Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Links to Satanic ritual abuse and daycare sex hysteria

I can see that the McMartin preschool trial is mentioned in the "See also" section on this article, but I think a section linking Pizzagate to Satanic ritual abuse and the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the past. Useful sources:

• Pierce, Charles P. (December 5, 2016). "America Was Always a Nation of Conspiracy Theorists. Now, They're Simply More Dangerous". Esquire.
• Beck, Richard (December 6, 2016). "A Moral Panic for the Age of Trump". Slate.
• Williamson, Kevin D. (December 6, 2016). "Which Fake News?". National Review.
• Wilkinson, Francis (December 7, 2016). "Behind the Venomous Witches of 'Pizzagate'". Bloomberg View.
• Lancaster, Roger (December 8, 2016). "What the Pizzagate conspiracy theory borrows from a bogus satanic sex panic of the 1980s". Washington Post.
• Young, Cathy (December 9, 2016). "'Pizzagate' Recalls the Debunked Child Sex Rings of the '80s and '90s". New York Observer.
• Evon, Dan (December 13, 2016). "Satan's Children". Snopes.

Obviously, issues of NPOV have to be considered. But this seems necessary to include, for context. HelgaStick (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

there is an archived discussion about this, as I also raised this question.10:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If I get the chance, I'll write up a draft section later today. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw the archived version. I've added this to the article: please feel free to trim, edit, reword etc. as per usual :D HelgaStick (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bradv: Regarding this: here is the discussion I was talking about. See also archived discussions on the topic (although bear in mind that not as much was written about the connections then, and the story had less prominence than now). HelgaStick (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with the addition, but I think the writing of the section might need some work to make it more focused on being background to this case. Also, it should appear in a "Background" section. I'll make that edit, myself right now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is off-topic, poorly sourced synthesis. A history of sexual abuse in the United States does not belong at the top of this article. This is about the bogus conspiracy theory, not people's appetite to accept conspiracy theories related to sexual abuse. Perhaps there is a quote or sentence from that section that could be useful later on in the article, but it doesn't belong here. Bradv 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There might be some synth in the section as written. I do seem to recall one of the sources linking this case to the SRA panic in the 80's and 90's, but I can't recall which one. HelgaStick, let's bring the section over here as a draft first, and see if we can't address Bradv's concerns, for now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all synthesis was done by the reliable sources which I mentioned above. All of them link Pizzagate to the SRA panic, but some go into more detail than others. HelgaStick (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bradv, I'd be very grateful if you could tell me what you think to be synthesis on my part here. I'm not meaning to sound combative here, I just don't understand what in particular you are referring to. HelgaStick (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Background (draft)

Many of the claims regarding the Pizzagate conspiracy theory have been linked to earlier paranoia regarding unfounded allegations of Satanic ritual abuse, child day-care abuse. In the 1980s alone, nearly 100 people (mostly child care workers) in the US were wrongly convicted of sexually abusing children, and many more falsely accused or charged. A segment featuring an alleged survivor of ritual abuse from a 1989 episode of 60 Minutes was widely circulated on social media in December 2016 in relation to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.

Allegations made by Edgar Welch regarding secret underground torture tunnels seemed to repeat discredited allegations surrounding the McMartin preschool in the 1980s, where teachers at that school were wrongly accused of abusing 400 children in secret tunnels. Kevin D. Williamson also made connections to "the Little Rascals Day Care case, in which a cook at the daycare was accused, along with the married couple who ran the place, of ritualistically abusing children in their care in horrifying ways related to sundry Satanic enthusiasms." However, whilst advocates of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory remain fringe, these earlier accusations achieved mainstream support.

Recent sexual abuse scandals such as the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases have also allegedly made individuals more willing to accept the claims of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, due to a moral panic over institutionalised sexual abuse of children, according to Richard Beck of Slate. Roger Lancaster also notes in The Washington Post that the allegations of the 1980s also had a big cultural impact in the US, thus making some more likely to accept the claims of Pizzagate.

References

I think most or all of this content is out of scope. Sure it appeared in sources discussing Pizzagate's historical and social context, but that doesn't mean we should use it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is WP:Synthesis and WP:Undue. Does not belong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Please, tell me where I have synthesised material. As for undue, I can see where you're coming from and I wouldn't oppose the section being cut down. HelgaStick (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with HelgaStick in that I don't see anything in it which is synth. Nor do I see it as undue; it is discussed extensively in reliable sources which are primarily about Pizzagate. Those sources draw parallels and connections to Satanic ritual abuse, and use this to contextualize the conspiracy theory. It serves the same purpose here.

From where I sit, it looks fine. If you can explain why you think it's undue, or point out what claims you believe to be synth, we can discuss that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's either, but I think it's out of scope. While I can see it going either way this is an encyclopedia, not a sociology journal, and I don't think this kind of deep background is ideal as a matter of editorial discretion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think all we need is one sentence saying the link has been made then a link to the main article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Flyer22 Reborn: and @Bradv: These users have both made unqualified accusations of synthesis on my part and are therefore relevant to this discussion. HelgaStick (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

My first concern is that the entire section is sourced to blogs and opinion articles. My second concern is that the whole subject is off-topic for this article, specifically at the top. If it is necessary to mention this in order to provide a complete overview, let's do it towards the end of the article, and let's do it only as a brief quote or mention. We cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that this is an extension of Satanic ritualism in the 80s or that this is an extension of the Catholic sex abuse scandals — that is original research. Bradv 17:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to Breitbart?

Some sources attribute this conspiracy theory to Breitbart News: https://trofire.com/2016/12/06/breitbarts-pizzagate-conspiracy-fake-news-inspires-real-violence/ http://www.juancole.com/2016/12/terrorism-strategist-conspiracy.html apparently in particular because of this "pizza related" Tweet: https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552 - just came about these articles when searching for "Breitbart fake news".

Anything more substantial? Or is this just a conspiracy theory that Breitbart did it? :-) HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what The Ring of Fire Network is, but it looks disreputable on it's face... some weekly Florida talk radio show that started their own site. Seems likely that the fact that apparently you will rarely find their stories from any other source is a good indication we probably shouldn't be relying on them. Besides, the piece reads like a bad blog. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Double negatives

I'm concerned about double negatives making text confusing. "Pizzagate is a discredited conspiracy theory falsely alleging X" is awkward and unclear. There is no doubt whatsoever that PG is a discredited conspiracy theory. There is also no doubt that the conspiracy theory is alleging X regardless of whether or not the theory has any merit to it whatsoever. While we need to make certain the reader understands the theory has no merit, it is possible to go overboard and mumble the message. Thoughts?--That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's really a double negative. I do agree that the "falsely" in that sentence seems redundant. I'll have a quick tweak of that. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the first negative refers to the theory, the second to the specific allegation. It's not a double negative. Still, removing the word "falsely" improves the readability of the sentence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dont use facts against me :p

Thanks. Looks better. I know people get invested in making sure certain articles are unambiguous, but sometimes overzealousness makes it hard to tell the forest from the trees.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Police sketch

User:DrFleischman, the cited source is in regard to the sketch being done by a married couple who saw a single suspect. The source for the connection to the conspiracy theory is the NYT piece that takes up half a page worth of debunking where the image was placed. The NYT source also includes the image. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand the thought process, but it took me a good 10 minutes to puzzle it through. Maybe using the NY Times image (which is actually a bit different) and citing to the NY Times article would make it clearer. Even then, I wonder if these sketches are really necessary to explain the theory, and if they unnecessarily fan the flames. One might argue that the inclusion of the sketches in this context is a BLP violation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing the NYT is fine, and if you want to do the research on where the NYT image came from, whether the images of the Podestas that are contained within it are copyrighted themselves (I'll bet they are), and try to work out a fair use rationale, then be my guest. Or, we could just use the one that is a product of a government agency, and already properly licensed for use.

My original intent was to make a mashup picture, but gave up faced with reconciling three different images with two difference licenses, one of which was from flickr, so good luck on that being correct in the first place, and another of which is a derivative work of another picture that came from flickr.

Beyond that, using this picture and explaining what it is in context is not a BLP violation at all. It's actually exactly the opposite because it explains why the theory in this respect is nonsense. Using the NYT image which actually does imply that it is them on the other hand probably is. TimothyJosephWood 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have next to zero experience with Wikipedia's image licensing requirements and it's something I've been trying to avoid for years, so I'm going to decline your suggestion. :-) Perhaps there's another source that whose image we can use, and that explains its connection to Pizzagate? If not perhaps we should use no image? I was just extremely confused by both the caption and the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theory. There are no suspects or victims of an invented crime, thus no images of them. Objective3000 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No...the suspect in the completely unconnected but actually real disappearance of the girl in Portugal. TimothyJosephWood 21:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but is had nothing to do with the pizza joint pictured and discussed in the article. The juxtaposition causes BLP problems. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The article isn't just about Ping Pong. Ping Pong is one part of the conspiracy theory. It's just the part that's gotten the most attention because someone shot it up. TimothyJosephWood 13:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead doesn't mention how much attention this received.

There are conspiracy theories sprouting all the time. The amount of coverage this one has received is immense should be noted in the lead, as well the speed of which grew. This NYT article is a good source. I would add something myself, but I guess I don't have enough edits.--That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We have to keep the lead concise - it already indicates the wide range of sources that have covered it. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Both of you make good points. I've made what I feel to be the best possible edit to address this. I hope the edit annoys you both, because that means it's a great compromise. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Works really well for me! I'll try to be more annoyed in the future. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Damnit! You'd better :| MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we have sources explicitly talking about how much media attention Pizzagate has received? I don't know if they're necessary, but they would be helpful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any sources which are about the attention primarily, but there are a lot of sources that support the claim it's gotten a lot of attention. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And there are sources which talk about the speed in which it spread. Most conspiracy theories don't get such exposure -- despite the theorists desire to "red pill" everyone. They need to know the Truth.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we're not in the business of disseminating Truth, just verifiable information. But if there are sources about the speed of the spread, then by all means we should include them if we haven't already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I was being facetious about the Truth.That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

hijacked hashtag

I don't see any RS discussing the recent hashtag hijack (say that five times fast) that's currently mentioned in the article. This link was removed as a source. If no one objects, I'll remove it. If there's additional coverage, we can re-add it. This is the only recent event that I see being discussed by multiple news organizations. APK whisper in my ear 05:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I removed the info. APK whisper in my ear 09:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

debunked?

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.

---

how is it debunked?

"The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus? They can send it if you want. I know you’re busy, so feel free not to respond if it’s not yours or you don’t want it."

what is this? who sends an email like that? who cares about a handkerchief like that? it seems they hired a few more people to shut the rumors on wiki down as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.244.234 (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Go back over the archives, but to save you the bother. It has been debunked because every single piece of evidence that can be checked has been found to be false, and not one piece of the rest of it (the nudge nudge wink wink speculation about what e-mails really mean) has not been proven to in fact have any secret meaning. As to the rest of your post, it is not for us to speculate or analyse, we report what RS have said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

the devil looks after its own. they wont create a child sex ring and easily have it provable. I've seen the instagram posts, they post #murder #fun and stuff like that and when this popped out, they deleted all those posts. this email i posted here is not normal. it definitely carries some other meaning to it. its not right to enter right into the article with "ITS FALSE FAKE NOT RIGHT!!" while there are a lot of strong doubts. they also have enough money to make almost any claim they dont like debunked. unless they clearly explain what those stupidly suspicious creepy emails are and what they meant when writing those, this wont be debunked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.244.234 (talk • contribs)

Then I suggest you contact the newspapers with your evidence, as I said we do not speculate, we report. Every RS says this is debunked so that is what we say. As to your claim about Instagram, that is OR, and again if you have proof take it to the newspapers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

so you are saying common sense does not have power here, only power has power here? because common sense tells you something abrupt is going on. I told you they have money and people to buy out those newspapers. and media stance is also weird. normally something weird happens and media rushes all over it. now media doesnt care about it and some even keep refuting it and defending as if they have some outcome. some of the websites that talk about it has been shut down. and I dont remember any wikileaks stuff has been proven false.

when the first sentence of this article said "its debunked" I immediately thought those emails were fake, looks like they arent. so instead of saying debunked, maybe try and write "not proven yet" or something like alleged child sex ring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.244.234 (talk • contribs)

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.

Returning to the sketches

So, I got distracted with another project, one which I will promptly return to, but I think using Template:multiple image solves any copyright issues, since the images (and their licenses) are not in fact merged (making them derivative), but are simply presented together.

I'd like to think the caption makes the context abundantly clear in a BLP manner, leaving little or no doubt as to the veracity of the theory.

I would also add that Wikipedia has a hand in this whole thing to start with, since it was literally this exact image taken from Wikipedia that was used to spread the rumors in the first place. So not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but we may have a bit of an overarching moral obligation to flesh this particular part of the theory out with a bit more clarity. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Police sketches (left) used by conspiracy theorists to imply the Podesta brothers (right) were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The original sketches were in fact of a single individual as described by two witness who saw a man while walking together on the night of McCann's disappearance near Praia da Luz in Portugal. The allegations were posted on TruthFeed, prior to being widely refuted by Snopes.com and others including The New York Times. MediaMatters described TruthFeed as a site with a track record of "fabricated information packaged to appear as a legitimate news story", and joined the The Wall Street Journal in calling for Google to remove the site from their ad service, in part due to the spreading of unfounded allegations related to Pizzagate.

References

Unless this is a settled WP guideline, someone needs to look at the copyright issues. "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work." [Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations]. In any case, I still don't think these images should be included. Given the similarities, this looks to be more of a case of wronging great rights. Objective3000 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A gallery does not constitute a derivative work, because it does not alter the image in any way. There are a great many ways that images may be formatted (see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial), but doing so does not affect the original copyright status of the image. Each image retains their original licensing. TimothyJosephWood 15:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Beyond that, this may actually be a situation where WP:CENSOR applies. It is neither claimed nor implied that there was any involvement, and in fact quite the opposite. All (explicitly exonerating) statements are well sourced to RS, and the images are of supreme encyclopedic relevance. That it may make someone uncomfortable is irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 15:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are the images of "supreme encyclopedic relevance"? Surely the relevance is the accusation and then the debunking of the claim, not what the actual pictures looked like?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The sketches are the entirety of the evidence presented for these particular accusations. They are the accusation. Furthermore, they are used, and addressed on multiple comprehensive debunkings that we link to and rely on in the article as well as in the proposed caption. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And we do not have (as far as I can tell) any of the other "evidence" here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would love to have more relevant images, but this one happened to originate from Wikipedia, so it's licensed for use. Nothing else seems to be. I should know, I started the commons category and put everything I could possible find into it. Probably the second most relevant images we have are of the memorial, and WikiProject:DC actually had to walk out to the location to get those. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)