Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Is it really debunked? (weasel words)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not knowing that InfoWars is fake news

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TAKE "DEBUNKED" OUT OF THE FIRST LINE!

By no way is the theory debunked. All the emails were real, are you saying they were not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglypuff22468 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done There was an earlier consensus to change "debunked" to "falsely claiming", so I'll go ahead and implement that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to remove the word debunked? (it's not in the RfC) Just need some clarity because I don't remember a consensus being reached. APK whisper in my ear 04:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a large number of people suggesting that the "debunked" construction was awkward, a large number of people agreeing with the suggestion of rewording to "falsely claimed" and nobody objecting to the suggestion of "falsely claimed." If you want to revert that's fine, I'm not going to edit-war over it, but my reading is that there's more support for it than opposition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The semantics had to do with over egging the pudding. I still think the previous version is easier on the eye. That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

But, thank you for making the point that we need to prevent future talk page disruption. And, I think the consensus for debunked should remain. Objective3000 (talk)

Yes, the e-mails are real, what has not be proven (and thus does not need disproving) is what the word Pizza means. As has been said many times, any evidence that has been represented (where methodology or validity can be checked) has been shown to be false by RS. Until someone can come up with the code breaking techniques (beyond "they share the same initials) published by RS then it has been debunked by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Undone Please see RfC at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2017/January. There is no broad consensus sufficient to overturn the results of this RfC. TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus among reliable sources is that pizza means "A dish of Italian origin consisting of a flat, round base of dough baked with a topping of tomato sauce and cheese, typically with added meat or vegetables." It does not mean there's a pedophile ring in the basement. No evidence of the second definition has been presented. Objective3000 (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It does not mean there's a pedophile ring in the basement. But "anchovy pizza" does. Let's be clear that people who eat pizza like that are the scum of the earth. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I like anchovies - NPA please. (Do I have a conflict of interest?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk)

Honi soit qui mal y pense. Objective3000 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Augh! I'm surrounded by deviants! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, Wikipedia is not considered an RS. Objective3000 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I can forgive you guys for your horrible tastes. The Cabal should not be split by petty differences of deep-seated moral disgust. Not when we have an encyclopedia to rule over with an iron fist. <cue evil laughter> MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not just remove it and everyone will be happy? Or just simply replace "debunked" with "unproven"? TheBD2000 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it's been debunked, it's false, it's fabricated nonsense, it has never had the slightest hint of truth to it, that's what reliable sources report and that's the end of the story so far as we're concerned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"Unproven" is for cases where the advocates have not made their case. "Debunked" is for cases where investigators have investigated, called shenanigans and moved on to other things. I'll give you two guesses which case this subject falls into. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Debunked conspiracy theory"

There are four threads about this on this page already. Stop beating this dead horse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anyone else find it interesting that Wikipedia calls this conspiracy theory "debunked" in the first line of the article, yet there is no mention of "debunked" in any other conspiracy theory on the site, such as the 9/11 theory, fake moon landings, etc.? Wikipedia tries to act neutral with all conspiracy theories except this one; really makes you wonder who is actually editing this. I also bet this post will be deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.214.250 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with objectivity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Voat there is the following thread: https://voat.co/v/pizzagateunedited/1447885 If someone approves of pedophilia, that isn't a crime, but as I see in these links Wikipedia has a troubling past with child pornography scandals. How can we be certain of objectivity in these kind of theories if these things happened in the past?

Another problem with the objectivity is that the CIA has infiltrated Mainstream Media in the past in one of their secret projects, if sources like The New York Times are used, but these same newspapers are infiltrated by organizations which are possibly related to child abuse and sex trafficking, which is what pizzagate is about, how can they be objective sources to use?

I 'm sorry if these questions are controversial, but they are important to ask. UshilRasnal (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you would like content changed or added on Wikipedia you will need to provide reliable sources for the changes you would like made. Online message forums such as Voat do not satisfy Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 20:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ushil, this video reveals the secret truth about Wikipedia and The New York Times. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

FTFY TimothyJosephWood 20:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to be honest, your reply is funny Dr. Fleischman, but for anyone interested in the CIA and mainstream media connection, read Operation Mockingbird UshilRasnal (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have a problem with any reliable sources used, take it to WP:RSN. This doesn't belong on Talk Pages. Objective3000 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typo in Michael T. Flynn Subsection

"...posted multiple tweets on Twitter conspiratorial material regarding..."

The word containing should be added between 'Twitter' and 'conspiratorial'. I can't fix it because the page is protected. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done APK whisper in my ear 07:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Some POV issues

I notice that some of the text in the article are saying that child sex abuse is "false" or "non-existent". This seems to violate WP:NPOV since Wikpedia isn't supposed to take a stance one way or another, just report what reliable sources have stated. Saying that it's debunked according to Fox News, etc is of course valid, but stating in the article whether it's "true or false" is advocating a specific POV, rather than just reporting that sources have declared it debunked.

(For example, the photo at the top should not say a "non existent" child sex trafficking ring, it should say something along the lines of "a child sex trafficking ring which was declared to be false by Fox News)--206.255.15.95 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source which says otherwise, then we can consider the merit of that. Otherwise, we will continue to record what reliable sources say, which is that it was essentially a bald face lie to begin with, and that is what it continues to be. TimothyJosephWood 00:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I just meant that it should state which sources declare it a lie, rather than simply state it as "false" without attributing a source.--206.255.15.95 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a cite in the caption and many sources throughout the article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As a general matter we try to avoid stating facts as opinions. This means we don't use in-text attribution to describe factual content such as this unless there's a disagreement among the reliable sources. In this case there is no contradiction among the sources, so we can and should call Pizzagate debunked without in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this idea (IP users) is that pretty much all RS say it is a lie, we would have 30 or 30 cites for the claim. I suppose I can see why it might be written as "universally shown to be non existent" as a note and then link to the note.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann from CBS46, which is a part of mainstream media too, didn't say it's debunked, so I wouldn't say there is a universal agreement. Even if it's just one, like here, it's simply incorrect to say ALL mainstream media have declared it is debunked. Ben Swann might be somewhat different from all other reporters, but he did a reality check on Pizzagate which didn't debunk it, and this was done for a mainstream media channel. UshilRasnal (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So what did he say he believed?Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahh found it, and he was briefly taken off air, and CBS have distanced themselves from it all "WGCL-TV in Atlanta is not owned or operated by CBS. As such, CBS News has no editorial control over the station’s news product, they have said. So I am not sure that this does prove anything other then one anchor believes this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah...we are not going to take the word of a local new reporter over large established global news organizations with long standing reputations for accuracy and editorial oversight. TimothyJosephWood 17:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Salem witch trials

To avoid an edit war, who thinks Salem witch trials should be added to the "see also" section? I don't because it doesn't seem related to the topic, not to mention it was several hundred years ago. I understand the part about mass hysteria, but as far I know, the conspiracy theorists haven't brought up witchcraft. APK whisper in my ear 08:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Omit from See also - If this is a comparison which has been made by notable sources, then it would be better included in the article text, attributed to those sources. If it is not a comparison which has been made by notable sources, then it would be better omitted from the article entirely. In either case, it is not best placed in the See also section. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Also omit "mass hysteria" on a similar basis - use in the body if sourced. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Omit - Links like this can often be a subtle, or not so subtle way of introducing bias. This is apparently one of those cases. The events are really not historically related at all, but are more of a way of trying to drive home the point. (Who remembers the Family Guy clip of the guy smashing the other guy in the face with pictures of his kids?) TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Omit Not sure (beyond the whole moral panic bit) how these are that linked.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Omit - Agree with TJW. Any link is tenuous at best. Objective3000 (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Omit The connection is that this is another paranoid incident of which the Salem Witch Trials was perhaps the first example. See for example Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics. But I think the connection is too tenuous to include as a "see also." If reliable sources make the connection, then we can mention it in the body of the article. TFD (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Omit Unless of course, there's a case of ergot poisoning tied to the chain and someone gets hanged as a result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I was the one who inserted "Salem Witch Trials" into the article in the first place, so although this was decided without me, I guess I'm entitled to explain why I did what I did. From the "Salem Witch Trials" Wikipedia article: "The episode is one of the Colonial America's most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process." Does "religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process" sound familiar in regard to Pizzagate? I think it does. I'll abide by the decision to omit, but I disagree with it. Does mass hysteria apply here? Chisme (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done This seems pretty uncontroversial and there's no obvious reason to drag it out any longer on an article that gets 15k page views per day. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Omit. I see the connection Chisme was making, but I still !vote in favor of exclusion since if we're going to include the Salem Witch Trials on this basis, then we should include all other episodes of mass hysteria in the U.S., and that's too much. That said, I do think that Mass hysteria would be an appropriate See also link. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Mass hysteria is probably a good compromise. TimothyJosephWood 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure we did see mass hysteria over Pizzagate, sure we saw wild accusations but I do not think (unlike Salem) many people believed it, nor (like the satanic child abuse or McCarthyism) have there been an prosecutions. There was (I agree) hysteria and even persecution, but not in the same way as at Salem, in fact I would say quite the opposite. In Salem Neighbor accused Neighbor, in Pizzagate strangers accused strangers and the Neighbors rallied round the accused.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be overestimating the strength of the "mass" in "mass hysteria". Compare Epidemic, which, while colloquially used to mean literally everybody is going to get sick and die, actually requires a fairly small portion of the population to get sick in order to be technically applicable. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think Mass still has to be enough people (locally) to have an effect on their society (as with Salem or McCarthyism), the problem with Pizzagate is it was a lot of people widely separate who were unable to even cause the police to bother to launch a raid. No major news organisation has declared it true, no senators have staked their careers on an investigation. Simply put no one outside a few ranters on line gave a damn about it.

I would argue that events like Salem were top down, it was people in charge (or at least in positions of authority) who started the scares, and then the people at the bottom became hysterical because their betters were telling them there was a threat. With Pizzagarte the reverse is true, it was people who lacked any social or legal authority who started it, thus no one was impressed enough to start witch hunts.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

a few ranters ...I mean...to be fair, a few thousand...give or take. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but it really jars seeing 'Mass Hysteria' linked to from pages like this - I get the impression this happens a lot on conspiracy theory pages, but I believe that it looks passive aggressive or emotive, and very far from the dispassionate and objective tone Wikipedia aspires to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanCragg (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Level Nine Media interview with James Alefantis

Is this good enough to include? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gKTiUaloDDA

It is James Alefantis interviewed, but I 'm not sure how relevant it is or could be for this article. UshilRasnal (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Who are level nine media, are they RS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Some kind of conspiracy YT channel, so no, they themselves are biased and not reliable, but the interview, as you can see, is with the real James Alefantis, and therefore might be useful. But I think it isn't useful after all due to RS. UshilRasnal (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you have answered your question, they are not RS so we cannot use anything they "publish".Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No, including this would violate our policy on original research, and specifically the portion on the use of primary sources. The source must be reputably published. The uploading of a video by an obscure group that claims to "watch the watchers" is not a reputable publication. If the video had been picked up by reliable secondary sources then that would have been another matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann short disappearance after reality check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philadelphia

Does anyone think mention of Philadelphia pizza restaurants being harassed belongs? I know the Brooklyn and Austin restaurants are mentioned, but the Philadelphia story hasn't received attention outside the city's media. (so far) Just wondering if we should include every restaurant that's harassed. APK whisper in my ear 03:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure this would be a good idea, as it nay overburden the article with a list of names. I think it may be enough to just list the cities affected.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones

If you are going to talk about how Alex pulled videos, you need to include a video he made a new video with Joe Rogan. And then offer a referenced link to the YouTube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it is being heavily implied that Alex Jones has completed backtracked on pizzagate. This is demonstrably false and misleading as he clarifies what happened in the Joe Rogan interview. Either give both sides of the story, or delete the Alex Jones section entirely if you can't be fair and balanced about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This may be a legitimate point, but the problem is that a video interview is considered a primary source, and as such is generally discouraged in cases that make in any way controversial claims. What is really needed is a secondary source that talks about the interview. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

DC Metro Police

It is my understanding that after a FOIA was filed the DC metro Police admitted they didn't conduct any investigation. Yet news sources cite them as part of their debunking, and they cite the news sources. All of the debunking sites given merely repeat what 1 site said, which is namely the NY Times. So was the limit of the DC Police's "investigation" merely reading a NY Times article? If so, then the DC's claim of doing an investigation and finding it "fictitious" is dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

No they are not all repeating one source, they have all looked at the evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If the police did not investigate, then that means that they could not find any reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. If they had investigated, that would be less damning than their refusal to do so. The Metro police are not -contrary to the assertions of conspiracy theorists- not part of any liberal conspiracy. Many of them are, believe it or not, politically conservative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That is true, the lack of an official investigation means that a preliminary assessment of the available facts found nothing worth the effort of an official investigation. Given that police departments have limited personal, time, and funding, they cannot conduct a formal investigation into every complaint and must focus their efforts on those that have substance to them. Paul H. (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

So you all admit then that it is irresponsible to host lies. Either the DC Metro Police did an investigation and found it "fictitious", or they dismissed it based on a "preliminary assessment, in which they most definitely did not look at all the evidence. Assessments are not thorough investigations, so why pass it off like it is?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 

Because they found no evidence to pursue the case. Innocent until proven guilty, so there is no evidence that would stand up in a court of law (or even the investigation by the Pizza gunman) so debunked.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The police do not launch an investigation every time someone walks in wearing a tinfoil hat claiming there are aliens in his cheerios. There are no complainants. There is nothing to investigate. Objective3000 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Benn Swann's Reality Check on pizzagate should be included as it is the most balanced "mainstream" reporting on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Benn Swan is an anchor for a local TV station.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Ok. I'm going to advocate for the devil a bit here. I'm seeing plenty of good arguments that this guy's coverage of Pizzagate is not appropriate as coverage of Pizzagate. But I'm not really seeing any obvious argument to the effect that this mid-level reporter doing a story on it, and then being basically dumped for it, isn't itself a series of events that would be WP:DUE. TimothyJosephWood 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And this [1] is the place for it. I am not really sure his views would not fail undue to to the very nature of what he is. Why are his views more worthy of inclusion then 100's of other local new anchors?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That link goes to Ben Swann's page. That would be like saying NY Times article on pizzagate doesn't belong here but on the NY Times Wiki page. The subject is what matters here and his reporting very much is part of the scope of pizzagate. It was a big story that he reported on it and the only reason it is excluded is because it does not fit your personal narrative. He is also more relevant than other "local news anchors" because he is much more respected than your average said anchor, who don't do investigative reporting or get access to the president.

I mean, we cover Stefanie MacWilliams, and manage to do so concisely in two sentences. It's not really his "views" that I think are due, but rather the "events" surrounding his views. TimothyJosephWood 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is really the reason I was against summarily deleting comments from conspiracy theorists. They may comment here for all the wrong reasons, but as people who intensely follow news related to the theory, they're in a pretty good position to point out areas where we otherwise normal people don't notice when something has happened. TimothyJosephWood 16:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I seem to recall opposing her inclusion too.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

We don’t really know that he would have been dumped for his reporting of PG. And if he was pressured, we don’t know if the pressure came from the local news station, his mother, or self-realization. Objective3000 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He has not been dumped, last reprots are he is back.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Still, it seems to have reached a point where it's not just a local reporter reporting locally, but a local reporter whose reports got attention on quite a few large mainstream outlets. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Why Ben Swann was removed after his reporting on pizzagate is irrelevant. Not asking to offer conspiracy theories as to why he was sidelined for a week or why all of his social media was pulled. His report got mass circulation, even in the mainstream media who attacked him and posted images of him wearing a tinfoil hat. He took the issue seriously and that is all pizzagate researchers ask, but people seem to have a problem with that. To exclude it and make up excuses to do so just goes to show how biased you are being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No I have a problem with any tom dick and harry being included just because they happen to say Pizzagate is real. Ironically there is not a good argument being made for his inclusion, because other people questioned his actions. His views are not worthy of inclusion, peoples reaction to them might be.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Pizzagate is hardly the only conspiracy theory nonsense he has pushed. He also questioned if Sandy Hook was real, whether Russia shot down Malaysia Air flight 17, whether there was a lone gunman in the Aurora theater shooting, whether vaccines cause autism, and he is trying to fund a report on the US creating ISIS. This stuff belongs in his article, not each of the articles on which he has posed conspiracy theories. Objective3000 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And I have a problem with every Tom Dick and Harry having a say on what is included or excluded, just because they say Pizzagate is not real. It deserves to be included regardless of your obvious bias on the issue. Slatersteven really shouldn't even be allowed in the conversation. Objective3000 either, as they both only want to include the things that fit their views and not the whole picture. I think the Flat Earth Theory is treated more fairly. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is at least the third time that you have made accusations of bias against editors without any evidence. Attacking editors in this manner is not acceptable. Objective3000 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing "deserves" to be included, you have to make a good case why. So explain why Mr Swanns views on this are more notable then any other local news Anchors?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Back to the point, Swann also got coverage in The Daily Beast and Salon in addition to the Inquisitr article above. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Are these RS?

Swann also got coverage in the Washington Post, as is linked in this page for the source for Ben Swann, rather than linking to his actual segment itself [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's an "attack" to make an obvious observation. Ben Swann and his Reality Check segments are recognized on a national level, not just his local area. You are intentionally minimalizing his credibility when this "local news anchor" gets exclusive interviews with President Obama where he asked him about ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with Slater on this. The events surrounding Swann seem to be worth including, but they're events which surround Swann, not necessarily pizzagate. Consider: those events impact the depiction of Swann in a rather large way. They show his political affiliations, his treatment of conspiracy theories, and his reaction to an adverse public response.

How does including those events change the narrative here? It doesn't. We've already established that some people take this seriously and advocate for it. This adds nothing to this article, but adds something to the Swann article. So that's where it belongs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It does change the narrative, because the narrative is to not take pizzagate seriously and treat it like ludicrous fake news. Ben Swann treated the issue seriously and that doesn't fit said narrative. TimothyJospehWood is at least being reasonably fair. Other editor's biases are clearly showing. That is not an attack, it is just being alleged as thus to get a dissenter banned for breaking the rules. It does add to the article, it gives a bigger picture on the issue and shows why some take the issue seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

So answer me this then. Why is Alex Jones included and not Ben Swann? Surely the information provided about Alex Jones belongs on the Alex Jones page by using this rationale about Swann, and not here on the pizzagate page. This is the evidence I present as bias, as asked for by Obecjtive3000. Clearly the Alex Jones section is included because it fits the narrative that pizzagate has been debunked. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, Ben Swann at least has journalistic credentials, not matter how much those credentials are downplayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Because Alex J Ones helped propagate it, and had hours of material about it, not a 5 minute "in depth" report.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann is included; he's listed as one of Pizzagate's proponents in the "Spread on social media" section. It's not clear what you (IP editor) are advocating for. ^Falling_Gravity 17:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it only mentions Ben Swann alongside basketball player Andrew Bogut. That is so dubious in and of itself, putting a journalist next to an NBA player. Plus the sourced link goes to a Washington Post article, not the Reality Check segment. So there is yet another mainstream source that discusses this "local mid level news anchor", making it national coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A question about "reality check", what time is it aired on the CBS national network (or even the local affiliate)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Per the Daily Beast article above, the segment in question aired on Tuesday night. TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And that implies it did not get a national broadcast, and was only part of the local news program. So again we go back to it was not what he said that received national coverage, but the reaction to it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Then Ben Swann also "helped propagate it" by treating it seriously. It did get national coverage as his segments get uploaded to YouTube, with hundreds of thousands of views, unlike other local news anchors. Alex jones is conspiracy, Swann is a journalist, so him giving it serious attention "gives it legitimacy", even if your argument is that it "propagates". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Uploading something to YouTube is completely irrelevant. Swann is a local news anchor who has pushed several conspiracy theories, including this one. They are mentioned in his article, where they belong. In absolutely no manner has Swann given Pizzagate legitimacy. It is a debunked conspiracy theory. Objective3000 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Your bias is showing again Objective3000 because Alex Jones is included and his uploaded/removed YouTube videos are addressed. Pizzagate has not been debunked because there has not been 1 single investigation done, not by the DC Metro Police, or anyone else. You are basing your debunking claims on mainstream media outlets. They are not law enforcement and Ben Swann is more known as an investigative journalist than the authors of these debunking stories. Even if you exclude YouTube as being completely irrelevant, as TimothyJosephWood has noted, this segment was addressed on the national level by the Washington Post, Salon, and the Daily Beast.

Pointing out your bias, with evidence, is not an attack. No more so than calling me out for being "an IP editor". I believe the rules also say to treat "new users" with respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, stop making false accusations against editors. Not only is this not allowed, it’s pointless as it doesn’t convince anyone. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. RS have stated that this is a debunked conspiracy theory. If you do not believe the sources are reliable, this is the wrong place to argue this. You must go to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

If the IP is editing under the impression that Pizzagate is true, then we have no obligation to attempt to refute them, and will never succeed in convincing them of how wrong they are, anyways. So let's just stop and wait for more policy based arguments from editors more interested in documenting the phenomenon than in pushing the POV that it's true, shall we? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. Objective3000 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infowars referred to as fake news with no source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see that under "informational notes" there is some defense against the claim that Infowars is fake news, but in the article it blankly states that Infowars is fake news. This is quite clearly an opinion. Opinions should not be presented as facts on Wikipedia. The lines under "informational notes" should be included in the section that links to it, so that both sides are addressed fairly and accurately. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a source for it right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The source does not confirm that Infowars is fake news. It's an article from CBS News with an example of one story they got wrong. If CBS News reported that unicorns are real, would that be enough proof to edit the page on unicorns? 104.148.178.88 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You will find several more refs at List of fake news websites. And yes, if CBS and other RS reported that Unicorns were real, we might very well edit the article on unicorns. Objective3000 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Those sources are still all from news sites. It's concerning that you're essentially telling me mainstream news can control the information on Wikipedia. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is founded upon reliable sources (WP:RS). The community has decided that this is better than using unreliable sources to create an encyclopedia. That does not mean that mainstream media controls WP. It just means that those media sources that have a record of fact-checking and verifiability are among the sources we use. Objective3000 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering the objective truth that opinions presented on those news sites are posted on Wikipedia as reliable information, I would argue that the mainstream media has a certain degree of control over what is posted. Although I don't believe that everything on the list of accepted sites should be taken as factual, I suppose that it's a concern I should express toward the policy as a whole, rather than this talk page. Thanks for the information. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The policy is that we only write that which is verifiable and true. If you take issue with that, you're not going to get very far. The fact that this expands to "we trust the mainstream media" is only a result of the fact that, contrary to whatever you may want to believe, the mainstream media is actually pretty trustworthy. You prove they're not (without trying to pass off bullshit from random blogs, propaganda sources and fake news sources as evidence) and the policy would require us to stop using them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To claim that Infowars is fake news is neither verifiable or true. I would have no problem if you only posted what is "verifiable and true" but that is objectively not the case, as seen on this page. The burden of proof does not rest on me, as I'm not trying to prove that these sites are not trustworthy. I am simply denying the idea that these sources are 100% accurate. If you have evidence to prove that they are 100% accurate, it's your burden to post it. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no publication which is 100% accurate, so that is a straw man argument. A reliable source for use on Wikipedia has a reputation for accuracy most of the time, and even more importantly, a reputation for correcting its errors promptly when they are discovered. Many reliable sources writing about Infowars report that the site commonly publishes overt falsehoods and makes no effort to correct their falsehoods. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A reputation for accuracy does not guarantee accuracy. You understand that no publication is 100% accurate, so why does Wikipedia policy operate under the assumption that RS are 100% accurate? (So no, that was not a strawman argument. The 100% figure was based on WP policy assuming total accuracy) Blatant opinions from these sources are posted on Wikipedia as reliable information due to this flaw in policy. It only encourages the spread of misinformation. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fake news revisited

After a exhausting lengthy discussion at WT:RS, I've been thinking about this quite a bit, and I think there may actually be a legitimate issue here to address, so I'm going to argue against myself. When we first put the "fake news" description in the article, it was on the eve, and the immediate wake of the election, when sources seemed to pretty much agree what it meant, and who it described. After events in the White House over the past few days, and the apparent willingness of POTUS to liberally use the term as, what can only be described as a pejorative, combined with the gargantuan news coverage that these events have received, I'm starting to reconsider the usefulness of the term.

I'll admit that I initially balked at User:Masem's suggestion that the term lacked a clear meaning, but after the last WH press conference, I wonder if we are not getting to a place where we are running afoul of WP:EUPHEMISM, WP:TERRORIST or both. As example, and since fake news has essentially become a synonym for tabloid, I think it would be a much clearer choice in an article where we were considering calling an outlet a "tabloid" with no further comment, or actually describing what was meant by tabloid according to more elucidating descriptions in RS. For example, saying something along the lines of:

Infowars, an outlet with a reputation for publishing unreliable stories and political propaganda, described by X, Y and Z as fake news...

I'm not arguing that the nature of Infowars has changed, or that our description wasn't accurate at the time we introduced it, but rather than the term fake news itself has become a moving target. When probably the most covered person in the world (maybe second to what...the Pope?) uses the term pejoratively, it begins to change the actual meaning of the word. In an age where Bruce Willis was fighting Alan Rickman, terrorist may have had a fairly objective meaning, but in the age of 9/11 that's changed, and I think we may be in a situation where the actual meaning conveyed by the label is becoming shallower every time it hits the airwaves. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Or we could refuse to allow this to be the case, and use it in a very Wikipedia sense, after all our "notable" does ot mean exactly what it means outside Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not...entirely clear what that's supposed to exactly mean. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That we should not allow Donny's attempts to redefine the language to suit his agenda to modify ours. We have many terms on Wikipedia that do not exactly match common (or evens strict dictionary) usage. I see no reason why "fake news" cannot have a meaning here that differs from how Donny wants to use it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Because we don't decide what words mean. We may have technical meanings to terms in the WP namespace, but that has nothing to do with what we put in main space. The difference is between terms that we use as a community internally, and that which we use externally in article content. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, So what do you suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That we continue to use the term, but WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV when we do, and say in Wikipedia's voice a description of why sources call it fake news that conveys more actual information than simply saying fake news and letting the reader try to decipher whether we're using it descriptively or pejoratively. TimothyJosephWood 13:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with that; the President's sole voice doesn't trump (pun unintended) WP:RS. Wouldn't the better route be to have a section that discusses the attempt by this administration and its allies to subvert what "fake news" actually means (the deliberate dissemination of false narratives) into a pejorative against media sources that print critical articles about them? Surely citations such as Trump accusations of 'fake news' have no impact on CNN brand, actually help drive network's historic ratings, Donald Trump Calls New York Times ‘Fake News’ For Perfectly Accurate Reporting are enough, and we're only a month into this administration. By the midterm elections, there may be enough to justify Fake news (pejorative). TheValeyard (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That may be perfectly appropriate for Fake news website, but we don't have nearly enough WP:DUEWEIGHT to spread around in this article in order to descend into a lengthy digression into the evolution of the term. TimothyJosephWood 14:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Only just because I had to look more into Infowars' role in the Pizzagate situation from the discussion Timothy mentioned, I think this article needs to spend just a bit more time dwelling on Infowars's actions. Two things came out of that discussion:

• "Fake news" is far too diffuse a term that it should not be used in a factual manner as it is being presently used. It has no well-established meaning, most generally using it for the sites that purposely dup the reader to make them think they are reading legit news , but depending on the speaker, can include sites that have parody or satire, sites that include propaganda (which is not "fake" but exaggerated or skewed info), conspiracy theories, etc. And of course it also depends on which side of the aisle is saying it. Basically it fails the WP:NEO tests. So using some other terminology makes a lot more sense, and either what Timothy suggests or "conspiracy theory website" works from the research I looked into.
• The second point is that as I said, I think you need to cover Infowars' role into this more; I was only skimming the necessary points for discussion, but it seems the story is the fact that Infowars was a key site that persisted the Pizzagate story was true after numerous sources debunked it by featuring at least one video and telling its readers to do citizen investigation to learn - until the owner decided to pull it. To that end, a statement that established that Infowars's dubious nature established by the rest of the media (well before the term "fake news" was around) helps to establish the site's historical place as well as to lead into better why their continued pushing of the story was a problem. You do have some of this in the latter part of the article but my read of the RSes on the events suggest it has a larger central role to the primary incident and shouldn't just be treated as a reaction. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To add a couple points to the discussion below: There's clearly no issue using an attributed quote with "fake news" in it. And I would think it is fair to say in a factual summary statement (but not specific to infowars) that the spread of the Pizzagate story emphasized the problem of "fake news" which would broadly cover both the straightforward meaning (abcnews.com.co) and the subjective one. I just would not call Infowars itself a "fake news" site since it doesn't fit the straightforward definition. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Timothy, which content are we talking about here? Are we talking about how we describe Infowars, or something broader than that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For the moment, specifically the line "The story was picked up by fake news..." under "origins," although there's a second mention of the term above where we link to Fake news website. These are really the only two times it's said in WP's voice. The other usage is a direct quote, and I have no problem with that. TimothyJosephWood 18:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'll say this: I don't think Infowars is a fake news site. I think Infowars hosts fake news. I think Infowars is a conspiracy theory site that purports to present news, but instead presents conspiracy theories wrapped in a thin blanket of current events. I think Infowars is about as reliable as a Narnian passport. But is it fake news in the most literal sense of the term? No. abcnews.com.co is the ur-example of fake news. Infowars is a different beast entirely, and the only overlap is that both sites lack any adherence to truthfulness.

But I say this because when I see the words "fake news", I take them to mean "something that purports to be news, but isn't real news." I look at the literal meaning of the term, instead of the ambiguous idiomatic meaning. I understand that this puts me in a minority (apparently a minority of one, though no-one who disagrees with me has ever even tried to explain why I'm wrong), but it's a perfectly justifiable position with plenty to recommend it. I honestly believe we should have a policy or guideline that says we should always use descriptive terms like "fake news" or "fringe theory" or "pseudoscience" to mean what they literally mean, and not fall into the trap of using them in the way that's currently most popular. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

to mean what they literally mean I think that's really the problem, because there seems to quickly be two different definitions of the term, one which is synonymous with tabloid, and one which means broadly news I disagree with. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken and listening to unreliable sources, rather than reliable sources. The reliable sources have been rather uniform in their interpretation of what constitutes fake news, and it's neither tabloid journalism nor news they disagree with. Rather, it's wholly fabricated stories made to look like legitimate news for non-satire purposes. I believe this is covered fairly well in fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is how do you balance RS using the term verses RS covering how the term is used. Because right now everyone from the Scranton Tribune to the BBC is covering POTUS using the term as a pejorative, and lots of people seem to be repeating it. Additionally, if you think there is a fundmental difference between tabloid journalism and fake news, then I would love to hear it, because I suspect that means you are just younger than I am. TimothyJosephWood 01:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a key difference: one type of story is covering actual fake news, whereas the other type of story is covering people using the term "fake news." These two types of sources require no balance, as they're covering different things. As for tabloid journalism vs. fake news, check their corresponding articles. Tabloid journalism emphasized sensationalism and gossip. The journalism is often sloppy but there's generally an element of truth, or the language is carefully couched to avoid libel. Fake news is something quite different, it's fabricated from scratch and made to look like non-tabloid news. Pick up a copy of the Natnioal Enquirer, and compare any story to those you can find from List of fake news websites. They are quite different. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversy over false content arose again for the Enquirer when a 2002 article alleged that male members of the family of kidnapping victim Elizabeth Smart were involved in what the article termed a "gay sex ring." Subsequently, two reporters from the Salt Lake Tribune were fired after it was learned that they had been paid $20,000 for the story, which they had fabricated. Seems similar enough. Otherwise, the difference between publishing unfounded gossip as fact, versus publishing unfounded 4chan and twitter posts as fact is one of technology. And just to drive the point home WHAT THEY'RE HIDING. GAY SEX ARREST. CHILD SEX SCANDAL. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive. You've rightly pointed out that some tabloids have published fake news. That doesn't mean all tabloid stories are fake., or all fake stories are tabloid --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think Infowars is a fake news website, since it has been reliably sourced as such, but I see little benefit to labeling it as such in this article. We already state clearly and emphatically that Pizzagate has been debunked, so why not just describe it as a website run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and let readers click through if they want to learn more? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(In response to this comment by Timothyjosephwood.)  I think that's really the problem, because there seems to quickly be two different definitions of the term, Well there are more than two definitions of the term, but only one literal meaning of the term. This is what I was referring to. For instance, imagine talking about fake subway tokens. There would be no debate over what is meant, because there's no idiomatic meaning associated with "fake subway tokens". However, there has been, since near the end of the current election cycle, an idiomatic meaning associated with "fake news" because the reliable news media started using the term, and lots of different people began to weigh in, each with their own thoughts. After a few weeks, that boiled down to a handful of idiomatic meanings, such as "news outlets which aren't trustworthy," "any media outlet which looks like news but isn't" and "media outlets that publish false stories as real news for the purpose of political propaganda or to generate ad revenue." But none of those change the original, non-idiomatic meaning of "stuff that looks like news but isn't" which, perhaps also comes with the caveat "and is treated like news" to distinguish it from pseudo-news.

Interestingly, one of the best defintions of idiomatic I've ever seen was "Jargon for the majority," and that is the sense in which I use the word. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy. That article is some grade-A pristine original research right there...extra spicy.

But more on topic, regardless of the what the literal dictionary definition of the term is, that doesn't mean that the word, as used, in practice, which is exactly the way it will be read, isn't important. That doesn't make it somehow not a value laden WP:LABEL. There is, out there somewhere, probably a really good value-neutral definition of terrorist, but that doesn't render the term uncontroversial.

Whether we like it or not, the word is becoming the journalistic equivalent of a racial epithet. TimothyJosephWood 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy. That article is some grade-A pristine original research right there...Ahh, yes. I didn't look at it before I linked it. Well, I'm taking the link out of my comment and adding it to my to-do list, then.

But more on topic, regardless of the what the literal dictionary definition of the term is, that doesn't mean that the word, as used, in practice, which is exactly the way it will be read, isn't important. Of course not. The idiomatic meaning is just as important as the literal one. Especially for article titles. The article Fake news should be about the phenomenon being reported on, which uses all those idiomatic definitions. I'm just saying that when we use the term in the body of an article, we should give serious thought to sticking to the literal definition whenever possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You could (although I'm not) probably make a pretty convincing argument that fake news and yellow journalism are really the same basic subject, and honestly I'm a bit surprised the comparison between the two hasn't been made really at all in the media, at least as far as I can tell.

But at any rate, I'm not really making a "truth based" argument, in the sense of saying that these things aren't in fact fake news according to the literal definition. I'm making more of a neutrality based argument, that because the term has taken on an alternative pejorative meaning, it's become loaded to the point where it looks like Wikipedia is making a value judgement, and not simply recording the facts. TimothyJosephWood 17:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I used to date a journalism major, and I remember her getting defensive whenever I mentioned yellow journalism. It's pure supposition, mind, but I think the widespread, pervasiveness of yellow journalism in the 19th century might have provoked a bit of denialism. I've noticed the same thing myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

email content regarding pizza

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

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

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

Using Washington Post as a source

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2017

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