Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions
Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
It has been suggested (to me) that we archive Gschadow's interactions in order to draw a line under this.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) |
It has been suggested (to me) that we archive Gschadow's interactions in order to draw a line under this.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
===You can't seem to wait to hide the issue=== |
|||
As with the original pizza gate issue, you are treating my comments the same superficial way. You construct a strawman to be able to "debunk it" and hide information. Nowhere did I say that you are threatening to kill me. I am saying that you are threatening to block me based on an issue you are taking with material I wrote, which you hide from anyone's view. So you are accusing me of something I did not do, without showing the evidence. And you keep threatening me with blocking me if I do not shut up. That is the issue at play in your treatment of my contention. |
|||
Nothing is settled about the original issue that I brought up. Nothing of substance has been debunked. What the entire Pizza Gate article here does is distort and hide the real substance in order to create an appearance of "debunked" which does not hold water to any closer inspection. I gave the concise list of substance of the pizza gate issue, 7 points, that are public verifiable information, and none of that has been debunked by anyone. You and your biased "reliable sources" (LOL) are doing nothing but spewing ridicule and fighting strawmen while hiding the real issues. Now you can come again and tell me that I am assuming bad faith, but look what you do? You cannot wait to hide the contention! And you mock me telling me that I have not brought any substantial verifiable issues, yet when I did, you falsely accused me of something I didn't do and hid my entire list of substance that has not been debunked. |
|||
Once again, nothing has been debunked. Only straw men. [[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] ([[User talk:Gschadow|talk]]) 15:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== FAQ == |
== FAQ == |
Revision as of 15:25, 18 September 2017
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE. Note that the biographies of living persons policy applies to all areas of Wikipedia, including this talkpage. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on November 30, 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() Archives |
No archives yet.
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Edit request
Introduction says "The theory ... claimed that John Podesta's emails ... contained coded messages ... connecting a number of restaurants ... with a fabricated child-sex ring." which is a double negative implying Podesta tried to false flag a child sex ring which obviously is wrong. Also "The false theory has been extensively discredited" is hyperbolic and repetitive as the same section of the intro already states the falsehood of the theory and verifies this fact in the same sentence where the unnecessary hyperbole is added. It's like writing "The evil man, who is very evil, is very evil." instead of "The man is very evil.". It's one thing to be clear and unbiased in stating the fact that the theory is debunked. It is another thing entirely to overtly pander and lower overall quality and structure as a form of (presumably pro-democrat) activism to reach out because the editor believes the conspiracy theorists can't read a properly formulated introduction. You're just making the article seem biased which in my opinion fuels the conspiracy theories by adding too much hyperbole and condescension. These are also not the edits that have been discussed. To be clear; I am not asking you to remove the fact the theory is debunked, I am asking you to not compromise article quality and use a language that seems biased which indirectly hurts the credibility of the legitimate debunking statement. 85.194.2.57 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the first issue, I don't understand. I see no double negative in there and I don't understand where that implication comes from. Regarding the second issue, that has been extensively discussed, and while I personally agree we have a bit of overkill, the consensus is to make clear in every sentence that the theory is debunked/discredited/false in line with our very strict policy to protect biographies of living people, since the theory falsely accuses real, living people of having committed the most heinous of crimes. If there is any bias here, it's a bias against defamation, not a partisan bias as you presume. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have specific wording in mind that would add clarity to the sentence? Keep in mind that we need to state which parts of the conspiracy theory are false. If we were to remove "fabricated", we would be implying that there may have been a real child sex ring but Podesta and the restaurants had no connection to it. Dlthewave (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- First issue: the word 'fabricated' indicates a double negative. Simplified example: 'The theory claims there are multiple restaurants using a fabricated sex ring...' instead of: 'The theory claims there are multiple restaurants using a sex ring...'. The THEORY does not claim the sex ring is FABRICATED. It is, but the THEORY claims it is real. Most readers get the intended message but still it adds a less serious hyperbolic. But I might just be nitpicking here so feel free to dismiss. Regarding the second part, I do think that stating the theory is debunked/false two times in the same sentence is hyperbole regardless of reason, as I doubt even the pizzagaters are incapable of reading a single sentence to the point where it would be necessary for personal protection to make sure they get it even if they read 3 words instead of 7 words. Removing the "false" in "The false theory has been extensively discredited" would in my opinion make the statement more credible. Thus the edit would help discredit the theory and prevent a witch hunt (in accordance with guidelines). Keeping the "false" would make it easier for people to claim it seems biased. But if this is already discussed then feel free to dismiss this request as well - I agree all of us make a valid point here so either way it's fine. But yeah in short it is my opinion that too much hyperbole hurts the credibility of a statement.85.194.2.57 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- English allows for cycling levels of context with regards to adjectives. Indeed, context shouldn't really "nest" like you're suggesting at all, else one ends up writing about how false theories revolve around real alien abductions, which is nonsensical. It's perfectly fine to say that a (debunked) theory claims that certain restaurants are involved in a fabricated child sex ring. In fact, it's a more encyclopedic tone to frame all statements from a distance, like that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I see what you're saying. I can also see Dlthewave's point that if we remove "fabricated," the sentence might be read as saying that there was a real child sex ring. I don't know how to address this concern; any suggestions? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- We could re-frame the whole sentence to make it explicit that it's describing the narrative of the theory. Here's the original, followed by a draft:
The theory, which went viral, claimed that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring.
- vs.
The viral theory was based on claims that coded messages had been discovered in the emails of John Podesta, which had been leaked to Wikileaks. It purports to describe a child sex ring, operating out of a number of restaurants and featuring the involvement of members of the Democratic Party."
- Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think 85.194.2.57's concern might be address by replacing "fabricated" with "alleged." Going on MPants' theme of a larger re-write, however, I think we might want to separate what's fact from what's fiction. Namely, something like: "In the fall of 2016, the personal e-mail account of John Podesta was hacked in a spear-phishing attack. After the e-mails were made public by WikiLeaks, proponents of the Pizzagate theory, which went viral, claimed that the e-mails contained coded messages referring to human human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic party with an alleged child-sex ring." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see that addressing the IP's concerns, but I do see that as flowing much (much) better than either the original or my version. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- "proponents of the Pizzagate theory, which went viral, falsely claimed that the e-mails contained coded messages..." would be fine with me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think 85.194.2.57's concern might be address by replacing "fabricated" with "alleged." Going on MPants' theme of a larger re-write, however, I think we might want to separate what's fact from what's fiction. Namely, something like: "In the fall of 2016, the personal e-mail account of John Podesta was hacked in a spear-phishing attack. After the e-mails were made public by WikiLeaks, proponents of the Pizzagate theory, which went viral, claimed that the e-mails contained coded messages referring to human human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic party with an alleged child-sex ring." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- We could re-frame the whole sentence to make it explicit that it's describing the narrative of the theory. Here's the original, followed by a draft:
- First issue: the word 'fabricated' indicates a double negative. Simplified example: 'The theory claims there are multiple restaurants using a fabricated sex ring...' instead of: 'The theory claims there are multiple restaurants using a sex ring...'. The THEORY does not claim the sex ring is FABRICATED. It is, but the THEORY claims it is real. Most readers get the intended message but still it adds a less serious hyperbolic. But I might just be nitpicking here so feel free to dismiss. Regarding the second part, I do think that stating the theory is debunked/false two times in the same sentence is hyperbole regardless of reason, as I doubt even the pizzagaters are incapable of reading a single sentence to the point where it would be necessary for personal protection to make sure they get it even if they read 3 words instead of 7 words. Removing the "false" in "The false theory has been extensively discredited" would in my opinion make the statement more credible. Thus the edit would help discredit the theory and prevent a witch hunt (in accordance with guidelines). Keeping the "false" would make it easier for people to claim it seems biased. But if this is already discussed then feel free to dismiss this request as well - I agree all of us make a valid point here so either way it's fine. But yeah in short it is my opinion that too much hyperbole hurts the credibility of a statement.85.194.2.57 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the point the IP is making. I don't even think it's a matter of partisan bias, but a matter of decent writing. Per suggestions above, I would support changing "fabricated" with "alleged" and removing the "false" in the final sentence, since it continues by stating it's a discredited theory. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I would be on board with using "alleged" or "purported" and removing the final "false". I also like the direction MPants is going, by making it more of a narrative instead of trying to explain the whole convoluted thing in a single sentence. Dlthewave (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the current wording is not ideal for all the reasons mentioned. I read everyone's suggestions and tried to incorporate them into a single rewritten paragraph:
- 'Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged and went viral during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle. In the fall of 2016, John Podesta’s personal email account was hacked, and copies of his emails were publically released by WikiLeaks. The Pizzagate theory alleged that the leaked emails contained coded messages revealing that a number of D.C.-area restaurants were being used by members of the Democratic Party to run a secret child-sex ring. The Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been thoroughly discredited by a wide range of organizations. Liberal organizations (such as The New York Times and The Huffington Post), conservative organizations (such as Fox News), and even non-partisan groups (such as Snopes.com and the Washington D.C. Police Department) have all debunked the Pizzagate theory.'
- I decluttered the second sentence by moving 'viral' into the first sentence
- In order to more clearly distinguish between fact and fiction I split the facts (about John Podesta's emails being hacked and released) into a separate sentence from the fictions alleged by the Pizzagate theory
- I reworded the allegations made by the theory so that they flowed better, and so that the I was able to remove the word 'fabricated' while still making it clear that both the child-sex ring wasn't real, and that the theory claimed it was. I wanted to avoid the possible misinterpretations that either 1)The child-sex ring was real, and that the fake part was just that the Democrats were involved; or 2)That the theory itself alleged that the child-sex ring was fabricated. Hopefully the new wording makes clear that both the existence of the child-sex ring, and the Democrats involvement with it, were both false claims made by the theory.
- I rewrote the final sentence about the theory being discredited and split it into two sentences.
- -In the first sentence I removed the word 'false' to make the sentence less hyperbolic; and I changed a little bit of the wording so that the sentence flowed better with my new final sentence that followed.
- -For the second (and final) sentence I provided examples of the 'wide range of organizations' that I mentioned in the previous sentence. I wanted to explicitly mention that the organizations debunking the theory include left, right, and non-partisan groups (so that readers don't have to take our word for it); and I provided examples of each type of organization (again, so that the readers can judge for themselves whether the organizations belong to the categories we claim)
Note: I didn't include links or references in my proposed wording. When a final decision on how to word the section is reached, the references and links will need to be added. Pfalmer (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's been changed to match your proposal already. I'm cool with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The theory, which is false, has been extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations,
LOL, This sentence (in the lead) , which reads like it was written by a 6 year, has a very immature ring to it. As we have said it has been discredited it really seems redundant (and something of a double negative to also say it is false).Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Diaz beat us to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Or... Now... Hear me out now... We could take the twitter approach: The theory FALSE! VERY SAD! TimothyJosephWood 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- You forgot to add "Fake News!!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Or... Now... Hear me out now... We could take the twitter approach: The theory FALSE! VERY SAD! TimothyJosephWood 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Diaz beat us to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Pizzagate wiki
This Wired article ([1]) notes the existence of a wiki devoted soley to covering Pizzagate. Might be worth mentioning. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I dunno... It was a passing mention in a single source. I don't think that hits WP:DUE, but at the same time it seems germane to me. I'm gonna wait for more input before adding this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Without looking at the wiki, I don’t see how it’s useful without multiple RS saying so. I was positively mentioned in the first issue of Wired, and still don’t think it’s a good enough source on its own. Objective3000 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are wikis and other websites devoted to just about everything. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
as of 29Aug2017 the site is down - here is an archive of it from may2017 [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan592 (talk • contribs)
- So then it's unlikely to ever be worth mentioning. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Why does this say conspiracy?
Enough fun. Hat before the humor police show up. Objective3000 (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Pizza gate is proven fact and there has been arrests made period so how do you (Personal attack removed) support false facts and covering up sick nasty shit that has taken place ? Like why is it not changed ? Cuz Alex pizza gate jones says it's not real well he would say that when he is part of it but anyway it's a fact that's it true and not a conspiracy theory so fix it like wake up Craiggod (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
|
FYI, the OP is using User:Hpfan592 as a linkfarm for all this conspiracy nuttery. Not sure what can e done about that, nominate the userpage for deletion? TheValeyard (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
New topics/info/research since Pizzagatewiki page is down
Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
as of 29Aug2017 the Pizzagatewiki page is down - here is an archive from may2017 [3] note: the wiki page was started 18Dec2016 -29Aug2017 and had 15,953 URLs (wayback machine: [4]) New Topics
|
"unproven" but not "debunked"
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I realize that this discussion had been had, but the citation of the 3 sources, NYT, PolitiFact, and by all means SNOPES are not at all convincing. All 3 articles are clearly partisan/biased on the question. And all 3 present the matter from the beginning in a very distorted light and do not present any new knowledge or any evidence to the contrary. The correct phrasing might be "unproven" but not "debunked". There is no question that the original Comet Ping Pong accusation is not proven by any direct evidence. And by now the chances for such proof should be near nil. It is also possible that the online instagram postings of the Comet Ping Pong associates might have been intended to raise a false panic about something that never occurred at that place, yet, may very well occur at other places, as victim accounts make highly probable. So saying that this was "debunked" is clearly disingenuous. Gschadow (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Archive itIt has been suggested (to me) that we archive Gschadow's interactions in order to draw a line under this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) |
You can't seem to wait to hide the issue
As with the original pizza gate issue, you are treating my comments the same superficial way. You construct a strawman to be able to "debunk it" and hide information. Nowhere did I say that you are threatening to kill me. I am saying that you are threatening to block me based on an issue you are taking with material I wrote, which you hide from anyone's view. So you are accusing me of something I did not do, without showing the evidence. And you keep threatening me with blocking me if I do not shut up. That is the issue at play in your treatment of my contention.
Nothing is settled about the original issue that I brought up. Nothing of substance has been debunked. What the entire Pizza Gate article here does is distort and hide the real substance in order to create an appearance of "debunked" which does not hold water to any closer inspection. I gave the concise list of substance of the pizza gate issue, 7 points, that are public verifiable information, and none of that has been debunked by anyone. You and your biased "reliable sources" (LOL) are doing nothing but spewing ridicule and fighting strawmen while hiding the real issues. Now you can come again and tell me that I am assuming bad faith, but look what you do? You cannot wait to hide the contention! And you mock me telling me that I have not brought any substantial verifiable issues, yet when I did, you falsely accused me of something I didn't do and hid my entire list of substance that has not been debunked.
Once again, nothing has been debunked. Only straw men. Gschadow (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
FAQ
Any interest in compiling a list of issues that keep cropping up? I know you get tired of hearing the same old conspiracy theory nonsense, but you only have two choices: Engage the mouth-breathers or walk away. Just because you've explained why InfoWars is not a reliable source 100 times doesn't mean you can ignore the next rube. Wouldn't having a FAQ take some of the sting away?That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- It has never worked on other pages, but we can give it a try.Slatersteven (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen it help a bit on more complex articles. But, it won't have any effect on InfoWars followers or anyone that actually thinks there is anything to this Pizzagate rubbish. "Debunked" is the one issue that keeps rearing its head. Objective3000 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Low-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- Unassessed Food and drink articles
- Unknown-importance Food and drink articles
- Unassessed Foodservice articles
- Unknown-importance Foodservice articles
- Foodservice Taskforce articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Turkey articles
- Low-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class District of Columbia articles
- Unknown-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject United States articles