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)

Fair enough; I think it would be better to include this towards the end of the article, rather than at the beginning. And I'm not suggesting that we state in Wikipedia's voice that this is an extension of such scandals, but that it's necessary to note that the links have been made by reputable sources. As for the fact that the whole section is source to blogs and opinion articles, I understand your criticism but these have been published in reliable sources. HelgaStick (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I made the accusation of WP:SYNTH because it is. I am likely to make accusations against you in the future. But then again, you already know this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

On a side note: In case anyone has noticed that the draft looks different, HelgaStick changed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If a reliable source supports something, it's not WP:Original research. If we are adding detail that the reliable sources don't mention, that is, however, the WP:SYNTH aspect of WP:Original research. Furthermore, for cases like this, WP:INTEXT is at times going to be more appropriate than stating a matter in Wikipedia's voice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Unsurprisingly, you haven't actually answered the question. "Because it is" – could you please be more specific on what you this is actually synthesis in this? Where is the information that the reliable sources don't mention that you accuse me of adding, thus violating that aspect of WP:OR? Oh, and please stop saying that you'll make accusations against me in the future, it's not a particularly civil attitude to take. HelgaStick (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly because you're familiar with me and your interpretation of me is as skewed as it's always been? If I have to tell you what WP:Synthesis is, you shouldn't be editing. I will likely make accusations against you in the future; if you have an issue with me stating so, report me. And do stop pinging me; you know I'm watching this article, especially your edits to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and what you want to add is WP:Undue either way. Surely you know that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to tell me what synthesis is, I'm asking you to tell me which of my edits constitute synthesis. You still haven't answered that. All the information I have introduced has been mentioned in the reliable sources, as far as I am aware. If I've introduced anything not included by mistake and accidentally violated WP:SYNTH, I apologise unreservedly. But you haven't given me one iota of evidence for that.

And please stop promoting bizarre conspiracy theories on this talk page, this article is subject to enough pushing of fringe ideas. I know you from a revert you did in one other article and that's it. I was merely asking you to be more civil in your comments – obviously hasn't worked, has it?!

If you think it's undue weight, that's fine, and we can have that discussion here on the talk page and condense the information down – as has been suggested by other editors. But that's an entirely different conversation. HelgaStick (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself. And I'm not interested in your bogus "I only know you from [there]" claims. You should also focus on Bradv's latest comment above regarding your content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: You have claimed this section is synth. You have not pointed out any synth in this. Given the nature of your other remarks to Helga, I suspect you are opposing it simply because she(?) wrote it, which is -quite frankly- some bullshit that needs to go. If you have actual concerns about synthesis, then please explain them. Your refusal to do so thus far has only undermined your credibility. At this point, I would be surprised (pleasantly, but still) if you were actually able to provide a rationale for your complaints.

@DrFleischman: Would you be alright with a version that was trimmed down to, say, a three sentence paragraph, outlining the commonalities between the various sources who have made the comparison? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, your above characterizations are off the mark. Well, except for the fact that, as many at this site know, I do not entertain or support additions by editors I strongly believe to be past disruptive editors who have returned under a fresh account, which is not a bullshit reason to oppose at all. Since I cannot yet prove the "past disruptive editor" matter in this case at this point in time, I have not directly made the accusation. When it comes to the content at hand, I oppose for the same reasons that Bradv opposes, except for his interpretation of stating things in Wikipedia's voice. Stating things in Wikipedia's voice is not WP:Original research if the text is supported by reliable sources. In this case, stating things in Wikipedia's voice is a concern per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:INTEXT.

And, again, there is no need to ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If an objection to any edit is not based upon policy then it is invalid. A edit should never be opposed based upon who makes it, for whatever reason you think is justified.Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. And I did object based on policy. Two, to be exact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You also have no evidence to claim that I am this hypothetical disruptive editor. Please stop with these personal attacks. HelgaStick (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. The bulk of your content will not be going in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So... When you said it was SYNTH, you were lying? Mistaken? You're not making any sense. I asked you why you said it was SYNTH, you replied essentially that it's synth because it's undue, which is facetious in the extreme. Either you've changed your mind or you were being dishonest then or now. If you've changed your mind, you need to say so to be clear. If your current concern really is UNDUE, then please explain what claims stated in wikivoice in the above proposal you have a problem with. Going through sentence by sentence, I can't see any claims of fact in Wikivoice that aren't supported by the sources sufficiently to eschew attribution.

MjolnirPants, your above characterizations are off the mark. Well, except for the fact that, as many at this site know, I do not entertain or support additions by editors I strongly believe to be past disruptive editors who have returned under a fresh account, which is not a bullshit reason to oppose at all. Simply stating the same thing I alleged in a different way doesn't change my mind about it being some bullshit. Editors who elect to go for a clean start are actively trying to change their ways. For you to hold their past editing behavior against them without evidence of continued bad behavior is some petty bullshit. I suggest that in all your interactions with Helga, you refrain from making comments about her past editing unless you have very good reason to do so, and are in a forum where commenting on other editors is not frowned upon, such as WP:AE or WP:ANI. If your concerns about her behavior are justified, following her around making accusations is only going to make it more difficult for you to get sanctions applied when you eventually go to ANI or AE about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So when Bradv and I called the material WP:SYNTH, you concluded that it's not? In what way? Did you look at all of the material and all of the sources for it like I did? As for WP:UNDUE, the original material was undue weight because of how big it was. I didn't object because of anything stated in Wikipedia's voice. As for WP:Clean start, it is a policy, one I take very seriously, and it's very clear that the past account should not have any sanctions against it when starting a supposed clean start, and it's clear about what an actual clean start is. As for my style of identifying editors as non-new, it usually works for rather than against me. In fact, once brought up at WP:AN or WP:ANI, the non-new account is often identified as a sock. I will, however, take your advice regarding this editor for now, since it seems I'm in the presence of editors who are unfamiliar with one of the core things I do at this site. And my advice to you is to not assume that HelgaStick is female. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That includes allowing them to make editsSlatersteven (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake I took you to say earlier that you would prevent the bulk of their edits, based upon the assumption they were block evading, is that incorrect?Slatersteven (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The bulk of the edits won't be added to the article because of the valid objections of three editors so far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood, my apologies.Slatersteven (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So when Bradv and I called the material WP:SYNTH, you concluded that it's not? In what way? By reading the proposed text and the sources, and noticing that there are no claims made which aren't explicitly in the sources, with the possible exception of the claim that "many sources" have drawn the connection. However, whether this qualifies as synth given the fact that it is supported by the number of sources cited is an open question.

Did you look at all of the material and all of the sources for it like I did? I suspect I looked quite a bit closer, given your complete lack of evidence to back up your claims of SYNTH. I would like to point out that at this point, I've done more to evince your point than you have, despite the extremely weak support the example I just gave constitutes.

As for my style of identifying editors as non-new, it usually works for rather than against me. You are literally arguing that you're right because you're right. Which becomes a big problem when you're wrong. You may notice I haven't assumed you were wrong: I assumed you were right and that Helga is indeed a former problematic editor seeking a clean start. I might remind you that WP:AGF is a policy you are clearly flouting right now. If you have evidence, take it to ANI, SPI or AE. Otherwise, drop it before someone like myself, Helga or Slater decides your accusations have become disruptive enough to report you to ANI.

And my advice to you is to not assume that HelgaStick is female. I haven't assumed anything, I've merely chosen a gender based on the only available evidence; their user name.

I know I'm coming across as quite confrontational, and I apologize if I've hurt your feelings in any way. I'm not trying to engender an argument, but rather to push you to back up your objections with something other than raw assertions. You may very well be right: I'm not invested in either this proposed text nor in Helga's good reputation. I don't have a problem admitting I'm wrong about either. But you need to show me how I'm wrong, first. So far, you've only managed to undermine your own credibility here. I suggest you repair that with some substantive discussion about the subject of this proposal. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

When I look at the original material and the wording of the text, I see examples of WP:Synthesis. Maybe we are interpreting the policy differently. As for going into extensive detail about my concerns, I've been clear about how I am when it comes to my suspicions on matters like these. It's a part of my personality that does not change. I absolutely do not like to entertain edits in "returned disruptive editor" cases. To me, it gives validation to the editor in question. I'm not always right when it comes to calling an editor a sock, but I usually am. And I know the price of being wrong. As for WP:AFG, it's a guideline, not a policy, and, in cases like these, it's secondary in my eyes. It is secondary for very good reasons. On Wikipedia, two of the various areas I work in are the pedophilia and child sexual abuse areas. Time and time again, I have to deal with returning disruptive editors in these areas, and it's usually up to me to identify these editors quickly before too much damage is done. That includes making WP:AFG secondary. HelgaStick has taken an interest in these areas and HelgaStick's editing pattern looks eerily similar to two indefinitely blocked editors; I will continue to look the matter over obviously. As for dropping public accusations against HelgaStick or commenting any further on my issue with HelgaStick, I did drop it. You have continued to bring it up, even stating that you "assumed [I was] right and that Helga is indeed a former problematic editor seeking a clean start." The difference is I don't think that HelgaStick is seeking a clean start. I am of the belief that the WP:Clean start policy does not apply to HelgaStick. Either way, I did not mention anything about HelgaStick being a past account until you inquired about my issues with HelgaStick. I wasn't going to lie. Reporting me at WP:ANI for cases like these does not work. But, like I stated, I will take your advice regarding this editor for now. So I suggest you stop talking about it.

As for being quite confrontational, I'm used to that on Wikipedia. And you can't hurt my feelings. As for undermining my credibility, I'll just agree to disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As for undermining my credibility, I'll just agree to disagree. At this point, you can disagree all you want. It won't change the fact that you've convinced me that your concerns here are due entirely to your own suspicions about Helga, and have no basis in policy. To that end, I'm done asking you to back them up, and I'm just dismissing them.

@DrFleischman:, sorry for the duplicate ping, but the last one got buried. When you get the chance, I'd appreciate a response to my question: Would your concerns be ameliorated by reducing the section to a single, three sentence paragraph? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You can dismiss them all you want, but it's quite clear from the "too much text" objections that the majority of HelgaStick's original addition won't be sticking. Regardless of your "there is no synthesis" claim, I made a WP:Undue weight argument as well, and it's clear that others support it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OK can we get away from discussion about EVilHelga (I might create a new account in that name I rather like it) and just address the material?

So put your objections to the material here, just the material.

What I object to

Too long, I think it needs to just be one ow two sentences with a link to the main article.Slatersteven (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How about this? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Background (2nd draft)

See also: Satanic ritual abuse

Claims regarding the Pizzagate conspiracy theory have been linked to earlier paranoia regarding unfounded allegations of Satanic ritual abuse or child day-care abuse. 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. Additional 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.

References

I would only say that the first sentence is written from the perspective of someone who has already read the article...i.e., "many of the claims", which presumably the author is already familiar with, but which instead, should assume relative ignorance on the part of the reader, and be written is such a way. TimothyJosephWood 23:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

MjonirPants, your proposal is an improvement, but I think it could be shortened even further to a single sentence about how some of the claims echoed previously discredited conspiracy theories about ritual satanic abuse. We already have the article False allegation of child sexual abuse; that's where expanded material of this nature belongs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, not too big of an expansion at that article. Per WP:Summary style, if a topic already has its own article, we summarize in the secondary article and leave the main article to cover the extensive material. But, yeah, appropriate content can go in the Satanic ritual abuse article, the Day-care sex-abuse hysteria article and/or the False allegation of child sexual abuse article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, I see a problem with your suggestion in that we're telling the reader "By the way, people have drawn connections between this and something else," without telling them what connections have been drawn. I'm not opposed to being terse here, but that strikes me as very unencyclopedic. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood I modified the draft from "Many of the claims regarding..." to "Claims regarding..." Tell me what you think. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Background (3d draft)

See also: Satanic ritual abuse

Pizzagate conspiracy theorists followed in a tradition of allegations stretching back some 30 years. They echoed previously unfounded, and otherwise unconnected rumors of Satanic ritual abuse, most famously in the child day-care abuse hysteria of the 1980s. Pizzagate proponents circulated a 1989 segment of 60 Minutes, regarding supposed abuse, with which they included references to Pizzagate in order to "raise awareness", despite the fact that, according to Snopes.com, "Investigations have produced no bodies, no bones, no bloodstains, nothing." Allegations by Edgar Welch of subterranean torture tunnels similarly echoed allegations of abuse at the McMartin preschool in the 1980s, investigations of which, according to Esquire, produced "no corroborating evidence," although it "made great TV."

Notes

References

Ok. Did a bit of a rewrite. It is admittedly about a dozen words longer (not counting the footnote), but in the interest of making sure we WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV regarding exactly why the original allegations are being reported here as basically false, without simply saying so in WP's voice, which as we've plenty seen, is likely to lead only to a barrage of comments here about how biased we all are. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

One question, how did a 1989 TV documentation mention Pizzagate?

Also I think rather more then just Esquire poopoed the McMartin preschool trial.Slatersteven (talk)

And again Snoppes is not the only people saying there is no evidence for Pizzagate.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the source, references to Pizzagate were added in the version uploaded to YouTube. As to whether it is rather more or rather less, that's the source we have which discusses both McMartin and Pizzagate in relation to one another, so that's the one that the statement is attributed to. \

And again Snoppes is not the only people saying there is no evidence for Pizzagate. ...Ok?... TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You do not say "references to Pizzagate were added in the version uploaded to YouTube", as it reads it sounds like the references were in the 60 minute spot from the start.

This is also my objection to the rest of the stuff I mentioned, it reads like these are the only people claiming Pizzagate lacks evidence, as to only one source linking pizzagate to the martin trial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3].Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed to "with which they included", to avoid ambiguity. And...I think you need to read a bit more carefully, because the proposed draft says exactly nothing about whether Pizzagate lacks evidence. The section is about similar claims made by others which also turned out to be untrue. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but it implies only one source has said it lacks evidence. Also I did not say anything about the proposed draft saying it lacked evidence what I said was "it reads like these are the only people claiming Pizzagate lacks evidence"Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As to your sources, the first appears to be a blog, the second mentions McMartin exactly zero times, and the third mentions it only a single time in passing. Doing a web search and dumping whatever you find without reading them...doesn't actually contribute at all to the conversation. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And for the it reads like these are the only people claiming Pizzagate lacks evidence, again, the draft says nothing about the allegations in Pizzagate lacking evidence. Is says that Pizzagate echoes previous similar allegations, and those allegations were unfounded. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My second source

"In the 1980s and 1990s, a wave of notorious cases involving allegations of ritual child sex abuse rings in day care centers swept the country. In California, the infamous McMartin Preschool case "

Reads like a reference to McMartin Preschool case to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As to your second point, what has that to do with what I said?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah. It was under the fold. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've read this one, and I'm still thinking the second draft (by me, but I swear that's just a coincidence ;) ) is the best. I'm not worried about attribution of the claims because the claims are well-supported by virtually every source used in this article, and the attention on this page has died down somewhat. DrFleischman's concerns are (hopefully) addressed by the second draft, and those are the concerns that bear the most weight, from where I sit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, not addressed. I understand your desire to describe the similarities between Pizzagate and the allegations in previous cases, but I think they're a distraction. If readers want to understand these similarities they can click through to False allegation of child sexual abuse and read about them there. But I'm just sharing my opinion. If consensus is against me then I won't press the issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not understanding how relevant information about the subject is a "distraction". A distraction from what? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Background alternative suggestion

See also: Satanic ritual abuse

Pizzagate conspiracy theorists followed in a tradition of allegations stretching back some 30 years of allegations of child sex abuse scares. They echoed previously unfounded, and otherwise unconnected rumors of Satanic ritual abuse, most famously in the child day-care abuse hysteria of the 1980s. Recycling many of the accusations.

References

Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So we've swung from not mentioning the preschool enough to not mentioning it at all? TimothyJosephWood 15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Did I say it was not mentioned enough, or that we did not link to enough sources?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't specify what connections have been made. It's just begging for a tag. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we link to the main article. I really do not believe we need to do more then just point out the comparison has been made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the Satanic ritual abuse article are the pizzagate connections made clear? I see a "see also" link, but again: that just says there's a connection, not what the connections are. The same goes for the daycare panic (which isn't nearly as closely connected as the SRA phenomenon). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I maybe over doing the idea we allow readers to make up their own minds.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing sources ensures that information is verifiable, but doesn't remove the need to actually include the information. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have some minor quibbles over word choice, but I'm okay with the level of detail. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Second suggestion

Pizzagate conspiracy theorists followed with a repetition of allegations stretching back some 30 years of allegations of child sex abuse scares. They echoed previously unfounded, and otherwise unconnected rumors of Satanic ritual abuse, most famously in the child day-care abuse hysteria of the 1980s. Recycling many of the accusations such as the existence of tunnels and reusing the video confession of an alleged victim (and linking her claims to Pizzagate)

(sans refs and links for brevity)

Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's better, but not quite ideal. I'm not advocating going into detail, but when it comes to claims of fact, we don't let the reader make up their own minds: we give them the facts. If we're going to say "there's a connection between these two things," we need to give at least a minimum of information about what those connections are. If we're going to leave the presentation of facts to the sources, then why do we have an article anyways? Why not just a list of sources? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Rather wordy and awkward. I think it would confuse some readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 17 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)

Ah, gotcha. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 17 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)

Is it really debunked? (weasel words)

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.

---

"looking through the first paragraph, there are several words that can be considered weasel words, for example, calling the theory debunked (when it cannot possibly be fully debunked yet, as there have been no public investigations yet, and investigations by online communities are ongoing. inclusion of multiple "fact check" or debunking articles is perfectly reasonable, but using "debunked" in the opening sentence is essentially personal opinion), using words such as allegedly fills the criteria for weasel words, i suggest using more neutral words, such as "the theory asserts that...". In addition, when it says "a fabricated child-sex ring" not only does this not make sense (implying the theory asserts that the child sex ring is fabricated), but it is also claiming absolutes (that the theory is 100% debunked) which have not been proven.

again, i am currently reading through the articles, and i am seeing the same stuff. for example this:

The story was picked up by fake news websites such as Infowars.com, Planet Free Will and the Vigilant Citizen

calling these websites all fake news is again, personal opinion and should not be written as if it were fact. this line is sourced to this article, which is a shabby collections of websites, with minimal detail. This source is mediocre at best, it is effectively an opinion based article (while claiming it is fact in this wikipedia page) as CBS news is in no way an authoritative figure for determining whether a news website reports ONLY on fabricated stories. Instead something more neutral and balanced, like this, should be used:

"The story was picked up by news websites such as Infowars.com, Planet Free Will and the Vigilant Citizen, however these have been considered fake news websites by CBS news"

i would like to point out too, that these websites are not the only ones picking up the pizzagate story (without blatantly attacking it), in fact CBS affiliate CBS46 ran a report on pizzagate too

References

In accordance with the five pillars of wikipedia, i think this article should be neutral. i am not trying to push any particular narrative, however it needs quite a few changes to be properly neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorJimmu (talk • contribs)

• The local CBS report in question is by Ben Swann, who claimed that Sandy Hook had more than one shooter. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't understand that Infowars is fake news, you lack the competence to adequately make judgements regarding this article and should edit other topics instead. Citing an additional source by an anti-vaxxer does not help at all. You may say that you're not trying to push for any particular narrative, but your attempt to create artificial balance between mainstream sources and conspiracy theorists (which is not the same as neutrally summarizing mainstream sources) has the same effect as trying to push for the conspiracy theorists. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

ok there are a number of things wrong with what you are trying to say. First of all, you are essentially just writing that as a personal attack, which as you should know (there is a big note on the top of this page) is against policy. By your comment, it is obvious that you do not care for debate (going for personal attacks rather than pointing out actual problems with what i was saying), and usually i won't bother trying, as usually i find people who do not care for debate, cant actually debate. but for the sake of wikipedia i will try to explain.

Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory, right? should some of the sources for this conspiracy theory not come from conspiracy theorists? it doesnt seem so strange to me that an article about a conspiracy theory shouldnt just include articles from large media companies, but also things from the actual proponents of the theory. Take a look at that references page and tell me how many are from mainstream media articles, and tell me how many are sourced to actual websites that are proponents of the theory. You seem to completely lack perspective on what is trying to be done here, you seem to think i am creating artificial balance, but you do not understand that there are already too many mainstream sources compared to actual conspiracy theory proponent sources. The data is even available on the page at the moment, almost 10% of voters in the US believe the theory, yet this page has close to 100% anti-pizzagate theory sources. In addition, none of the sources that i have checked (about 1/5 of the references, the most important ones) have presented the full story (as i know it), often leaving out critical parts that make the theories that much more plausible (for example the time article which is supposed to be "all you should know about pizzagate" which tells nothing about what the theory actually is and why it exists, or the reasons people believe it). but at the end of the day i am not going to force you to change your views, i just hope that our wikipedia article gets a little bit of perspective from the other side. EmperorJimmu (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that is clearly against the policies Ian.thomson has just listed for you. If you do not like those policies then get them changed and stop pushing your view of how this article should be written until you are familiar with them. In the meantime, I will summarize the problem with your approach: Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports the findings of reliable sources such as in this case mainstream newspapers, which are secondary sources. The journalists who work for them do read what conspiracy theorists have to say and they make a determination on their validity. TFD (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

ok this is a better post than Ian's one, but i still have some questions.

No, that is clearly against the policies Ian.thomson has just listed for you.

Elaborate please, i read this but found nothing that ruled out what i proposed, infact, it said "it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic" which to me sounds like its for what i proposed. In fact, the example shown in the section, which was the Flat Earth society article, seemed to be less one-sided than this. i certainly am failing to see any breach of policy with my proposal

Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports the findings of reliable sources such as in this case mainstream newspapers, which are secondary sources.

What defines a reliable source? in the case of pizzagate, you could say the proponents of the pizzagate theory are the most reliable source for information about the theory, its beginnings, what it entails etc. I think i get what you are saying with the conspiracy theorists being kind of primary sources, but there are a range of secondary sources that aren't blatantly attacking the theory (often without proper reasoning), and in the end all i want is a more diverse range of opinions described in this article. EmperorJimmu (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) InfoWars is fake news, period. There are admins who are willing to block on sight anyone who seriously cites that garbage. If you think that's personal opinion, you do not need to be editing the article. Users who do not understand that are we have the sanctions on this article.^{[unintelligible]} Articles about conspiracy theories (or any other fringe topics) do not need to cite conspiracy theorists, it is sufficient to cite mainstream academic and/or journalistic sources description of those ideas. Over a third of American voters think that global warming is a hoax and about half don't understand evolution is a scientific fact -- what the American public believes has no bearing on reality. It is ironic that you complain about this article's sources being "opinion" just before you cite (hypothetical) opinion polls. Your contention that the sources aren't presenting the full story and are "leaving out critical parts that make the theories that much more plausible," in light of you not knowing that InfoWars is fake news, rather clearly marks you as yet another conspiracy theorist who's only pretending to not be here to POV-push. There is nothing plausible about Pizzagate except to conspiracy theorists who confuse fantasy with plausibility. And per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, our articles do not need to give a rat's ass about the "other side" if it is sheer tinfoil haberdashery. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

this is exactly the kind of thing i expected from you, sadly. oh well, ill go over it again for you.

It is ironic that you complain about this article's sources being "opinion" just before you cite (hypothetical) opinion polls.

This is blatantly not ironic at all, what kind of mental gymnastics did you have to do to come to a conclusion like that? I honestly doubt the mental integrity of someone who thinks having a problem with opinions being represented as fact is the same as using an opinion poll to demonstrate the amount of people holding a particular view. by the way what do you mean by hypothetical opinion polls? the poll i was referencing was and still is very real.

not knowing that InfoWars is fake news

What do you not understand about something being "up for debate"? A lot, i'm guessing, considering you have yet again, refuted literally nothing of what I said, and focused on what you believe to be the "crazy dumb uneducated evil bigots" that consider this theory plausible. oh and by the way, i do KNOW that your people hear and believe about all this fake news bullshit, i just have reason to believe otherwise.

in light of you not knowing that InfoWars is fake news, rather clearly marks you as yet another conspiracy theorist who's only pretending to not be here to POV-push.

im not here to push any point of view, hell, i don't even believe a lot of the theory, i just want fair representation for the people on all sides of this article, and any article for that matter.

There is nothing plausible about Pizzagate except to conspiracy theorists who confuse fantasy with plausibility.

Again, its another personal attack! Plus, there are many plausible things about pizzagate, but only if you know the definition of plausible. For instance, if you actually look through the emails, it is very possible that there may be a code used in the emails, for example, the wording is used in very strange/awkward ways and things are said at unconventional times. i can get you some links/sources, but i am guessing you will reject them because they aren't huffington post approved however.

(Redacted) You are only scratching the surface, but you already speak like you are an expert, news flash: you're not, and you are just making yourself look silly. EmperorJimmu (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This encyclopedia talk page is designed for discussing improvements to the article, not your personal opinions about living people, nor your personal interpretations of what you think things mean. I have redacted such discussion from your post, because it's prohibited by the biographies of living persons policy and compliance is not optional. All Wikipedia articles must be based upon reliable sources. InfoWars is categorically not a reliable source, and will never be one. Either discuss things which are reported in independent reliable sources or it's time for you to find some other article to edit. That's the bottom line here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

So, you admit you're a conspiracy theorist? Then go to Infogalactic instead of wasting your and everyone else's time here. Wikipedia does not use original research, Wikipedia does not support conspiracy theories, Wikipedia uses mainstream sources and rejects InfoWars as a fake news site. It is not "up for debate," you are wrong. Find a different topic or go away -- those are your choices. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What someone says outside their reporting in reliable sources is irrelevant to whether their reporting in reliable sources is reliable. Lots of reporters have crazy ideas, but they are supervised when they report news. "Debunked" is not weasel-wording because the implication is that no reliable source would consider the story genuine, which is the case. I don't like using the term "fake news site," because it is a term of recent coinage and not clearly defined. These sites of course disseminate fake news, so it is not just that a CBS affiliate has drawn that conclusion. Anyway, no reasonable person would believe a story that had been presented by a person with no credibility providing no evidence. TFD (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

EmperorJimmu, the issues you raise have been discussed ad nauseum on this page, and there has been a pretty solid consensus not to adopt the types of changes you are suggesting. I'd suggest you read our policies on consensus and verifiability and especially our guideline for identifying reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Well try looking at the section we have on what has been debunked (pretty much everything). If I go to the police and say "I know that X does Y because he once said "I do Z" and Z means X" they are not going to investigate. Thus we are left with using the (limited) investigations of the media (such as looking at where a photograph was taken) and using their analysis. Now until someone offers an explanation as to why every piece of "evidence" that has been checked has been shown to be false or misrepresented we do not need to challenge (or have any reason to) those conclusions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2017 (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.

Archives

Can someone who is technologically gifted fix the archive issue? There are no links to the December and January pages. APK whisper in my ear 09:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to prevent future talk page disruption

We've had and will continue to have a bunch of civil-POV-pushing WP:SPAs come through trying to support the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Looking through the archives, I suggest that if someone does two of the three:

• contests that Pizzagate is debunked
• argues that InfoWars, Voat posts, or their interpretation of documents from Wikileaks are not illegitimate
• argues against the legitimacy of mainstream news sources

-- we just revert the post, instruct them to read the archives and warn them against reposting, and maybe even block them if they keep it up.

The reason I say "two out of three" is that it is entirely possible that someone might come along completely ignorant of the situation or the sources involved and ask if it really is debunked. Someone might also come along understanding the InfoWars is bullshit, but poorly phrases an argument that "fake news" better describes less harmful sites like The Onion. Someone might also contest mainstream sources in the article out of a sincere desire for us to use the highest quality sources to affirm that Pizzagate is debunked and do a poor job of phrasing it. That is why each point individually is not especially useful, but two out of three should be enough to shut down most of the SPAs I've seen here (while all three traits would still let most of the troublemakers in). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Would a FAQ at the top of this page be helpful? APK whisper in my ear 11:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That's another possibility, and it's an "and/or" one IMO. A FAQ would justify a single response of "see FAQ," and then treating further argument as disruption. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I oppose any removal of any talk page comments made in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It should be trivial to refute any of these points based on information provided in the article and previous discussions on this talk page. We don't ban questions simply because we don't like providing answers. We also don't remove other people's talk page comments—that is unnecessarily hostile, and not allowed. Bradv 17:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)