Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

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 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)

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) Because all the reliable sources say it's a conspiracy theory. Please review our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Because a conspiracy is what it being alleged.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Pizza gate is proven fact - aaand we have no reason to regard anything OP says as helpful anymore, even if it's in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) There are some very misinformed people out there, and I get that. But how on earth would anyone come up with "there has been arrests" an an argument that "Pizza gate is proven fact"? No offense to Craiggod, but at first glance that suggests some serious incompetence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC) You gave up on reading his post a lot later into it than I did. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What post? I saw that somebody with "god" in their handle commented here with their first edit and wrote it off as more off-topic whining without even checking. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC) It's a step up from an editor with "truth" in their handle at least. TheValeyard (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Yeah, that's on Wikipedia:Bingo for a reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Come on, guys. To be fair, 'there has been arrests made period'. There has been arrests, and those arrests made period. That's some hardcore arrests, right there. And, I mean, we are all paid shills for the Democratic party. Got my check last week! And liberals. Or possibly even ((liberals)). Plus, you know; think of the children. Pizzagate must be real. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC) To be fair there have been, Edgar Maddison Welch for one. Just not of any one linked to any child sex conspiracy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) But what about the children?!?! THE CHILDREN!!1! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC) If any one can produce RS saying children were arrested fine include it, do you such as RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 2 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 Huma Abedin FOIA emails (case number: F-2016-07895) released 1Sept2017 [5] - validating WikiLeaks DNC leaks: Huma FOIA email found in Wikileaks DNC dump, thus validating the authenticity of the DNC leaks - Huma Abedin FOIA emails Reveals further Clinton / Rothschild Connection, Soros, Human Trafficking etc [6] addition to list of mysterious deaths - Kurt Smolek Updates to Awan case/investigation - (compilation post with research on Awan case) George Webb's Trello page: [7] - note: he is currently in/undertaking a court case (against whom?) - Imran Awan Pleads ‘Not Guilty’, Asks for Ankle Monitor to Be Removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan592 (talk • contribs) @Hpfan592: Posts on Reddit and Trello do not meet our reliable sourcing standards. IMOWired.com also fails our reliable sourcing standards because it is a blog. Disobedientmedia.com likewise fails our reliable sourcing standards because it is obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills and an elementary knowledge of politics that that site is a conspiracy-fantasist dumpster fire. Also, Wikipedia only cites and summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. We do not engage in original research (which includes interpreting primary sources or combining sources to make statements that neither source explicitly makes) and we do not start with a conclusion and cherry-pick whatever we can imagine supposedly justifies that conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC) ok I deleted the bad links and simply kept the topics and to be sourced later with more validated links

"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) We have had this discussion again and again. Not only is it debunked, it's ludicrous. You have brought nothing new to the table to reopen. Objective3000 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC) As above + All the "evidence" that is checkable has been shown to be falsified. Care to share 1 piece of proven evidence, care to share one victim story?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Gschadow, please consider reviewing our verifiability policy before posting again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC) I think "hoax" is the best description. Hoaxes don't get debunked, they get exposed. TFD (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC) I don't think it is a hoax. "Hoax" implies that the genesis was intentionally deceptive, and that's not at all clear. We know that at least one person thought this to be deadly serious, but we don't know of anyone who definitely knew better and yet promulgated the CS anyways. @Gschadow: your claim that snopes is biased or partisan is not verifiable by an objective overview of snopes. Even mediabiasfactcheck.com, a reliable rater of biases rates snopes as "least biased", and they tend to exaggerate left-leaning biases and under-report right-leaning biases due to their methodology. Furthermore, the "snopes is biased!" claim is a red flag for editors who are here to push their own political views, mostly because it's such a blatantly false claim that is only promulgated among right-wing media outlets; specifically, those right-wing media outlets whom we have found to be the least reliable. Everything I've said about snopes applies equally to politifact, as well. Plus, "debunked" is and has been the go-to term for reliable sources reporting on this almost since day 1. There was never any serious consideration of Pizzagate as truth by anyone who wasn't a far-right, anti-Democrat conspiracy theorist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC) The author(s) based their claims on fabricated evidence. As written by Buzzfeed, "a white supremacy Twitter account that presents itself as belonging to a Jewish lawyer in New York tweeted that the NYPD was looking into evidence that emails from Anthony Weiner's laptop contained evidence of Clinton involvement in an "international child enslavement ring."" That's intentional deception including saying he was a Jewish lawyer in New York. And there was a clear political motive - to discredit the Democrats on the eve of the election. TFD (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Not so. First regarding SNOPES, there is serious doubt, published by people who obviously were not inclined to believe it. [8] [9]. Kim La Capria in particularly is obviously biased, and this had been published also. [10]. Regarding the WaPo and NYT articles, everyone knows that their credibility is massively damaged since they had positioned themselves as major agitators against the candidate who is no the president of the USA. This matter is so highly politicized that you cannot resolve it with just sticking to "reliable sources" (and dismissing other opinions' sources as "unreliable"). You have to actually follow the argument and it's logic and see what exactly is claimed and refuted. The SNOPES article does nothing of the kind. It is instead countering strawman claims. The one critical issue on which the entire suspicion hangs is the Instagram photos from @jimmycomet and his associate @joshuaryanv. Your article claims and cites SNOPES that these photos were falsified. But that is not proven at all in the SNOPES article. In fact it is impossible to prove such a thing because these instagram photos were archived from the original accounts. The SNOPES article knocks down a straw man, misrepresenting the claim as if the depicted children were victims, which they do not have to be to be relevant. The important thing is the very clear pedophile innuendo that these images and their comments convey. So no, this is not "debunked" as much as articles from the same side of the political spectrum are making claims or debunking fake claims that are not the issue. Gschadow (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Sorry, but your sources are about as bad as you can get. The DailyMail is considered worthless as a source by Wikipedia. Your claims about the NYT and WaPo: everyone knows that their credibility is massively damaged since they had positioned themselves as major agitators against the candidate is, frankly speaking, utter nonsense. This page is also not the correct place for such discussion. If you have a problem with WaPo, NYT, and Snopes; take it to WP:RSN. Wikipedia does not perform original research. We just rely on reliable sources. Reliable sources state that this is debunked. Objective3000 (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC) And again, care to share some non debunked evidence with us?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Yes, I care very much, and I did. But this joke of an "open information platform" or whatever the hype about WP is, has decided to actually hide my list of 7 points and make a threat to shut me up. This is how far this world has become. Those who have ears will hear. I am not going to risk my life and happiness on this any further. Ask the admins (whoever has the superpower to censor information on WP) to un-hide my edit. Check history page. You know, people who suppress information (censors) and who use threats to go after people's opinion, are not credible. Even if they have mainstream media "sources" they can unilaterally claim to be reliable Gschadow (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC) As far as I can tell you have not provide anything more then a few articles questioning unrelated material.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC) I don't care what any one individual "can tell" and how far. So whatever. My material was hidden and threats were made. And any of your or anybody else's claim is baseless without the proof being shown. I am open to correction and to add references. Not at all a problem. But just to have someone do the Wiki lawyering with OR while claiming that I have not shown evidence, along with the risk of being killed or otherwise destroyed if my points stick, I have no interest in carrying this further. Anyone who comes by here sees how surreal WP has become. Hiding info and threatening people. Gschadow (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Who is threatening to kill you? Objective3000 (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC) You're finding that the Wikipedia is run with a wee bit of a higher standard than 4chan or /r/theDonald. Objectionable content on a talk page is usually just reversed, but still viewable in the page history, but whatever you posted was so egregiously awful that the admins had to scrub the history so it could no longer be seen. Bring something productive to this topic, soon, or this will probably b wrapped up fairly quickly. TheValeyard (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC) There have been no threats to kill you, that's a paranoid fantasy. You are not the hero, you're just another disruptive editor who doesn't know how to present proper evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC) I think an ANI may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Comment I agree with everyone that "debunked" is correct. However please assume Gschadow came here in good faith. I know having to explain the same thing over and over to different editors is tiring, but don't take it out on them. No one is requiring you to respond to them. If a FAQ were created for the talk page, that might give you some relief. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC) And for me he overstepped the mark with his last comment about fears of being killed over this material (not by us, after all if we keep it out he is safe).Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC) If you can believe his talk page, it looks like he left. Archive this section? No need for ANI lynching. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)I have no doubt he came in good faith, but by claiming that there have been death threats against him and viewing being held to (as TheValeyard aptly put it) a higher standard than 4chan or /r/theDonald as if it's some sort of conspiracy, he's showing an assumption of bad faith that is more compatible with trying to "right great wrongs" (at least in this article, no comment on elsewhere) than it is with productive editing. And as editor who has been here since 2005, he should know better. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Archive it It 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)