Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Ben Swann short disappearance after reality check

Perhaps we can add a part about his short disappearance after the pizzagate item he did, the removal of his social media and conspiracy theories which arose around it? Source: http://www.inquisitr.com/3951116/ben-swann-erased-from-social-media-after-pizzagate-conspiracy-theory-fact-check/ UshilRasnal (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy site. Objective3000 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Inquisitr is NOT a conspiracy site. UshilRasnal (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ushil, could you please stop pushing these sorts of things, and instead focus on what reliable sources are covering? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is Inquisitr not a reliable source? UshilRasnal (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Inquisitr is an aggregator and will publish anything. The story after that one is: “Jesus Christ Had Bizarre Alien Shape-shifting Abilities: The Judas Iscariot Controversy.” Objective3000 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, and can we use the article written by Rodney Ho from AJC.com? https://archive.is/8oun6

And an article he wrote later about it: http://radiotvtalk.blog.ajc.com/2017/01/27/cbs46s-ben-swann-returning-monday-january-30-after-post-pizzagate-hiatus/ UshilRasnal (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is out of scope. It belongs at Ben Swann, not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is it out of scope? Isn't it directly related to pizzagate and everything around it? UshilRasnal (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No link to Pizzagate has been established. Objective3000 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's only in scope to the extent there has been a massive media coverup that has included CBS46. And the existence of such a coverup is not reliably sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he was embarrassed by his Pizzagate story and laid low. Maybe he had the flu. It is not for us to speculate. We include reliably sourced material. I have seen no reliable source that ties Pizzagate to this supposed "disappearance". Sounds like a conspiracy theory on top of a conspiracy theory. Objective3000 (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a hunch that his bosses said enough is enough and threatened to fire him for promoting harmful, widely-debunked conspiracy theories and alienating half of the station's viewer base, but that's pure speculation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Never heard of the guy. A cursory read looks like it's entirely possible someone said take a week and figure out what you want to be. But, as you say, entirely speculative. For all we know, he just wrote the great American novel. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we could have a wikilink to his page, and then a bit about this there. I am not sure (however) he is notable enough to really be mentioned here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we would want to add links related to every conspiracy theory site/promoter that talked about this. Objective3000 (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you guys seriously saying that you didn't know those little grey aliens set this up as a frame job because James and Hillary refused to introduce them to the Illuminati after they figured out it was actually the CIA who killed JFK? Seriously? Do your reasearch, sheeple. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's already a link to Ben Swann in the "Spread on social media" section. The criteria that I think we should hold to is notability. For example, Ben Swann and Andrew Bogut are both notable individuals. David Seaman is not notable as an individual, but he's become a major proponent of the theory and has gotten some notable coverage for it. ^Falling_Gravity 04:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about statement

Considering the nature of this article I don't understand why some statements like the following one exists:

"Other criticisms of the conspiracy theory came from the New York Observer,[55] The Washington Post,[56] The Independent in London,[57] The Huffington Post,[58] The Washington Times,[11] Los Angeles Times,[59] Fox News[60] and the Miami Herald.[61]"

• Fox link says: "Comet Ping Pong's owner and several employees were deluged by threats from social media users after several fake news stories claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief John Podesta ran a pedophilia ring out of the restaurant. The story was spread using the Twitter hashtag "Pizzagate.""
• Independent says: "was among those supporting the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory that led to a man opening fire in a Washington restaurant. [...] While working for his father, he shared a fake conspiracy that Ms Clinton’s allies had been running a paedophile ring in the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlour on social media."
• LA Times: "PizzaGate - A false story alleged that Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, were involved in a child sex ring based out of Comet Ping Pong, a pizza store owned by James Alefantis in Washington, D.C. [...] None of it was true, the New York Times noted in an article in November. That was not enough to stop a North Carolina man, Edgar Maddison Welch, from walking into the pizza store on Dec. 4 with an assault-style rifle to investigate the claim himself."

I don't understand how these 3 examples amount to anything more than "XY reported that theory was reported false by Z". I might be misreading the links, but where do these three "criticize the conspiracy theory". Considering the topic, I strongly encourage to have a wording that takes less liberties, and actually says what the provided links say. Otherwise it is feeding the conspiracy itself instead of reporting on it. Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Also why is there the following statement: "The Charlotte Observer noted the diverse group of sources that had debunked the conspiracy theory, pointing out this included the Fox News Channel in addition to The New York Times.[37]"? Why are we using a local news source reporting on a big news source, instead of directly providing the Fox News link instead? Nergaal (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Fox News source directly calls it "false", the Independent source directly calls it "debunked" and the LA Times source directly calls it "false". I don't see how any of those sources can be argued to have attributed the falseness of the CT to anyone else, and each of those quotes can fairly be described as "criticisms of the conspiracy theory".

And the reason we're citing the Charlotte observer is because if we were to put in wikivoice, sourced to the original sources (which are already used in the article, mind) that a "diverse group" have debunked it, that would be WP:SYNTH. Well, perhaps not, depending on your interpretation. But many editors would see it that way and cause a fuss, so we provide a source and put it in that source's voice to avoid drama. Either way, it's true, it's verifiable and it's due. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Other criticisms of the conspiracy theory came from" implies that they did a thorough discussion/analysis on the subject. To me, all that these 3 did was to rate it false, or report that others reported it false. The current statement is misleading at best. I don't understand your second point; you are saying that it is ok to use 3rd sources instead of primary sources? Essentially the introduction right now is quoting a source that essentially nobody heard of it. "Either way, it's true, it's verifiable" if it's true and verifiable, mind pointing me that actual source? Because I cannot find a link from Fox that "debunked" the theory. Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To me, all that these 3 did was to rate it false, or report that others reported it false. They all did the former, explicitly. Which is exactly what the claim says they did.

No, the text says the 3 "criticize" the theory, when in fact they simply state the theory is "false" without doing any sort of analysis/argumentation. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

you are saying that it is ok to use 3rd sources instead of primary sources? It's a secondary source, not a tertiary one for the claim. And yes, WP prefers reliable secondary sources over primary sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let me try to be more clear: give me the Fox link that says it. You say that the Charlotte Observer is reliable, and I dispute that in this case it is actually reliable for this statement. You can prove me wrong very easily by showing me the primary source of Fox stating what the Charlotte Observer is claiming Fox is saying. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC) @MjolnirPants:

You quoted the Fox source that said the theory is false. Clearly, you know where it is already. Why you're asking me for it is beyond me. And note that 1) if you have reason to argue that the Charlotte Observer is an unreliable source, you need to give them, not just say that you think so, and 2) it's not on us to analyze how Fox came to their conclusion that it's false and judge whether or not they're accurate based on that. It might be if there was some contention about the veracity of Pizzagate, but there isn't. So when Fox says "it's fake", that's good enough for us. If another RS says "Fox said it's fake", then that's plenty fine, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dude, text says Fox debunked it, when, all I could find by Fox is reporting it as false. You can understand very well what the difference between the two are. Nergaal (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fox came to the conclusion that it is false. In this sense, that's synonymous with saying Fox debunked it. Whether Fox elected to explain how they came to that conclusion or not is immaterial, unless we generally consider them an unreliable source (which we don't). You may have missed the nuance of my most recent comment, but it directly addresses your point, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The claims are false, full stop, and wording this article in any fashion which makes this less than clear is absolutely right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We are here to report not to express opinions. The sources I pointed out say the theory is false, NOT that they "criticize" the theory. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about whether criticism includes debunking, so if you want to change the text to say "Other outlets described the conspiracy theory as false, such as..." then I, for one, am not going to sweat it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nergaal that the use of the word "criticisms" is inappropriate here. It's too weak and treats these sources as opinion sources rather than factual sources. In general, news stories do not criticize. They report, and report criticisms by others. I haven't reviewed all of these sources, but if they're being cited for reporting that Pizzagate is false or debunked, then the article should say that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede to simply say that it's false, because that's an undisputed (among reliable sources) fact which we do not need to qualify or source in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the phrasing, "Other outlets described the conspiracy theory as false," per "Weasel words." It implies that the story could be true. TFD (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So you prefer a formulation that is wrong instead? How is "Other criticisms of the conspiracy theory came from" any better considering the actual 3 quotes I've listed above. Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two ways we can cover a fact on Wikipedia: When there are differing opinions, we attribute the opinions to the sides, per WP:ATT; When it's an unambiguous fact, we can state it as such in Wikipedia's voice. Which we choose depends on a number of factors, including but not limited to: how widespread and well-informed any dissent might be; the impact of the accuracy or otherwise of the fact; how fringe the dissent is; the consensus in reliable independent sources and how they represent it. The Pizzagate conspiracy is supported by no reliable sources. If it were true, it would imply serious criminal activity on the part of a number of people, and the police are clearly not buying that. It is a conspiracy theory, and as fringe as you can get. It was promulgated from fake news outlets and coverage in reliable sources is unanimous in calling bullshit, especially after Welch turned up to free the non-existent kids. This is a case where every single way of looking at it arrives at the same conclusion: we state, in Wikipedia's voice, that the claim is false. No weasel words, no he-said-she-said, no prevarication. It's unambiguously false. We can list some of the sources that debunk it, but we do not contextualise it as a possibly-true claim that some sources support and these other (named) sources debunk. It's a false story, as the lede says, and here is a list of some of the many sources that debunk it. That's how we represent it. Applicable policies: WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE); WP:BLP; WP:V. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think something useful can come out of this discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof's edits are an improvement, but the article still says that various news outlets have "criticized" the Pizzagate theory. This is non-neutral. The reliable sources did not criticize the theory. They have stated that the theory has been debunked (i.e. is false). The solution is to state simply and unequivocably that Pizzagate has been debunked / is false. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite right. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

email content regarding pizza

Neither this page, nor the Podesta e-mails page, deal with messages in the e-mails, such as "do you think I'll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pizza." Is mentioning the content too fact-specific for a Wikipedia article, or is the issue rather that no reliable source has mentioned such fact-specific details? Whwowowo (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't speak for others, but in my view those are both good reasons. In addition to the fact that it would fuel and implicitly promote a fringe theory. We have to be especially careful when we're talking about a fringe theory that falsely accuses a living person of a heinous crime. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In essence this. We cannot really include this as it would violate BLP. Especially as no one has produced one shred of evidence this interpretation of the e-mails is correct. Unlike anonymous posters on forums Wikipedia's owners can be sued for liable. We can say that people have claimed they are a code, we cannot say they are a code.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Using Washington Post as a source

We have a long list of sources stating that Pizzagate has been debunked, but should the Washington Post really be on the list if John Podesta, a main subject in Pizza Gate, is in fact employed by the Washington Post? Isn't that like citing Breitbart for an article about Steve Bannon? Whwowowo (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no indication that WaPo is doing anything other than reporting the facts here. Their coverage is in line with everyone else. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two things. First off, Podesta only started working for WaPo last week. The WaPo sources we cite are all from before then. Second, WaPo is nothing like Breitbart. WaPo has an excellent reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Breitbart doesn't. WaPo also has a stringent conflict of interest policy and I believe (though I could be mistaken) that it's been commended for its tough reporting on Jeff Bezos and Amazon since Bezos took over. So I have no issue with treating WaPo news reporting as reliable for this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2017

As much as people want to claim it is debunked, it isn't. Snopes is not the end all be all source for debunking. Remove debunked and add controversial. Stay apolitical please. 2601:643:4302:76F0:2C8A:92E1:6C46:7E0F (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. See the bajillion other comments on this. Reliable sources describe this as a debunked and false conspiracy theory. Neutrality^talk 03:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Alledging vs falsely claimed

This is now being edit warred by someone who should know better. We addressed this in Janurary. Has something happened since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 06:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: apparently it got archived. If people want to change it, that's fine. But I don't appreciate unilateral decisions by NBSB, who keeps trying to slip his preferred version in over and over again.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first "alledging" isn't a word. Second, if you mean "alleging" then that violates WP:ALLEGED. Third, that short discussion mostly points out that it's not a double negative. I don't see a problem with readability as written.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(Multiple edit conflicts) - who's NBSB? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

NBSB = NorthBySouthBaranof. YOU may not see a problem with how it is written, but others have, which is why I linked to the archived discussion. Saying something is debunked, that something is "falsely" claiming, alledging, etc is not clear. Are they saying it's not not true? We are sacrificing clarity for no good reason whatsoever. Do you think anyone will think the theory has any merit if we don't add "falsely" to the sentence in question? Also, the current incarnation is not neutral. We say it's debunked. We dont need to point out it's false at every opportunity. It becomes pointy. I know this article is one of the ground zero articles for batshit people that want to use to "show the truth", but we don't need to sacrifice quality just because they have misguided views.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is whether the text should say, "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle and falsely claimed/alleging." "Alleging" is better because "falsely claimed" is redundant if it is a "debunked conspiracy theory." Ironically, saying "falsely claimed" gives it credence. Similarly, saying someone was an evil man is more persuave than saying he was a huge bad evil nasty man. TFD (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Other users, such as @DrFleischman:, @MjolnirPants:, @Objective3000: and @JzG:, have expressed that we need the word "false" in the lede, and I agree. The current incarnation is perfectly neutral - it reports the facts as reliable sources report them. If you think we should open a formal RfC on the matter, we could do that, I suppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Less is more. We can simply describe it as false, anything else might well weaken it, as TFD says. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Nuanced speech is required where nuance exists. When nuance does not exist, brevity is the soul of wit. There is nothing nuanced about this. Words that convey a clear meaning everyone can understand are the most useful when dealing with a black & white situation. 'False' fits the bill. Objective3000 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO "false" > "alleged" for our purposes. I know what I said in January, but I was literally just commenting on grammar, then. I'd rather see verbiage that states the theory is false, than verbiage which states that it is allegations (even if we then elsewhere state that those allegations have been debunked). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. I write only to note that Nantucket's four times-repeated assertion that there was consensus for using "alleging" rather than "falsely claimed" (here, here, here, here) is categorically false and not well taken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

CryThat man from Nantucket (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The compromise enacted today by the gentleman from a coastal island is just fine by me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017

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.

---

cheese pizza is code for child porn. You see it used on deep web and social media sites all the time. 174.3.99.140 (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Social media and the deep web are not reliable sources. For more information on sourcing for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 18:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm frankly a little shocked that anyone would admit to "see[ing] it used on deep web and social media sites all the time." Especially from an IP address that federal or local authorities could trace to an address. But then I ask myself if I should be shocked at seeing anything on the internet, a question to which the obvious and correct answer is a resounding "Hell naw." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

People film and post their own crimes on public sites. Objective3000 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 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.

completely bogus claims in this wiki)

Not productive. May be restated in a productive manner. -- Objective3000 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
it says it was "started by a white supremacist" It's amazing how pathetic a reading of the buzzfeed article that actual is. It says the image associated with the account can be found on a white sumpracy forum. Did you get all that? The image, from an account. Next my little pony pictures will be white supremacist accounts too. So idiotic.So much is wrong with this its amazing that wikipedia would have even tried to put this completely bogus trash in the article.66.190.29.251 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC) I know right? Basically this entire site is fake news acting like a bogus encyclopedia. I'll bet it's because of the Jews. I mean, they control all the rest of the media right? TimothyJosephWood 01:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Don't blame me for being able to read English with comprehension and actually checking supposed "sources" cited. You should try doing something similar, not trolling.66.190.29.251 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Right, Timothyjosephwood should totally not get in on your monopoly. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC) It's actually the MSM and socialist left wing media conglomerates trying to tear America apart and pave the way for a new age of communism. But yeah, the Jews are usually behind it all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Even if it is meant sarcastically, it seems like this discussion is in violation of RD2 (Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value). I will let an editor, who has more exprienced in such matters, decide what needs to be done. Paul H. (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the opening paragraph

I tried to make these edits, but I guess I'll just leave it here for consideration:

Pizzagate was a viral meme which began in November 2016 with the claims that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connected a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with an alleged child-sex ring. Many organizations including the District of Columbia Police Department, Snopes[1]> and The New York Times[2] immediately called it a debunked conspiracy theory and the Reddit community, /r/Pizzagate, was shut down.[3]

Since the end of /r/Pizzagate many individuals have continued to attribute their research on child trafficking to the Pizzagate meme regardless of connections to John Podesta. Pizzagate, also known as Pedogate, has now become a general term used to describe worldwide citizen inquiries or investigations into the pervasiveness of child sex trafficking by government officials.[4]

RebelSkum (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the change you made because it completely changes the tone of the article. This article has been edited carefully by experienced editors, with every change made through consensus and discussion. You should be prepared to defend your proposed change (including the sourcing - see WP:RS) because Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy applies to this article, as well as the article being subject to Discretionary Sanctions. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a meme, it's a conspiracy theory, as mentioned in countless sources. Weakening the language by replacing "extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations" with "called it a debunked conspiracy theory" isn't going to fly. Using another wiki as a source fails WP:RS. APK whisper in my ear 01:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly prepared to defend my changes and ideas, but I'm just not seeing how that is less neutral than what's up there now. It's certainly true that Pizzagate as a term is used for much more than John Podesta. Also, it seems to contradict the "Neutral point of view" policy to generalize it as "debunked conspiracy", especially on a page which doesn't accurately describe the term's origins.

Wikipedia does have a page describing what a meme is: "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". This seems to more accurately describe Pizzagate's usage because "conspiracy theory" itself is even an admittedly flimsy label designed to discredit the idea it describes: http://www.globalresearch.ca/weaponizing-the-term-conspiracy-theory-disinformation-agents-and-the-cia/5524552

Feedback much appreciated though! I look forward to contributing what research I can.

RebelSkum (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Funny how my edit gets responded to in a matter of seconds, but yet my questions and valid points are just left there.

It's also strange that it's being argued this particular page is "expertly" crafted to be "neutral" when it's inherently biased in its very design and construction, title and all. Take for instance this "neutral" gem listed under "References" which isn't even a direct quote:

>Others have disagreed, for example US News, which labeled InfoWars a fake news website to avoid "at all cost"

As well as the interesting inclusion of the "Public Opinion" poll which asked, "Opinion of whether Hillary Clinton is connected to a child sex ring run from a Pizzeria in DC". The poll clearly asked largely pro-Hillary voters if you read it, and in and of itself is not a direct reference to Pizzagate. The inclusion of this section is just entirely misleading and presents an evident political bias: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_120916.pdf

RebelSkum (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable, especially in an article about accusations that living people have engaged in heinous crimes. The reliable sources, at least the ones we cite, say it's a debunked conspiracy theory, not an internet meme. If we're going to change our article in this way then at a minimum we need sources that say it's a meme. More importantly, I'm not aware of any reliable sources saying Pizzagate in now a general term used to describe worldwide citizen inquiries or investigations into the pervasiveness of child sex trafficking by government officials. In sum, I reject RebelSkum's proposed changes because they lack appropriate sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"yet my questions and valid points are just left there" - We responded, but it seems you don't like what was said. You may find things "funny", "strange", and "interesting", but everything you've brought up has been discussed ad nauseum on this talk page (look at the page archives). This site functions by using consensus and reliable sources. The current wording in the intro and the rest of the page has been approved by a majority of interested editors. Take some time to read through previous discussion in the archives. If you haven't found an answer to one of your questions, then come back and we will do our best to provide one. APK whisper in my ear 04:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I strongly urge you to read WP:RS before trying to add sources to this or other articles. Using a wiki devoted to pizzagate, 9/11 truther forums, and Lyndon LaRouche sites will be swiftly rejected. APK whisper in my ear 04:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• FYI, using "pizzagate.wiki" as a source says it all. No chance. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Another new editor crying "liberal bias" and providing low-quality sources as a reason to effect a huge POV shift in a political article? I'm not at all shocked.

RebelSkum, please understand that we have very high standards for sourcing, and that as a community, we don't buy into the narrative that mainstream media is untrustworthy, but for a variety of (very good) reasons, we instead hold that the mainstream media is more trustworthy than small, independent outlets. There are quite a few brand new editors who show up here making claims, offering sources and proposing re-writes similar to yours, and none of them get anymore. As well, NO experienced editors do this, no matter their political views, because they know that such sources aren't acceptable (and why), that such proposals don't make the article more neutral, but less neutral, and that such claims are very unlikely to have any truth to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the change you made because it completely changes the tone of the article. This article has been edited carefully by experienced editors, with every change made through consensus and discussion is a Wikipedia bullshit excuse. Shame on you.That man from Nantucket (talk)}

Umm, that quote means the editor in question reverted changes that violated long-standing consensus. How is that bullshit? And you should watch your tone with phrases like "shame on you". This is supposed to be a discussion, not a confrontation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, isn't that lovely. If I had reverted without explaining why, the editor (who's new) wouldn't have understood the reasoning. I've explained myself clearly. If you don't like my phrasing, well Wikipedia has thousands of pages that you can read instead. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Am I protesting right? TimothyJosephWood 17:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Nope. Better late than never... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not neutral

It says debunked. While one side believes it is untrue, the other does not. Until we can be sure it isn't true, it should be removed.184.91.99.69 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It's not about sides. The reliable sources unanimously say that it's debunked. This issue has already been discussed ad nauseum and decided. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This isn't how conspiracies are debunked. How can you honestly say it's not about sides, then cite 'reliable sources' by linking NYT and WaPo? This conspiracy surrounds member(s) of a party that these businesses have no problem showcasing their political lean on a daily basis. They are just as guilty of fake news being spread as any right-winged or conspiracy theory spreading news outlet. Wouldn't citing sources that have a history of misinformation help the argument that this has yet to be debunked with something more trustworthy? It's time to take off the partisan blinders to revisit from multiple perspectives and see why some of us here are still questioning how this is considered debunked. The bottom line is there are no -good- explanations, especially considering nobody is trying to delve more into this story that actually have big, mainstream audiences. Debunking this isn't the same as testing if gravity is merely a theory because it is also a political conundrum, which means loads of deception.

It just feels like there is more to this story to be unraveled and this is a quick resolution to keep it on a backburner. Why the 'Debunked' section reads like an excerpt from Politifact.com to the tune of the writing from the NYT is entirely a separate issue, but most of the substance seems to rely on 'source claims other source' information.

You can claim ad nauseum all you want, but it doesn't strengthen your position when the 'debunked' backbone is citing heavily-partisan sources to discredit other heavily-partisan rival news outlets. ItalicsLie (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Why you think [5] should not be in? I was under the impression that one was one of the biggest "non-underground"/public figure that has explicitly promoted the conspiracy. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence that Infowars was a bigger Pizzagate booster than anyone else. From NPR: "Jones was not the originator of "pizzagate," however, which has spread on social media and on sites like Reddit." From the NY Times: "The Pizzagate theory ... grew in online forums before making its way to more visible venues, including Mr. Jones’s show." And our own longstanding content (in the "Origins" section) suggests that Infowars was one of many. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's the citation was was thinking of... From WaPo: "InfoWars wasn’t the principal progenitor of the false story. The story spread primarily through such user-generated sites as Reddit and 4chan, as well as through fake-news websites and social media." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I must stand with the good Doctor on this one. (I'm just waiting for someone to ask; Doctor who?) The information is already included in the article, so WP:DUE is satisfied. But this primarily came from a reddit thread, and the apology, phrased as a stand alone really gives the impression that Jones is the most responsible party. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That is the question that must never be answered. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

“You want weapons? We’re in a library! Books! The best weapons in the world!” Season 2. Objective3000 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC))