Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Suggested move - 8 December 2016

• Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) → Pizzagate
• Pizzagate → Pizzagate (disambiguation)

– Suggest moving this over Pizzagate and including a hat note pointing to Battle of the Buffet#Pizzagate, since this seems to currently be fairly clearly the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, and more so, is a stand alone article, and not a section in an article, the main title of which, readers seem more likely to search for. TimothyJosephWood 01:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) – relisted by SSTflyer 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. TimothyJosephWood 01:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per the arguments above. HelgaStick (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a move to "Pizzagate" but would support dropping the brackets to make it "Pizzagate conspiracy theory." This would be a clear identification of the subject which also makes it clear that it's a conspiracy theory. This is the standard approach, see John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories, and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. Just calling it Pizzagate is not acceptable as it suggests an actual "-gate" type scandal where none exists. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Those examples are theories about events. This is a theory surrounding a place. You could have it be "Comet Ping Pong conspiracy theory" but no one calls it that. "Pizzagate" is the common name whether it's true scandal or not. And doesn't putting "conspiracy theory" in the title (without the unnecessary disambiguation brackets) sound like a little too much? (Pizzagate conspiracy theory is a debunked conspiracy theory started by a Twitter user described as a white supremacist and...[1]) Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not a theory surrounding a place. The proponents of this theory would argue that pizzagate is an international conspiracy. In fact, they claim it is multigenerational and applies to other child abuse scandals. Comet Ping Pong is a small aspect to them, they claim several other businesses on the same block are involved. They would claim other places involved are the Clinton Foundation, Tony Podesta's basement and the country of Haiti, particularly the Clinton Foundation's work there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.229.135 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a move to "Pizzagate" but would support dropping the brackets to make it Pizzagate conspiracy theory per Fyddlestix. Neutrality^talk 02:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a move to "Pizzagate" but would support dropping the brackets to make it Pizzagate conspiracy theory per Fyddlestix. Sagecandor (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a move to "Pizzagate" but also support dropping the brackets. Other example: Moon landing conspiracy theories. --McSly (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Seems a lot like a disambiguation where none is needed, given that Pizzagate seems to be the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME. In comparison, there is a legitimate moon landing a legitimate 9/11, but no legitimate Pizzagate. TimothyJosephWood 02:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Other version of Pizzagate has plenty of its own sources for same word Pizzagate: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Sagecandor (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And if you replace "Campbell Rooney" with "Reddit" you jump from 5k news hits to about a million. TimothyJosephWood 02:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And if you look at Google Books you find that one hundred percent of results in book searches are all for the Battle_of_the_Buffet#Pizzagate. Sagecandor (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Because there's not been time in the past month to publish a book on the topic? TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And if you look at any social media, forum, or news site one hundred percent of what you'll find about "Pizzagate" is about the 2016 one. The current "Pizzagate" has only been in the news for about a month so there's not any books about it yet, that is an impossible standard to use in this case. Emily Goldstein (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As the Southern Bard once said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Sagecandor provides links to prove his claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Counting search results isn't really an argument. This NYT article contains the words "Pizzagate" (and thus shows up in the search) but actually calls this phenomenon "the so-called Pizzagate conspiracy theory". Google also returns things that aren't even remotely RS for that query. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "reliable source" is now calling it "the so-called Pizzagate hoax" (old and current). What now? Emily Goldstein (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Pizzagate" got 12 views in October 2016[2], 21,729 in November[3], and 71,942 from 1 December to 6 December[4]. There is only one "Pizzagate" article the other is a section of an article. There is no need for a disambiguation page. I'm sorry for the 0.5 people everyday who will have to make one extra click. Emily Goldstein (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't make these decisions based on pageviews. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes we do, right or wrongly. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose moving this to Pizzagate. I would support putting a hat note in this article and having Pizzagate redirect here, as well as removing the parentheses. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Good number of sources call it Pizzagate conspiracy theory so that is a good title target for the page instead, just without the brackets. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Sagecandor (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support As per argument raised by Timothyjosephwood --Donenne (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support only a move to Pizzagate conspiracy theory - As per other articles on conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support only the name change to remove the parentheses - The words "conspiracy theory" are a vital part of this article's title. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Here is the breakdown of the current sources used in the article:

1. Miami Herald: Pizzagate tale, Pizzagate debacle
2. Courier-Tribune: Pizzagate, Pizzagate conspiracy
3. Seattle Times]: Pizzagate perverted propaganda, Pizzagate, phony Pizzagate claims
4. Snopes: Pizzagate, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Pizzagate theories, Pizzagate/Comet Ping Pong social media investigation, “Pizzagate” rumors, Pizzagate controversy
5. Buzzfeed: Pizzagate, Pizzagate claims, “Pizzagate” Conspiracy Theory (in ad for another article)
6. Politifact:Pizzagate
7. Politifact: No mention of "Pizzagate" at all
8. BBC: saga of Pizzagate, term "pizzagate", Pizzagate
9. NYT: Pizzagate, Pizzagate theory
10. WaPo: Pizzagate, “Pizzagate” conspiracy board (referring to the subreddit), Pizzagate conspiracy
11. Salon: Pizzagate
12. CNN: Pizzagate
13. NYT:‘Pizzagate’ Hoax
14. Bloomberg: No mention of "Pizzagate" at all
15. NPR: No mention of "Pizzagate" at all
16. Washington City Paper: Pizzagate
17. MPDC: No mention of "Pizzagate" at all
18. ABC: Pizzagate, Pizzagate scandal
19. Politico: "#pizzagate" conspiracy, #pizzagate
20. Business Insider: Pizzagate story, Pizzagate conspiracy, #Pizzagate
21. NYT: Pizzagate, #pizzagate
22. ABC: "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory, #Pizzagate, Pizzagate
23. NYT: ‘Pizzagate’ Hoax
24. Daily Dot: Pizzagate Conspiracy, Pizzagate, #pizzagate

Somehow I lost three sources, (one was duplicated and I need to go back and find it). If someone can point them out I'll add them.

But overall, while some sources mention a Pizzagate theory, or Pizzagate conspiracy, only three mention "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" verbatim. 16 sources use Pizzagate as a stand alone term, only 3 who mention Pizzagate fail to mention it as a stand alone term, and five sources mention it only as a standalone term and never mention it with any qualifiers.

So Pizzagate is the a clear common thread in these sources by number of mentions, and "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" wins only slightly over "Pizzagate hoax" with three and two mentions respectively.

Finally per WP:DAB: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. (emphasis mine). In this case there is no other existing article, but only a section, and therefore no reason to add qualifiers to the title. Furthermore, if we are to treat the section as an article for these purposes, the guideline continues: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that this list of sources supports "Pizzagate" over "Pizzagate conspiracy theory," as a great many of them - like most RS that have addressed this - clearly identify Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory. For example: the first sentence of your Miami Herald article notes that Police have called it "a 'fictitious conspiracy theory.'" This article (also from the Miami Herald) defines Pizzagate (again, in the first sentence) as a "a fake-news conspiracy." Same thing with your second source - the very first sentence of the article defines Pizzagate as " a fantastical conspiracy theory." Ditto for source number three, which clearly labels Pizzagate as an "elaborate conspiracy theory." The same appears to be true for the majority of the sources you linked: The BBC link (#8) also clearly labels Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory. So does the Washington Post source (#10). This list seems like evidence that "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is by far the most accurate and NPOV option for the article's title. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Because there is a difference between naming a thing and describing a thing. I am listing instances where they referred to it as a name. From the Miami Herald, A popular New York restaurant has become the latest victim of a fake-news conspiracy about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring out of a Washington, D.C., pizza joint. This is an extended descriptor, not a name. It is as supportive of "Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)" as it is of "Pizzagate (Hillary Clinton child sex ring conspiracy theory)".

I'm not arguing that it isn't in fact a conspiracy theory. I'm arguing that the common name is "Pizzagate" as opposed to "Pizzagate hoax," "Pizzagate conspiracy," "Fantastical Pizzagate conspiracy theory" or any of the other thousand ways descriptors can be attached unnecessarily. They are only unnecessary because disambiguation is only necessary to resolve ambiguity, of which, in this case, there is very little. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to "Pizzagate" as this topic has clear primary usage of the title. Lasersharp (talk)
• Oppose: Although news sources have referred to the incident as "Pizzagate", virtually all of them have described Pizzagate as a conspiracy theory. Unless there is proof that the conspiracy has some basis in reality (which doesn't), Pizzagate will always be regarded as a conspiracy theory. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I...really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. No one questions that Michael Jordan was a basketball player, but Michael Jordan (basketball player) isn't an article. TimothyJosephWood 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: because Michael Jordan exists, Pizzagate does not exist, there was no Watergate type existence of any event, scandal - this is a completely fictional event which only is alleged to exist and then shown not to have done. If we go through the other List of scandals with "-gate" suffix is there a single one which turns out to not have any existence outside conspiracy as this one did not exist? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In ictu oculi I'm not seeing anything on primary or commons name guidelines that says it doesn't apply to Leprechaun and unicorn. TimothyJosephWood 11:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's because those are legendary creatures rather than scandals List of scandals with "-gate" suffix with some base outside alt-right hysteria. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure its because WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PTOPIC have nothing to do with whether the subject of an article is true or real. If you would like to suggest adding this criteria, you are welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support the move, as this article is now clearly the primary topic of this term. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support move to "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" to keep in line with other conspiracy articles. ^Falling_Gravity 23:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support This article is the primary topic Ag97 (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User has been topic banned by the community from pages related to U.S. politics and pages relating to conspiracy theories. Neutrality^talk 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User was not topic banned until three days after this comment was written. Unstruck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume he is trying to say the fact the uer has been banned means we should ignore his vote, I am not sure that is a valid objection.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support per proposer. Prefer "Pizzagate", as it is shorter than "Pizzagate conspiracy theory", and there isn't another Pizzagate to confuse it with, but the parentheses should definitely go. --GRuban (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It should remain crystal clear that this is a conspiracy theory, and having something in the title is the best way to do this. See Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which could have been titled Barack Obama's citizenship, but wasn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We would be doing the best by our readers to convey in as many ways as possible that this is definitely a conspiracy theory. I'd invoke IAR to override COMMONNAME here. A move to Pizzagate conspiracy theory would be acceptable. gobonobo ^{+ c} 08:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nominator's analysis. Also per WP:PTOPIC: this incident involves an invented conspiracy theory alleging involvement at the highest levels of the most powerful government on the planet and which has led to armed violence, while the other is a food-throwing incident in which it has never been conclusively determined that the food thrown was pizza. And also per WP:PRECISE: reliable sources variously refer to this as "Pizzagate" on its own along with various modifiers, but none of the modifiers are necessary to unambiguously refer to this topic; article titles ought to be only as precise as necessary to identify the topic but no more precise than that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Also support "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" as a distant second choice, iff Pizzagate is changed to redirect to that title. The current disambiguation scheme is clearly improper and needs to be fixed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a move to "Pizzagate" but would support dropping the brackets to make it "Pizzagate conspiracy theorySlatersteven (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm ambivalent about the move, but I Oppose dropping brackets. The name of this... thing... is not "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" but "Pizzagate". The phrase "conspiracy theory" is a descriptive, so if it must be included, it should be included as a descriptive. I understand that there's a desire to make it even more clear that this is bunk, but at a certain point, we need to watch our own biases. Our opposition to this sort of bullshit should not impact our editing, and I think the norms here are pretty clear on the naming conventions. "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is just not a proper name. As an alternative to that, "Pizzagate hoax" or "Pizzagate theory" would be marginally better (they would annoy me just enough that I'd see them as the mark of a good compromise), though still not ideal. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a side note, there's nothing hoax-y about Pizzagate. As I understand it the believers are dead serious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Opppose, per WP:recentism. Paul August ☎ 00:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I support a search for "pizzagate" ending up on a page for the conspiracy theory. It should have happened a week ago. The average human being isn't one iota interested in Wikipedia minutia (or minutiae if you will) or backstage drama. When the average human being searches for "Pizzagate" there's a 99.9+% likelihood that they are looking for the conspiracy theory. The average human being would look at this talk page and be totally mystified. This Wikipedia inside baseball stuff is nuts. I take "talk" at face value. If you "reformat" it or "refactor" it or whatever the term is - shame on you. I'm intentionally leaving this unsigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllThatJazz2012 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a move to "Pizzagate" but would support dropping the brackets to make it Pizzagate conspiracy theory per Fyddlestix. We really do NOT want to suggest this is a legitimate -gate scandal when it is just the insane ramblings of tin foil hat people... Gatemansgc (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PTOPIC. Listing this at RM to solicit opinions. SSTflyer 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: Oppose Pizzagate conspiracy theory as this is a made-up title. The topic is named Pizzagate. SSTflyer 02:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It's a WP:DESCRIPDIS, not a title. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose but no objection to removing bracket. The words "conspiracy theory" are an essential part of the title that shows, unlike the UK pizza throwing incident found in soccer books, that this is about a conspiracy, a lie, a slander, not about an innocent pizza restaurant. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons mentioned above, but fine with dropping the parentheses. "Pizzagate" should redirect here and a hatnote added for the other UK pizza incident. APK whisper in my ear 19:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It might be a conspiracy theory, but those words are not part of the name. Pandas and people (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Move to Close as "No Consensus"' - It's been 8 days and we've made no progress. If an uninvolved admin could close this, I'd suggest that we give it a month and try again. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No, it was only just relisted. Also, despite the discussion being started on Dec 8 it was only given the RM tag on the 15th meaning it didn't show up in the list of move discussions at WP:RM, I know that because of that this is the first I'm hearing of this discussion. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the discussion had been going on for a week and no consensus was reached despite a large number of responses. Someone who didn't even read the talk page first suddenly decided to list it for discussion (if you look further down the talk page) and now we're having to go through the same discussion again due to that mistake. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

SST is definitely one of those rare breed 'why are they not admin already editors. So I wouldn't dismiss their contributions out of hand. Listing it at RM was the correct action, and I failed to do so only because I hoped we could reach a quickish local consensus, which we apparently cannot. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of which, User:SSTflyer, I expect you have good excuse for not being at RfA this very second or...a long time ago? TimothyJosephWood 15:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to Pizzagate conspiracy theory. That's as much as it is. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose move to "Pizzagate", but support removal of parens to "Pizzagate conspiracy theory". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose moving to "Pizzagate" but support dropping the brackets to make it Pizzagate conspiracy theory -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Move the page to Pizzagate conspiracy theory: as we should describe in the title that Pizzagate is conspiracy theory. epicgenius (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A name like "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" fails WP:CONCISE, and we need not do mutual disambiguation (including natural/descriptive like that) other than by hatnote and a disambiguation on one of them when there are only two pages to distinguish, per WP:TWODABS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request - Widely debunked

Please use these sources to add to article to change wording from simply "debunked" to ---> "widely debunked" :

1. Hackman, Michelle (December 6, 2016), "Michael Flynn's Son Has Left Trump Transition Team", The Wall Street Journal, retrieved December 12, 2016, a widely debunked conspiracy theory, known as Pizzagate
2. Pasha-Robinson, Lucy (December 5, 2016), "Pizzagate", The Independent, retrieved December 12, 2016, have stood by the theory despite it being widely debunked
3. Strom, Roy (December 6, 2016), "After Shooting, Lawyer's Fake Twitter Account Presses 'Pizzagate' Conspiracy", The American Lawyer, retrieved December 12, 2016, has already been widely debunked by news outlets and by the city's police

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Are you referring to the opening sentence? ("widely discredited and debunked" is in the first line of the "Debunking" section) IMHO adding it to the opening sentence isn't necessary; it's explained in the Debunking section. The first sentence already has three references in that citation. It's been debunked by every RS and the people who still don't believe don't care how sane members of society describe it. Adding another use of "widely" won't convince the conspiracy theorists of anything. But if others disagree, then by all means it should be added. Just my two cents. APK whisper in my ear 10:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• While I've quite publicly stated my preference for unequivocally strong language about "Debunking" I do feel that it is already very clear that the debunking is wide. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with the other two editors above me. I think stating unequivocally that it is debunked in the first sentence, in wikivoice is strong enough for the lead. As long as we 'double down' on it as it were, by adding adjectives like "widely" in the section (and indeed, in even having a section called 'Debunked'), we don't need to be as emphatic in the first sentence. Remember, part of our responsibility in editing this article is to keep an eye out for our own biases, too.

There is another reason, as well: Trust in the media is at a notable low point now. Adding "widely" to the lead strongly implies that the media has been debunking it to the type of reader who would not trust the media, as they happen to be the type to not read the entire article. So to a certain type of reader, the addition of this word could actually weaken the claim that it's not true. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if not the intro, can these citations above be incorporated somewhere in the article body text to say "widely debunked" somewhere? Sagecandor (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think adding this term would definitely cause the article to stray into the realms of bias (even though people who don't understand what Balance means are already saying it has) and the article already lets readers know that this is a widely debunked, false conspiracy theory based on (I can't remember which article I saw this phrase in) nothing more than confirmation bias. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that liberal leaning news sites, with no sources themselves, simply stating that it has been "debunked everywhere, god, just do a google search and you could find it," is not a credible source. The most credible site I've seen so far, Snopes, specifically noted they were "unable to locate any substantive aspect of the claims that could be fact-checked or otherwise held up to the light to determine their veracity" and nothing to prove it false beyond impassioned news articles. Given that most scientific doctrine revolves around proving a theory false one time rather than true all of the time, and no one seems to have any hard evidence that it's wrong, as is typically the definition of the word debunked, the word should be removed from the article. Wrpen99 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet... Snopes labels Pizzagate with big red letters: FALSE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Prove to me that you're not a space alien. I mean, I'm sure I'll be "unable to locate any substantive aspect of the claims that could be fact-checked or otherwise held up to the light to determine their veracity" but since "scientific doctrine" (sic) "revolves proving a theory false one time" you should be able to do it. Come on, prove to me just one that you're not a space alien from planet Fullofshitaran.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wrpen99: I would like to point out that liberal leaning news sites, with no sources themselves, simply stating that it has been "debunked everywhere, god, just do a google search and you could find it," is not a credible source. Actually... It is. Wikipedia might document ideological trends like "ya jist can't trust tha lib'ral medier!" but we certainly don't follow them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So...as long as it's on the internet, it must be true? Wrpen99 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

<sarcasm>@Wrpen99: Yes. That's exactly what I said. You saw through my web of lies and discovered that, in arguing that we shouldn't believe what's on the internet, I'm actually arguing that we should believe everything the internet has to say. Your response is not at all hysterical, overwrought or fallacious.</sarcasm> MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fox News is liberal media? Well, you learn something new every day. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think they do think that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Slater is exactly right. Many alt-right (and other far-right) individuals truly believe that fox news is part of "the liberal media". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone lay of the PA's whether it be "liberal POV pushers" or "hysterical".Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Interview

The owner of Comet Ping Pong sat down for an interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News. Does anyone think this is worth including as an EL? APK whisper in my ear 10:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not really, what new is it going to add?Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just watched the clip & it's pretty unequivocal about Pizzagate being (direct quote) "Fake. Fake!!" but I'm not sure if it would add much to the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an outstanding problem with using it as an external link. Right now we don't even haven an external link section. We could probably add the full text of the indictment as an external link also, since we don't use it as an actual source. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not useful to include something saying Comet Ping Pong says the conspiracy theory is fake. We have a variety of reliable sources that already say that, and they carry much more weight. Including this statement from Comet Ping Pong could be read to turn the issue into a he-said-she-said dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I think we're talking across purposes. The proposal was to include it as an external link (WP:EL). TimothyJosephWood 12:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

For example, what I was suggesting was something like:

External links

• Full text of the criminal complaint against Edgar Welsh
• Interview with James Alefantis, Comet Ping Pong owner

(For some reason the talk quote template isn't supporting an embedded section header. This is really weird and I swear I've used it that way before.) TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood. I'm generally one for fewer ELs rather than more. I don't think the interview provides anything particularly illuminunating or helpful to the reader so my inclination is to exclude. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Q: Should the article refer to Pizzagate as "debunked" in the lead?

In this article's short life this issue has already come up multiple times. So in the interest of avoiding even more repeated discussions of the same question in the future, I'm opening this RfC in order to hopefully establish a firm consensus one way or the other. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Is anyone seriously disputing this? There was an editor who seemed to be advocating this, but he's been topic-banned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Yes. The word "debunked" is well cited and it is referenced from multiple reliable sources. There have been suggestions that it should be removed because other articles do not include the word "debunked" but I consider that to be a Red Herring - problems with other articles should not affect this one. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Wording could be different, but the gist needs to remain - I think it's a little awkward to have the word "debunked" right there, and so I would suggest an alternative formulation: "Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory which emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle, falsely claiming that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking, and connecting a number of pizzerias in Washington, D.C. and members of the Democratic Party to a fabricated child-sex ring." This improves the flow, while still clearly and directly factually stating that the claims it makes about people are factually false. I would oppose any change which removes from the lede entirely this sort of direct factual statement, because of the still-ongoing nature of the spread of these fictitious, libelous lies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that would be an improvement over the current wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Wording could be different, but the gist needs to remain "unproven and widely debunked"Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support current wording but... I support NorthBySouthBaranof's suggestion more. I've quoted it below to highlight it.

Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory which emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle, falsely claiming that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking, and connecting a number of pizzerias in Washington, D.C. and members of the Democratic Party to a fabricated child-sex ring.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I made a change to the language to better reflect my preferences. I don't think the word 'imaginary' in this context is very encyclopedic. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, "fabricated" sounds better and I've made the change in my suggestion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support saying "debunked", and also support "falsely claiming" and "fabricated". The sourcing is abundant, and we need to be accurate. I've read the argument above, about the risk of sounding like there are conspiracy theories that are not debunked, and it strikes me as a non-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support word(s) along these lines. - Not fussy about debunked vs. fabricated vs. falsely claiming and the like. As long as it agrees with the RSs. Objective3000 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Change Wording per NorthBySouthBaranof. Pretty much all lead paragraphs of Wikipedia articles regarding conspiracy theories do not say that word such as the debunked series of Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support "debunked" in first sentence, and "discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum" in 2nd sentence, and fictitious conspiracy theory" in 2nd sentence, and "determined to be false by multiple organizations" in 2nd sentence. This WP:BLP issue has led to actual violence with an actual gun, as described by an FBI Special Agent at File:US v Welch Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint.pdf. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that adding or removing "debunked" in the first sentence would change anything. The people who believe this theory tend to ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs. There are people who still believe that the Sandy Newton victims are actors, such as this individual who was arrested for giving death threats to the parents. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Holy ever loving crap... I knew that woman. Like, in real life. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

How long has she been believing these theories for? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. I last spoke to her before Sandy Hook happened. But she was always a Conspiracy Theorist. I met her in an AOL Local chat room about the X-Files in the late 90's. To be fair, I was a CT, too at the time. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support NorthBySouthBaranof and MjolnirPants' wording as presented here, which I guess is to say oppose using "debunked" but their wording accomplishes the same meaning. Good job. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Obvious, and factual, as cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per sourcing. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Change Wording - since it has been reportedly an ongoing issue, plus the word seems part of a redundancy/overload/conflict conflusion. The article is using the suffix "-gate", then 'conspiracy theory', 'discredited', 'fictitious conspiracy theory' and 'determined to be false'. This seems too much and also like different things so the article direction is muddled there. The 'gate' reads like an actual conspiracy existed, 'conspiracy theory' like it talking about the fringe nature of held by few, 'fictitious conspiracy theory' sounds like it's not a conspiracy theory and it is competing with 'debunked conspiracy theory' and 'debunked' as in some actual providing of evidence was the prominent event. I think just going with 'discredited' would be easier. Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support in some form per WP:RS, though some other wording could be used, e.g. "disproved", "false", "... falsely claiming that ...", etc., if people object to "debunked" in particular. I agree that the exact word "debunked" isn't usually used here, but it is not at MOS:WTW and I don't see it as automatically problematic, though it is perhaps more of a Snopes than WP approach.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Dissent Whilst I have no doubt that much of the published gossip is wild exaggeration, and speculation. Am I alone in finding archived instagram pictures from the staff of the shop and the lurid comments of its followers extremely disturbing? [5]. Here is one source which alludes to the pictures, and properly retains Alefantis' comments in quotes only. [6]. Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet another "It might be true, look at this random blog!" comment. Thanks. We were running low on those. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

These are archived pages from source, not 'a random blog' and the Washington Times is reasonably RS, despite its Moonie roots and continuing links. Cpsoper (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• @A Quest For Knowledge:. Yes. See archive. Multiple editors have questioned this, including at least one admin. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. WP:NPOV requires that we not just say it's been debunked, but go into detail how it's been debunked. I remember reading Holocaust denial not because I thought the Holocaust wasn't real, but because I wanted to know what Holocaust deniers were saying. The article not only explained what Holocaust deniers were claiming, but also explained the flaws in their arguments. That, to me, is the mark of a good article about a fringe theory. If it had just said that Holocaust denial had been debunked but didn't explain why, that would do our readers a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, @A Quest For Knowledge: - You've voted "support" in the survey, supporting the retention of "debunked" in the article. You've then, in response to another user's comment, said that changing the wording sounds better. Which is your vote? I only ask because here you say you would like the word "debunked" removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that the word "debunked" should be removed from the opening sentence, but not the whole article. The article can and should critically analyze this conspiracy theory. To be honest, I find the wording a bit insulting to our reader's intelligence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So you should vote "oppose" then, surely? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: No, if you don't understand the difference between the opening sentence and the entire lead or the whole article, I'm not sure what more I can say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble but this discussion is specifically about the lead. Thanks for posting. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! It's about the lede in general, not specifically the opening sentence. I suggest you reread my responses. I don't think I can make it any more obvious than I already have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Two minds, NPOV says we should be neutral, but it is hard to see this as not thoroughly debunked. The only evidence that has not been proved as either made up, falsified or misrepresented is the "code" and that is also totally unsubstantiated. Thus is is hard to see this as not debunked. I would say change it to "unproven and widely debunked".Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"Unproven" weakens the language somewhat. It's not as strong as an unequivocal phrase like "false" Exemplo347 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Except I rather do have so play devils advocate here and point out it has not been shown the code is false. Only that it has not on shred of evidence to support it. I would opt for the more neutral phrase just to stop the damn arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In a very formal sense, you are absolutely right. But in the heuristics of reality, the fact that all the 'evidence' has been shown to be false is, itself, convincing evidence that there is no truth to it. It's a sort of statistical syllogism: it's not false by definition but it's so unlikely to be true that it might as well be.

Why does this matter? Because Wikipedia documents reality. It's an encyclopedia, not an exercise in applying strict formal logic to real questions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's the point I've been trying to make for days. This is an entry in an encyclopaedia, not a web forum where anyone can post anything they like, slanted exactly how they like, to push whatever agenda they choose to push this week based on something they read on some random message board. Facts - cited, referenced facts - that's what Wikipedia articles need, not petty arguments over semantics based on the personal feelings of editors. This isn't 4chan - this site actually gets taken seriously. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel I must add to this discussion, because the article, as well as the talk page here, seems to omit some very important aspects of Pizzagate, which I'll try to adress short. Pizzagate is not 'a' conspiracy theory, it is in fact a still evolving amalgam of theories. Literally thousands of people are investigating what they find a suspicious network of relations that breaths a to them very disturbing suggestion of different kinds of evil. One of the major branches of this - ongoing and, like I said, evolving - investigation focusses on the Clinton Foundation and its international connections to (as some or many see it) supposedly criminal activitities and organisations; I stress here that it is for many of the researchers not a partisan issue. The Wiki-article fails to even mention the Clinton Foundation and the stress laid upon it under the name of Pizzagate. I find it quite unbelievable how a plurality of Wikipedians, that is: encyclopedians, picks only the obvious (and, indeed, clearly debunkable) surface of this 'conspiracy theory gone wild' and seems to try so hard to maintain it is a debunked conspiracy theory. It appears to me as if no one has felt the need to give a more elaborate account of this subject, and all are trying to get it over with and bury the subject by stating it as debunked. By the very definition (and the article's lead seems a poor one) of this many-headed monster it cannot be said to be debunked as long as it is growing, which in my opinion it still does. And no, I haven't seen a smoking gun, nor even a victim, but as someone said: 'Pizzagate is not a theory, it is an investigation' - Wikipedians in this case might learn something from that. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jürgen Eissink. I don't think anyone is against putting anything in the article on principle, but, because of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, we can't include anything in the article that isn't backed up by a reliable source, even if it is true. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources is confusing so many people. It's been in place for years. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone has been here for years, and some who do still often get it wrong, which is why we should take care not to WP:BITE users who've only ever made three edits. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It was just a general comment really. People who have been here for longer than I have still keep getting tripped up by the Verifiability policy. 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Timothyjosephwood, reliable sources did focus on some of Pizzagate's theories concerning the Clinton Foundation, debunking it or not, for instance the Washington Post. I just felt obliged to notice that to many Pizzagaters Pizzagate is much bigger than the Wiki-article suggests, and that it seems akward to call debunked something which is much broader than a detail shown. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah ha. Now, this is a good point and with a really good source behind it. We could probably use this to add some breadth to the Origins section. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you got the point. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of the spin-off conspiracy theories could be good, as long as there's the word "false" added if it's in the sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say the initial allegations have been pretty conclusively debunked, and the wider issue is not really about Pizzagate and so it's proper place would be elsewhere (such as the Clinton foundation).Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems every bit as relevant as allegations that the FBI raided Clinton's home. ...And if anyone is seriously considering suggesting this be added to the main article for the Clinton Foundation, the only thing that's going to get you over there is an archive template and a link to WP:DONTFEED. The only reason WaPo is covering it is because of its connection to Pizzagate, and this isn't the first person that has suggested that the coverage of the actual content of the conspiracy theory has been shallow. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - mentioning pizzagate-related spin-off conspiracy theories (when they appear in reliable sources) is perfectly valid.Exemplo347 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Pizzagate is a word that references the false allegations that Hillary Clinton is involved in the running of a child sex ring out of the backs (or basements) of a chain of D.C. based pizza restaurants. That claim absolutely has been debunked. Now, the fact that this claim is one of numerous other claims alleging some human trafficking charges against Hillary Clinton, and that there are tangential claims surrounding it doesn't change the fact that the initial claim has been shown to be false. I might remind editors of a few things:

1. Moon landing hoax claims continue to grow and evolve, despite being long debunked.
2. The fact that there is a close-knit web of conspiracy theories involving the Clintons, many of which are related to this one doesn't imply that this one cannot be differentiated from others.
3. The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked has no bearing on whether this one has.
4. The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked doesn't imply that they are true, either.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change the nature of the RfC

Withdrawn for now

There have been three composed proposals made; the extant wording, the wording by NorthbySouth, and the wording contained in this archived thread. I would suggest we re-word the RfC to allow participants to clearly choose between those three alternatives (and of course, to propose their own) and collapse the current !votes to keep things from getting too messy. Any thoughts? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Let's keep this one to the original proposal. Sagecandor (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC) I'm mostly sitting this one out as proposer, but I think the best course of action would be to let the RfC run its course, and if consensus is against, follow that up with options. At least at that point, we would know that we need other options, and we would have actually accomplished something. What I don't want to end up with is an RfC that gives options A through F and no meaningful consensus is gathered for anything at all. TimothyJosephWood 20:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Good point. I'll go with that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Spin-off Pizzagate-related conspiracy theories

I've just added a paragraph to the article in the "Responses" section detailing a spin-off conspiracy theory that was reported in The Washington Post. If anyone thinks it looks awful, dive right in and change it! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think pointing out that her death was from suicide is important, as it's one of the two things the Infowars video was dishonest about (the other being her reason for going to Haiti). So I've added that info. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Good call! Exemplo347 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A number of pizzerias

Our lead section currently says that the conspiracy theory is about "a number of pizzerias in Washington D.C." without naming them. This doesn't seem to be borne out by the body of the article, which only mentions Comet Ping Pong. Which other pizzerias are implicated by the theory and can someone more familiar than the theory than I please add appropriate content with citations to the body of our article? Otherwise, the lead section should be changed to refer specifically to Comet Ping Pong. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm changing it to say "a chain of pizzerias in Washington D.C." because I'm pretty sure that's what whomever wrote it meant. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

[Wrote this just before conflict with DrFleischmanns 18:31 comment] 'Pretty sure' is quite an argument... In this case it seems to me to be wrong, anyway, because the main pizzeria supposedly involved, Comet Ping Pong, is not part of a chain, as far as I know. The second pizzeria often (but not initially) mentioned is Besta Pizza, located in the same block and only a few doors up the street - this takeaway is part of a small chain of two pizzerias (Maryland and Washington). So I'm pretty sure 'a number' reflects the theory better than 'a chain', but even better might be just to speak of 'a pizza restaurant', because it started with Comet Ping Pong. Comet Ping Pong's owner Alefantis' other, neighbouring restaurant Bucks Fishing & Camping has later also become subject to speculations, as in a lesser degree has Little Red Fox, a restaurant in between Comet and Bucks. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Comet Ping Pong isn't a chain, is it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also not all the restaurants dragged into it are pizzerias. It should read (surely) "a number of restaurants in the USA".Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• I could have sworn Comet Ping Pong was a local chain, but checking their site, I see I'm wrong. So I think we need some RSes to support a change in wording to something like "a number of businesses" or "a number of restaurants" or "a number of pizzerias". Could somebody revert me, please? I'm on my alt account, and I already switched once to my main to make the edit; I don't want to do it again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Aha, I see content about Roberta's and East Side Pies, both of which are pizzerias (though this fact isn't mentioned in our article). But these aren't DC pizzerias, as Roberta's is in New York and East Side Pies is in Austin. So we should remove "in Washington D.C." However I think it's apparent that the theory has been primarily about Comet Ping Pong, and not mentioning this fact in the lead appears to be unhelpful and a bit misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/10/pizzagate-explained-everything-you-want-to-know-about-the-comet-ping-pong-pizzeria-conspiracy-theory-but-are-too-afraid-to-search-for-on-reddit/

It says "Threatening phone calls regularly harassed and frightened employees of many restaurants near Comet, and other pizza places in D.C. that theorists decided must be linked to the pedophilia ring because they also serve pizza." and explicitly names one D.C. pizza restaurant called WeThePizza.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm, so we have various sources mentioning a smorgasbord of restaurants, some pizzerias and some not, both in and out of DC, though the sources pretty clearly indicate that the theory centers around Comet Ping Pong. I think it's impossible not to mention Comet Ping Pong in the lead section, and perhaps we should also say that the theories have spread to a number of other restaurants in DC, New York, and Austin, Texas. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the line of "originated with allegations against Comet Ping Pong".Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

WP:DONTFEED TimothyJosephWood 20:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

PizzaGate is real. You are not. 152.179.71.62 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC) What is your proposed edit, you seem to have forgotten to mention it?Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks Bentonville, but you need to actually propose an improvement to the article. This is not a forum to discuss Pizzagate in general. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  Not done This is not supported by reliable sources, nor even specific enough if it were. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)