Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Refuting the Conspiracy Theory many times throughout the article

Any uninformed person that reads this article to know more about it would think that the authors have some vested interest in making sure that the reader does not believe the conspiracy theory. The article should just present it as a conspiracy theory and keep all the arguments that debunk it, rather than saying that it is debunked every paragraph. Most decent articles on Wikipedia maintain a neutral tone, and it should be the case here as well, even if there is no proof that it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.177.58 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. The consensus is that because the theory falsely claims that living people have engaged in the most heinous of crimes, per our BLP policy we should make crystal clear that the theory is debunked and even include some redundancy. We have already scaled back the redundancies somewhat. You're free to look back through the prior discussions in the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually i think then OP has a valid point. I think it does somewhat undermine the claim it is false. Of course it is not out job to either support or undermine that, just to report what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What specifically is your concern? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The OP may have a point. But, considering that this is considered by some as the ultimate of crimes, that multiple incidents involving violent threats resulted including gunfire, and that the accused are numerous living persons, and that the claims are absurd, and that the claims are politically motivated, and that folks keep stopping by to delete the words debunked or claiming this is true – I think this is warranted. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems fairly reasonable, but when you check the sources, they're mostly about how obviously fake it was, how it's been debunked, and how ridiculous it was to begin with. The article's tone accurately reflects the source's tone. If we change it, that's a form of OR. Plus, there's the BLP concerns that the good Doctor raised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Pizzagate, a debunked[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] conspiracy theory" makes me laugh every time I see it. Surely it doesn't help - if part of the fear is the allegations against living people, then surely this sort of tone does more to incense and provoke people prone to paranoid or conspiratorial thinking than to write more "impartially". Maskettaman (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? Also if people are going to be paranoid or conspiratorial whilst ignoring evidence (whilst accepting "if we assume that small cup of coffee is a secret code for "buggering a child" based upon no real evidence other then my assumption it might") whatever we write will have that affect, as anything can be said to be a secret code or cover up? As far as I care we ignore them and write about facts, not wtry and write our articles so the small and the silly wont read into them all kinds of idiocy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As others have said, I haven't seen any other conspiracy theory page, even topical ones (perhaps I haven't been reading enough) receive this sort of treatment. It's not so much the style as the fact that Pizzagate (and other election-relevant articles) stand out among the rest. It makes their contentious partisan vibe really transparent. Other articles at least maintain a tone of neutrality. It's discomforting when you read an article that feels like it is attempting to convince you of something, rather than inform you. I probably also just fundamentally disagree with Wikipedia's policy to align itself more or less with predominant journalistic narratives and make proclamations of truth - something that I just, even with regards to things that are obviously bullshit. Collective consensus is not the same as objective reality. I just can't take such blatant truth claims seriously. They're too stubborn and, in my eyes, dangerous. People give Wikipedia a lot of authority, a lot of trust, but I think it's really too messy, too amateur, and too undiscriminating to measure up. Whenever you read an article in some area of expertise or more-than-general knowledge it feels like reading some shitty popular science article. All the focus is off, the definitions are skewed, there's often an abundance of trivial information at the expense of more important info. And so on. It's annoying - by criticising the content of the article, and its tone, it makes me appear like an apologist for the conspiracy theory itself. I feel like I'm drawing suspicion upon myself. It's a really polemical atmosphere. Maskettaman (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

When the media and the police all say there is nothing to see I do not see why we need to have a false "neutrality" by implying it still might be real. Especially when the counter evidence is (frankly) non existent. What do you think is the important info? What do you think is Trivial? By the way, if you have not seen any other pages how do you know what tone they have?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer

BullRangifer, can you please lay out the basis of your belief that the Skeptical Inquirer has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is therefore a reliable source in this context? I reviewed the RSN archives and saw there if there was any consensus, it was against. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been used as a RS here for many years. Of course there is no source, including The New York Times, which is considered a RS in every situation. It all depends on how it's used. Sometimes a source may not be a RS for fact, but still a RS for its own opinion. You should start reading it. It's available by subscription and in all major bookstores, such as Barnes and Noble. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not a justification. There are lots of unreliable outlets that have been used all over Wikipedia and still need to be cleaned out. And you can get all sorts of unreliable sources by subscription and at major bookstores. Typically you establish that an outlet has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy by showing that its editorial leadership has solid credentials and/or that other reliable sources cite it approvingly. This is all spelled out in WP:RS. We are dealing with extremely contentious BLP subject matter here so it's critical we hold this article to our community standards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Those are all good points. I assumed you were familiar with the board and contributors, and would realize that those basic assumptions were already part of my baggage here. See my comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

DrFleischman, Fact-checking is their raison d'être. It is what they do. They aren't a news outlet, they do investigative journalism for the express purpose of fact checking extant claims, specifically those that regard conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and the paranormal. They are one of the precursors to the modern day Fact checking site.

Conspiracy theories are one of their specialties. This article is about a conspiracy theory. They have an impeccable reputation for accuracy, they are widely circulated, well-respected and long-established. There's no cause to consider them unreliable here. They are, in my opinion, one of the most perfectly reliable sources available for use in this article. See their article for more info. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better. They are the people who formalized and advocate the backbone principles which are now used by fact checkers, but they precede them. The scientific method, their speciality, is the basic method behind all fact checking. Their board, staff, and contributors are highly educated and influential subject experts and include Nobel laureates. Take a look: Skeptical Inquirer#Board, contributors and staff. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'm convinced. All I really needed was that link to Skeptical Inquirer#Board, contributors and staff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Debunked conspiracy theory

OP blocked -O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't see fluoride in the water being a gay frog generating mind control substance prefixed with 'debunked'? What's the point in adding 'debunked' (and a bunch of citations) in front of the words 'conspiracy theory' besides to dog whistle given that this is a pseudo-political that we're of the Approved Narrative (TM) and virtuous? Really detracts from the article and credibility of the project when we have to prefix conspiracy theories with 'debunked'. Agendabender (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Fluoride in the water being a gay frog generating mind control substance is not a conspiracy theory that accuses living people of heinous crimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC) This debunked conspiracy theory resulted in gunfire and threats against multiple living people. In any case, we say what reliable sources say. Please read: WP:BLP WP:IRS. Besides, fluoride turned me into a newt. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) It turned me into a killer, at least according to a certain website I'm not very popular with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Note OP has been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. See [1]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

News sources

It seems that the main sources of information and facts for this article are news outlets, most of which have reputations for being either left or right wing when it comes to political issues. I realize that there isn't a ton of scholarly writing about Pizzagate at this point but using news articles as fact, especially during the time of the election, can be extremely problematic. Just by clicking through some of the sources, you can see that they come from news outlets, of varying reliably and professionalism, but their facts are all being used equally in this article. Rb1157a (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the problem here? We rely on news sources all the time for our current events articles. You may want to familiarize yourself with community standards such as WP:V and WP:RS--and WP:BIASED in particular. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

News sources who satisfy the requirements at WP:IRS are considered to be generally reliable for claims of fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

Snopes is not a reliable source. 24.113.77.55 (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Snopes has been discussed multiple times with a general agreement that it is reliable. See for example this discussion and this discussion. GMG^talk 11:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A lot has changed since 2013, hasn't it? Any 'recent' or relevant discussion on 'reliable' sources? Anyone rational or with any concern for truth would be open to re-visiting this 'question.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

update: I would also note, that through both linked 'discussions' between these 'editors' I found ZERO (0) references to any qualifications, primary sources, review, or even anything remotely resembling a professional process demonstrating the 'reliability' of the 'source' (snopes blog) in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As already mentioned, the answer you are looking for but do not want to hear can be found in previous discussions by editors (without scare quotes). APK whisper in my ear 13:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I found ZERO (0) references to any qualifications, primary sources, review, or even anything remotely resembling a professional process demonstrating the 'reliability' of the 'source' (snopes blog) in question. All it takes is about 30 seconds of googling. Also, Snopes is not a blog, but a privately run, topical research publication (the topic being "rumors, urban legends and public claims of fact") with a well-defined mission (the mission being "exposing the truth of rumors, urban legends and public claims of fact"). This is similar to publications like the Skeptical Inquirer, which are equally reputable. You should probably start giving more credit to reputable publishing organizations than to chain emails forwarded to you by your grandmother if you actually values concepts like "truth". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN if you really want to waste editor time. Snopes has long been considered a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

10 tons of organic tomatoes in the basement

Re the James Alefantis statement from http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/04/from-scratch-james-alefantis/

Like our sauce — we harvest a whole crop of organic tomatoes — 10 tons of tomatoes every year.

Can them all, store them in the basement, have like a harvest party when it gets loaded in.

Does anyone know if Alefantis later clarified which building's basement he was talking about in this interview with Doug Rule? Was it a farmhouse / fruit cellar / warehouse associated with Comic Ping Pong which then delivered to them? I've seen this linked up with the "We don't even have a basement" statement from 2016 as if to disprove it but he never actually specifies which building's basement so it seems plausible it could have simply been another location owned by CPP for storing its ingredients? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)