mean me! Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. APK whisper in my ear 01:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with including poll data as long as it's appropriately attributed in-text. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Satanic child abuse

Why do we not have a link to this, or indeed even mention of it as per.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_comet_ping_pong_pizzagate_scandal_is_a_child_sex_ring_myth_for_the_age.html

http://www.snopes.com/the-pizzagate-survivor/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/08/the-satanic-roots-of-pizzagate-how-a-30-year-old-sex-panic-explains-today/

Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably because all those sources only say that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is like those past fake/panic stories. There's no direct connection to them. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Well apart from the supporters of the conspiracy using a video form the earlier scare and trying to make the connection. Or pointing out how many of the same accusations are being recycled in this new scare, no they are not linked. Just very similar.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It's already in the article. "The theory also proposed that the ring was a meeting ground for satanic ritual abuse." The similar incidents mentioned in the Slate article are linked to in the "See also" section. FallingGravity 18:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yet not the main article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Interview

The owner of Comet Ping Pong sat down for an interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News. Does anyone think this is worth including as an EL? APK whisper in my ear 10:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not really, what new is it going to add?Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just watched the clip & it's pretty unequivocal about Pizzagate being (direct quote) "Fake. Fake!!" but I'm not sure if it would add much to the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see an outstanding problem with using it as an external link. Right now we don't even haven an external link section. We could probably add the full text of the indictment as an external link also, since we don't use it as an actual source. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not useful to include something saying Comet Ping Pong says the conspiracy theory is fake. We have a variety of reliable sources that already say that, and they carry much more weight. Including this statement from Comet Ping Pong could be read to turn the issue into a he-said-she-said dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, I think we're talking across purposes. The proposal was to include it as an external link (WP:EL). TimothyJosephWood 12:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
For example, what I was suggesting was something like:

External links

(For some reason the talk quote template isn't supporting an embedded section header. This is really weird and I swear I've used it that way before.) TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood. I'm generally one for fewer ELs rather than more. I don't think the interview provides anything particularly illuminunating or helpful to the reader so my inclination is to exclude. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


Suggested move - 8 December 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Pizzagate conspiracy theory. There is no consensus for a change to just Pizzagate, but there is consensus to at least remove the parentheses from the current title. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

– Suggest moving this over Pizzagate and including a hat note pointing to Battle of the Buffet#Pizzagate, since this seems to currently be fairly clearly the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, and more so, is a stand alone article, and not a section in an article, the main title of which, readers seem more likely to search for. TimothyJosephWood 01:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) – relisted by SSTflyer 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Those examples are theories about events. This is a theory surrounding a place. You could have it be "Comet Ping Pong conspiracy theory" but no one calls it that. "Pizzagate" is the common name whether it's true scandal or not. And doesn't putting "conspiracy theory" in the title (without the unnecessary disambiguation brackets) sound like a little too much? (Pizzagate conspiracy theory is a debunked conspiracy theory started by a Twitter user described as a white supremacist and...[37]) Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This is not a theory surrounding a place. The proponents of this theory would argue that pizzagate is an international conspiracy. In fact, they claim it is multigenerational and applies to other child abuse scandals. Comet Ping Pong is a small aspect to them, they claim several other businesses on the same block are involved. They would claim other places involved are the Clinton Foundation, Tony Podesta's basement and the country of Haiti, particularly the Clinton Foundation's work there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.229.135 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
And if you replace "Campbell Rooney" with "Reddit" you jump from 5k news hits to about a million. TimothyJosephWood 02:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
And if you look at Google Books you find that one hundred percent of results in book searches are all for the Battle_of_the_Buffet#Pizzagate. Sagecandor (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Because there's not been time in the past month to publish a book on the topic? TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
And if you look at any social media, forum, or news site one hundred percent of what you'll find about "Pizzagate" is about the 2016 one. The current "Pizzagate" has only been in the news for about a month so there's not any books about it yet, that is an impossible standard to use in this case. Emily Goldstein (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As the Southern Bard once said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Sagecandor provides links to prove his claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Counting search results isn't really an argument. This NYT article contains the words "Pizzagate" (and thus shows up in the search) but actually calls this phenomenon "the so-called Pizzagate conspiracy theory". Google also returns things that aren't even remotely RS for that query. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Your "reliable source" is now calling it "the so-called Pizzagate hoax" (old and current). What now? Emily Goldstein (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Pizzagate" got 12 views in October 2016[38], 21,729 in November[39], and 71,942 from 1 December to 6 December[40]. There is only one "Pizzagate" article the other is a section of an article. There is no need for a disambiguation page. I'm sorry for the 0.5 people everyday who will have to make one extra click. Emily Goldstein (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We don't make these decisions based on pageviews. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes we do, right or wrongly. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. Miami Herald: Pizzagate tale, Pizzagate debacle
  2. Courier-Tribune: Pizzagate, Pizzagate conspiracy
  3. Seattle Times]: Pizzagate perverted propaganda, Pizzagate, phony Pizzagate claims
  4. Snopes: Pizzagate, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Pizzagate theories, Pizzagate/Comet Ping Pong social media investigation, “Pizzagate” rumors, Pizzagate controversy
  5. Buzzfeed: Pizzagate, Pizzagate claims, “Pizzagate” Conspiracy Theory (in ad for another article)
  6. Politifact:Pizzagate
  7. Politifact: No mention of "Pizzagate" at all
  8. BBC: saga of Pizzagate, term "pizzagate", Pizzagate
  9. NYT: Pizzagate, Pizzagate theory
  10. WaPo: Pizzagate, “Pizzagate” conspiracy board (referring to the subreddit), Pizzagate conspiracy
  11. Salon: Pizzagate
  12. CNN: Pizzagate
  13. NYT:‘Pizzagate’ Hoax
  14. Bloomberg: No mention of "Pizzagate" at all
  15. NPR: No mention of "Pizzagate" at all
  16. Washington City Paper: Pizzagate
  17. MPDC: No mention of "Pizzagate" at all
  18. ABC: Pizzagate, Pizzagate scandal
  19. Politico: "#pizzagate" conspiracy, #pizzagate
  20. Business Insider: Pizzagate story, Pizzagate conspiracy, #Pizzagate
  21. NYT: Pizzagate, #pizzagate
  22. ABC: "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory, #Pizzagate, Pizzagate
  23. NYT: ‘Pizzagate’ Hoax
  24. Daily Dot: Pizzagate Conspiracy, Pizzagate, #pizzagate
Somehow I lost three sources, (one was duplicated and I need to go back and find it). If someone can point them out I'll add them.
But overall, while some sources mention a Pizzagate theory, or Pizzagate conspiracy, only three mention "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" verbatim. 16 sources use Pizzagate as a stand alone term, only 3 who mention Pizzagate fail to mention it as a stand alone term, and five sources mention it only as a standalone term and never mention it with any qualifiers.
So Pizzagate is the a clear common thread in these sources by number of mentions, and "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" wins only slightly over "Pizzagate hoax" with three and two mentions respectively.
Finally per WP:DAB: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. (emphasis mine). In this case there is no other existing article, but only a section, and therefore no reason to add qualifiers to the title. Furthermore, if we are to treat the section as an article for these purposes, the guideline continues: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that this list of sources supports "Pizzagate" over "Pizzagate conspiracy theory," as a great many of them - like most RS that have addressed this - clearly identify Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory. For example: the first sentence of your Miami Herald article notes that Police have called it "a 'fictitious conspiracy theory.'" This article (also from the Miami Herald) defines Pizzagate (again, in the first sentence) as a "a fake-news conspiracy." Same thing with your second source - the very first sentence of the article defines Pizzagate as " a fantastical conspiracy theory." Ditto for source number three, which clearly labels Pizzagate as an "elaborate conspiracy theory." The same appears to be true for the majority of the sources you linked: The BBC link (#8) also clearly labels Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory. So does the Washington Post source (#10). This list seems like evidence that "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is by far the most accurate and NPOV option for the article's title. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Because there is a difference between naming a thing and describing a thing. I am listing instances where they referred to it as a name. From the Miami Herald, A popular New York restaurant has become the latest victim of a fake-news conspiracy about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring out of a Washington, D.C., pizza joint. This is an extended descriptor, not a name. It is as supportive of "Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)" as it is of "Pizzagate (Hillary Clinton child sex ring conspiracy theory)".
I'm not arguing that it isn't in fact a conspiracy theory. I'm arguing that the common name is "Pizzagate" as opposed to "Pizzagate hoax," "Pizzagate conspiracy," "Fantastical Pizzagate conspiracy theory" or any of the other thousand ways descriptors can be attached unnecessarily. They are only unnecessary because disambiguation is only necessary to resolve ambiguity, of which, in this case, there is very little. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Pizzagate" as this topic has clear primary usage of the title. Lasersharp (talk)
  • Oppose: Although news sources have referred to the incident as "Pizzagate", virtually all of them have described Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory. Unless there is proof that the conspiracy has some basis in reality (which doesn't), Pizzagate will always be regarded as a conspiracy theory. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I...really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. No one questions that Michael Jordan was a basketball player, but Michael Jordan (basketball player) isn't an article. TimothyJosephWood 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: because Michael Jordan exists, Pizzagate does not exist, there was no Watergate type existence of any event, scandal - this is a completely fictional event which only is alleged to exist and then shown not to have done. If we go through the other List of scandals with "-gate" suffix is there a single one which turns out to not have any existence outside conspiracy as this one did not exist? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
In ictu oculi I'm not seeing anything on primary or commons name guidelines that says it doesn't apply to Leprechaun and unicorn. TimothyJosephWood 11:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
That's because those are legendary creatures rather than scandals List of scandals with "-gate" suffix with some base outside alt-right hysteria. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure its because WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PTOPIC have nothing to do with whether the subject of an article is true or real. If you would like to suggest adding this criteria, you are welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
User has been topic banned by the community from pages related to U.S. politics and pages relating to conspiracy theories. Neutralitytalk 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
User was not topic banned until three days after this comment was written. Unstruck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I assume he is trying to say the fact the uer has been banned means we should ignore his vote, I am not sure that is a valid objection.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per proposer. Prefer "Pizzagate", as it is shorter than "Pizzagate conspiracy theory", and there isn't another Pizzagate to confuse it with, but the parentheses should definitely go. --GRuban (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It should remain crystal clear that this is a conspiracy theory, and having something in the title is the best way to do this. See Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which could have been titled Barack Obama's citizenship, but wasn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We would be doing the best by our readers to convey in as many ways as possible that this is definitely a conspiracy theory. I'd invoke IAR to override COMMONNAME here. A move to Pizzagate conspiracy theory would be acceptable. gobonobo + c 08:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator's analysis. Also per WP:PTOPIC: this incident involves an invented conspiracy theory alleging involvement at the highest levels of the most powerful government on the planet and which has led to armed violence, while the other is a food-throwing incident in which it has never been conclusively determined that the food thrown was pizza. And also per WP:PRECISE: reliable sources variously refer to this as "Pizzagate" on its own along with various modifiers, but none of the modifiers are necessary to unambiguously refer to this topic; article titles ought to be only as precise as necessary to identify the topic but no more precise than that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Also support "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" as a distant second choice, iff Pizzagate is changed to redirect to that title. The current disambiguation scheme is clearly improper and needs to be fixed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a move to "Pizzagate" but would support dropping the brackets to make it "Pizzagate conspiracy theorySlatersteven (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent about the move, but I Oppose dropping brackets. The name of this... thing... is not "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" but "Pizzagate". The phrase "conspiracy theory" is a descriptive, so if it must be included, it should be included as a descriptive. I understand that there's a desire to make it even more clear that this is bunk, but at a certain point, we need to watch our own biases. Our opposition to this sort of bullshit should not impact our editing, and I think the norms here are pretty clear on the naming conventions. "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is just not a proper name. As an alternative to that, "Pizzagate hoax" or "Pizzagate theory" would be marginally better (they would annoy me just enough that I'd see them as the mark of a good compromise), though still not ideal. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a side note, there's nothing hoax-y about Pizzagate. As I understand it the believers are dead serious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to Close as "No Consensus"' - It's been 8 days and we've made no progress. If an uninvolved admin could close this, I'd suggest that we give it a month and try again. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it was only just relisted. Also, despite the discussion being started on Dec 8 it was only given the RM tag on the 15th meaning it didn't show up in the list of move discussions at WP:RM, I know that because of that this is the first I'm hearing of this discussion. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Well the discussion had been going on for a week and no consensus was reached despite a large number of responses. Someone who didn't even read the talk page first suddenly decided to list it for discussion (if you look further down the talk page) and now we're having to go through the same discussion again due to that mistake. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
SST is definitely one of those rare breed 'why are they not admin already editors. So I wouldn't dismiss their contributions out of hand. Listing it at RM was the correct action, and I failed to do so only because I hoped we could reach a quickish local consensus, which we apparently cannot. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of which, User:SSTflyer, I expect you have good excuse for not being at RfA this very second or...a long time ago? TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Legitimizing it as a real -gate fails the far more core policy of WP:NPOV. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You're right. People don't seem to realise that "Neutral" doesn't mean "Give every point of view equal weight" - fringe opinions, unsupported by a single reliable source, don't deserve any consideration. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to Close as "No Consensus" - Yes, it's me again. It's been 14 days now and there's still no consensus on this despite a large number of sensible comments from both sides of the debate. I'd suggest closing this, without prejudice, and revisiting the issue in a month or two. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit Request - Widely debunked

Please use these sources to add to article to change wording from simply "debunked" to ---> "widely debunked" :

  1. Hackman, Michelle (December 6, 2016), "Michael Flynn's Son Has Left Trump Transition Team", The Wall Street Journal, retrieved December 12, 2016, a widely debunked conspiracy theory, known as Pizzagate
  2. Pasha-Robinson, Lucy (December 5, 2016), "Pizzagate", The Independent, retrieved December 12, 2016, have stood by the theory despite it being widely debunked
  3. Strom, Roy (December 6, 2016), "After Shooting, Lawyer's Fake Twitter Account Presses 'Pizzagate' Conspiracy", The American Lawyer, retrieved December 12, 2016, has already been widely debunked by news outlets and by the city's police

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Are you referring to the opening sentence? ("widely discredited and debunked" is in the first line of the "Debunking" section) IMHO adding it to the opening sentence isn't necessary; it's explained in the Debunking section. The first sentence already has three references in that citation. It's been debunked by every RS and the people who still don't believe don't care how sane members of society describe it. Adding another use of "widely" won't convince the conspiracy theorists of anything. But if others disagree, then by all means it should be added. Just my two cents. APK whisper in my ear 10:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • While I've quite publicly stated my preference for unequivocally strong language about "Debunking" I do feel that it is already very clear that the debunking is wide. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with the other two editors above me. I think stating unequivocally that it is debunked in the first sentence, in wikivoice is strong enough for the lead. As long as we 'double down' on it as it were, by adding adjectives like "widely" in the section (and indeed, in even having a section called 'Debunked'), we don't need to be as emphatic in the first sentence. Remember, part of our responsibility in editing this article is to keep an eye out for our own biases, too.
There is another reason, as well: Trust in the media is at a notable low point now. Adding "widely" to the lead strongly implies that the media has been debunking it to the type of reader who would not trust the media, as they happen to be the type to not read the entire article. So to a certain type of reader, the addition of this word could actually weaken the claim that it's not true. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, if not the intro, can these citations above be incorporated somewhere in the article body text to say "widely debunked" somewhere? Sagecandor (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think adding this term would definitely cause the article to stray into the realms of bias (even though people who don't understand what Balance means are already saying it has) and the article already lets readers know that this is a widely debunked, false conspiracy theory based on (I can't remember which article I saw this phrase in) nothing more than confirmation bias. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that liberal leaning news sites, with no sources themselves, simply stating that it has been "debunked everywhere, god, just do a google search and you could find it," is not a credible source. The most credible site I've seen so far, Snopes[1], specifically noted they were "unable to locate any substantive aspect of the claims that could be fact-checked or otherwise held up to the light to determine their veracity" and nothing to prove it false beyond impassioned news articles. Given that most scientific doctrine revolves around proving a theory false one time rather than true all of the time, and no one seems to have any hard evidence that it's wrong, as is typically the definition of the word debunked, the word should be removed from the article. Wrpen99 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
And yet... Snopes labels Pizzagate with big red letters: FALSE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Prove to me that you're not a space alien. I mean, I'm sure I'll be "unable to locate any substantive aspect of the claims that could be fact-checked or otherwise held up to the light to determine their veracity" but since "scientific doctrine" (sic) "revolves proving a theory false one time" you should be able to do it. Come on, prove to me just one that you're not a space alien from planet Fullofshitaran.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Wrpen99: I would like to point out that liberal leaning news sites, with no sources themselves, simply stating that it has been "debunked everywhere, god, just do a google search and you could find it," is not a credible source. Actually... It is. Wikipedia might document ideological trends like "ya jist can't trust tha lib'ral medier!" but we certainly don't follow them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
So...as long as it's on the internet, it must be true? Wrpen99 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
<sarcasm>@Wrpen99: Yes. That's exactly what I said. You saw through my web of lies and discovered that, in arguing that we shouldn't believe what's on the internet, I'm actually arguing that we should believe everything the internet has to say. Your response is not at all hysterical, overwrought or fallacious.</sarcasm> MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Fox News is liberal media? Well, you learn something new every day. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think they do think that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
In all seriousness, Slater is exactly right. Many alt-right (and other far-right) individuals truly believe that fox news is part of "the liberal media". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria". Snopes. Retrieved 16 December 2016.

Everyone lay of the PA's whether it be "liberal POV pushers" or "hysterical".Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just added a paragraph to the article in the "Responses" section detailing a spin-off conspiracy theory that was reported in The Washington Post. If anyone thinks it looks awful, dive right in and change it! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think pointing out that her death was from suicide is important, as it's one of the two things the Infowars video was dishonest about (the other being her reason for going to Haiti). So I've added that info. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Good call! Exemplo347 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A number of pizzerias

Our lead section currently says that the conspiracy theory is about "a number of pizzerias in Washington D.C." without naming them. This doesn't seem to be borne out by the body of the article, which only mentions Comet Ping Pong. Which other pizzerias are implicated by the theory and can someone more familiar than the theory than I please add appropriate content with citations to the body of our article? Otherwise, the lead section should be changed to refer specifically to Comet Ping Pong. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm changing it to say "a chain of pizzerias in Washington D.C." because I'm pretty sure that's what whomever wrote it meant. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
[Wrote this just before conflict with DrFleischmanns 18:31 comment] 'Pretty sure' is quite an argument... In this case it seems to me to be wrong, anyway, because the main pizzeria supposedly involved, Comet Ping Pong, is not part of a chain, as far as I know. The second pizzeria often (but not initially) mentioned is Besta Pizza, located in the same block and only a few doors up the street - this takeaway is part of a small chain of two pizzerias (Maryland and Washington). So I'm pretty sure 'a number' reflects the theory better than 'a chain', but even better might be just to speak of 'a pizza restaurant', because it started with Comet Ping Pong. Comet Ping Pong's owner Alefantis' other, neighbouring restaurant Bucks Fishing & Camping has later also become subject to speculations, as in a lesser degree has Little Red Fox, a restaurant in between Comet and Bucks. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Comet Ping Pong isn't a chain, is it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Also not all the restaurants dragged into it are pizzerias. It should read (surely) "a number of restaurants in the USA".Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I could have sworn Comet Ping Pong was a local chain, but checking their site, I see I'm wrong. So I think we need some RSes to support a change in wording to something like "a number of businesses" or "a number of restaurants" or "a number of pizzerias". Could somebody revert me, please? I'm on my alt account, and I already switched once to my main to make the edit; I don't want to do it again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Aha, I see content about Roberta's and East Side Pies, both of which are pizzerias (though this fact isn't mentioned in our article). But these aren't DC pizzerias, as Roberta's is in New York and East Side Pies is in Austin. So we should remove "in Washington D.C." However I think it's apparent that the theory has been primarily about Comet Ping Pong, and not mentioning this fact in the lead appears to be unhelpful and a bit misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/10/pizzagate-explained-everything-you-want-to-know-about-the-comet-ping-pong-pizzeria-conspiracy-theory-but-are-too-afraid-to-search-for-on-reddit/
It says "Threatening phone calls regularly harassed and frightened employees of many restaurants near Comet, and other pizza places in D.C. that theorists decided must be linked to the pedophilia ring because they also serve pizza." and explicitly names one D.C. pizza restaurant called WeThePizza.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hm, so we have various sources mentioning a smorgasbord of restaurants, some pizzerias and some not, both in and out of DC, though the sources pretty clearly indicate that the theory centers around Comet Ping Pong. I think it's impossible not to mention Comet Ping Pong in the lead section, and perhaps we should also say that the theories have spread to a number of other restaurants in DC, New York, and Austin, Texas. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the line of "originated with allegations against Comet Ping Pong".Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Comet Ping Pong is more than how it originated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
And that would not be the whole of the lead, just an insertion in the appropriate place.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Then I guess it depends on whatever edit you're proposing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

  1. PizzaGate is real. You are not. 152.179.71.62 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
What is your proposed edit, you seem to have forgotten to mention it?Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Bentonville, but you need to actually propose an improvement to the article. This is not a forum to discuss Pizzagate in general. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not supported by reliable sources, nor even specific enough if it were. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Multiple debunkers.

I think removing "and others" is not helpful. It would be burdensome to the page to put in all these cites.

"nutty" http://observer.com/2016/12/pizzagate-recalls-the-debunked-child-sex-rings-of-the-80s-and-90s/

"debunked" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/23/fearing-yet-another-witch-hunt-reddit-bans-pizzagate/

"debunked" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-us-election-intervene-hacks-cyberattacks-dnc-podesta-emails-leak-help-victory-a7466986.html

"dangerous conspiracy theory" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security-monica-crowley_us_58542a74e4b08debb788afc4

"debunked" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist-appeals-trump-aid-o/

"A false story" http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fake-news-guide-2016-story.html

"fake story" https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&espv=2&biw=1164&bih=768&tbm=nws&q=pizzagate+debunked+%2B+BBC&oq=pizzagate+debunked+%2B+BBC&gs_l=serp.3...20802.22290.0.22529.6.6.0.0.0.0.210.779.2j3j1.6.0....0...1.1.64.serp..0.0.0.SwdYld1TP6s

And this is not all of them

I think giving a couple of examples and then saying "as well as others" does rather cover the reality rather well.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I end to think quite the opposite. I wouldn't be opposed to a table for it. It would probably help illustrate just how widely discredited it is. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with Timothyjosephwood here. "And others" is too weasely; if all the others need to be mentioned, a table should be included to accommodate. HelgaStick (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Ditto the above, except I don't think a table is the best way. I think the section needs an introductory sentence followed by a paragraph of nothing but "X said it's bullshit" sentences, something like:

The story has been widely discredited and debunked. Snopes.com and the Washington Post called it "False". The Observer referred to it as "nutty". The Huffington Post labelled it a "...dangerous conspiracy theory". The LA Times said it was "a false story".

And so on, in that vein. I think some better wordplay than I used might be in order, but you get the idea. Alternatively to that admittedly-horrible prose, we could do a bulleted list. I think that would smooth over any awkwardness in the language. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Wut about...a table in the footnotes! OH BOY I LOVE FOOTNOTES TimothyJosephWood 18:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, we're probably going to get WP:QUOTEFARM hurled at us if we're not careful. Maybe a bulleted list, but just of periodicals, each with its accompanying citation. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
That was what I was thinking of when I asked this (could not remember what it was called). I am also sure there is one about over use of citations.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:OVERCITE Objective3000 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:OVERCITE is good advice 90% of the time, but at the end of the day it is still just an essay, and I think this would be a good WP:IAR situation even if it weren't. Central to the whole story of Pizzagate is not simply that it's false, but that it's easily and demonstrably false, and from its inception was based on not just complete nothing, but overwhelming evidence to the contrary, rather than simply the run-of-the-mill absence of confirming evidence. Part of this story of the story is the wide spread unanimous rejection by the press. So...the overcite is part of the story. TimothyJosephWood 20:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree. I saw the edit on your talk insisting that it has not been debunked. Objective3000 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that may make it into my museum one day. Haven't quite decided yet. TimothyJosephWood 20:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Table

Something like this:

Periodical Description Source
The Observer "a nutty conspiracy theory about a child sex ring run from a Washington, D.C., pizzeria" [1]
The Washington Post "“Pizzagate” has yet to produce any actual evidence for its extremely weighty and life-ruining accusations" [2]

TimothyJosephWood 18:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Young, Cathy (9 December 2016). "'Pizzagate' Recalls the Debunked Child Sex Rings of the '80s and '90s". The Observer. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
  2. ^ Ohlheiser, Abby (24 November 2016). "Fearing yet another witch hunt, Reddit bans 'Pizzagate'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 December 2016.

Multiple bunk

I don't have time to do it right now, but we really should include the details from the NYT piece which addresses individual elements of the story. If we're going to tell that it was debunked, we should probably list what the bunk was, and why it was. TimothyJosephWood 21:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

debunked -> widely rejected (NPOV)

Not all credible sources say it is necesarily false, so maybe the first sentence should be changed per WP:NPOV: http://www.inquisitr.com/3766750/pizzagate-conspiracy-theory-or-something-more-sinister-gunman-arrested-at-comet-ping-pong-but-was-this-staged/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3754020/pizzagate-summary-what-is-spirit-cooking-who-is-marina-abramovic-news/ https://aceloewgold.com/2016/11/20/pizzagate-clinton-podesta-what-is-it-and-is-it-credible/

Due to these sources, I think the article should treat pizza gate as widely rejected or debated. I personally believe pizzagate is false by the way, I'm just trying to maintain NPOV on Wikipedia.

I also think the article should be careful in what it labels as fake news and real news. What is considered fake news and how do we objectively dismiss a news source as fake news? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Are these credible sources, what the hell is aceloewgold.com?Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
These are not reliable sources and have no place in an encyclopedia. WP:RS Objective3000 (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
None of those are reliable sources. Please read the reliable sources guideline for help understanding what qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh come on, you can't possibly think those are reliable sources? That's laughable. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please explain why each of these sources is unreliable. According to WP:NPOV viewpoints held by a significant minority should be represented. Personal opinions on the validity of these sources should not outweigh the fact that these beliefs do exist, and not everything has been debunked with high enough certainty for Wikipedia to take a side on this dispute.

You're calling the reliability of these sources laughable? How can you say that when currently Wikipedia cites The Seattle Times as evidence that Pizzagate has been debunked. Don't say Inquisitr is less reliable than The Seattle Times.

Also, none of the cited articles "debunk" pizzagate; they only provide evidence against it's validity. I personally believe the evidence is strong, but it's not Wikipedia's job to evaluate these arguments and take sides, especially when there are siginificant groups of people on both sides of the argument.

What's wrong with saying widely rejected (or even debated)? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Inquisitr is clearly less reliable than The Seattle Times. Using the Inquisitr as a reliable source of news about current events would be the same as using "Answers Research Journal" as a reliable source of information about Earth and Life sciences. The Seattle Times and other mainstream media are definitely not a part of any coverup(s) as many of the proponents of pizzagate mistakenly and blindly believe them to be. It seems like you are beating a dead horse. Paul H. (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
You have it precisely backward; the burden for inclusion of any particular material lies upon the person wishing to include it, and the burden for demonstrating that a WordPress site called "Aceloewgold.com" written by a pseudonymous unidentifiable author meets our reliable sources guidelines lies upon the person wishing to use that source. In both cases, that's you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. Thanks, I overlooked that section. Learned something and found something new to study every day. Merry Christmas everyone. Paul H. (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Reply to IWillBuildTheRoads
It is based upon the policy link ed to, to be used a "news organ" has to have reputation for fact checking and/or poor editorial oversight. Also as nay one can crate a website and publish stuff "some bloke on the internet" is never RS, except about their own statements, as Aceloewgold.com seems to be just just it fails RS totally. inquisitr is more dubious, I am not sure it has been found to fail RS, can some link to that finding if I am wrong).
Yes by the way (see the section above about which news organs say this has been debunked) plenty of RS say it has been debunked.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Typos

There are a couple simple typos in this article that I wanted to correct, but it's locked. Is it worth doing, and if so, what's the best way to go about it? Nosecohn (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Tell people what they are, and those with permission an fix them.Slatersteven (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur. Nosecohn, please tell us what the typos are so users like me can fix them for you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

"The word 'Debunked'. "

That isn't a "typo", it's a fact. Next? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not a typo, all you need to say.Slatersteven (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you want to change any reference to the media to "Lamestream media" too? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Check the article with Ctrl F and find one time 'pizzeria' spelled 'pizzaria' - maybe not completely wrong, but at least not consistent. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed.Slatersteven (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What...

...the actual fuck is going on in this edit? I'm not entirely sure what the intended purpose was. But there is certainly a better way to accomplish it than to revert an entire week's worth of discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the editor in question was attempting to delete the SPA notices I'd added - the reason why, however, totally escapes me. It makes no logical sense and it's difficult to see it as anything more than a disruptive edit. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Also @A Quest For Knowledge:, if you get in the habit of using the rollback function in this way (which is I assume was how this was done), you may not long have it. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggested move / title change

Since a title change can only come about via a move, may I suggest moving this to "Pizzagate hoax" since this has been debunked. A theory can potentially be true, since this has been disproven, it then becomes a hoax. What do you think ? KoshVorlon 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We've already had a discussion about this - there was no consensus. Let's just leave it there for now... Exemplo347 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I checked the archives for the discussion of that before I started this topic. I don't see any discussion about changing the title, I do realize, however, some archives aren't necessarily full and complete , in either case, Consensus can change. KoshVorlon 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@KoshVorlon: I see the problem here. When the move was done, the original talk page archive was not merged into the current one and still exists as a sub-page of the redirected talk. See Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)/Archives/2016/December. I'm not entirely sure (because archive bots hate me) whether it can be manually archived in the correct place without breaking the bot. TimothyJosephWood 13:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@KoshVorlon: - Yes, consensus can change, but the article's name was changed (by moving the article) only 8 days ago after a 14 day long Request for Comment discussion. Are you really suggesting starting another discussion for a page move this soon after the previous one? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I've manually archived the contents of the other page in the correct archive for this one, and requested technical deletion of the old. I suppose at this point we wait to see if that breaks the bot on this page whenever an old thread should unequivocally have already been archived. TimothyJosephWood 17:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely convinced this is a hoax. Hoaxes are deliberate attempts to deceive, and there's no evidence that the purveyors of this 'story' (to use a neutral term for the sake of this discussion) don't actually believe it. There certainly aren't any RSes that I've seen which argue that all the 'believers' are faking it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - it may have been originally fired up by 4chan trolls as a joke but people genuinely do believe in it. It's a shame nobody has been able to come here with a single reliable source from around the world that says there's a single bit of truth in it, but that doesn't make it a clear-cut hoax. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
If it was started as a joke by Trolls, then it is a hoax. Just because some people believe it does not mean it is not a hoax if those who created it did not believe it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

New section

Talk pages are meant for discussions about improvements to the article - they're not a forum for general debate about the content. TimothyJosephWood 22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful to show us exactly how this Pizzagate theory was "debunked". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:90DF:1600:3CE4:11CF:7DB9:C0E5 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We have a section explaining exactly what evidence (beyond unproven assertions) and how is is either false or inaccurate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Why do people keep logging out before they post their comments? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It would be helpful to show us exactly how this Pizzagate theory was "debunked". Like this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Pizza. Italian. Italy. Rome. Latin. Illuminati.
Gate. Fences. Yards. Playground. Children. Humans. Cars. Commuting. Traffic. Human trafficking. TimothyJosephWood 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank god you've explained this. I've been trying to work out why people who work in a Pizza place would be emailing about pizzas - it's been very confusing for me. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Talk pages are meant for discussions about improvements to the article - they're not a forum for general debate about the content."

Slatersteven (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1136374301"