Talk:Comet Ping Pong

Headers Added

I have inserted the review and current event headers to the article. My opinion is that it comes across like an advertisement, but that is debatable. What is not a matter of debate is that this venue is currently the subject of intense discussion on social media at this time; therefore, the header ought remain in place so as to inform readers that it is involved in an ongoing matter. I'll refrain from openly discussing the situation here, but I for one would not discourage others from doing so. Should anybody require information about this matter then let me Google that for you. Mere Mortal (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate

The size of the pizzagate section is becoming undue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the article to an earlier version of the article which mentions the conspiracy in passing. For one thing, most of the details on the conspiracy have nothing to do with the restaurant itself. The readers just need a brief intro to the conspiracy to understand how this affected the restaurant in real life. Further details can go in Draft:Pizzagate until it's expanded enough to earn its own article. ^Falling_Gravity 06:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been moved to Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) and has been nominated for deletion. Emily Goldstein (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree FallingGravity. I reverted it to an older version that mentioned it briefly, and made clear that it's a conspiracy theory. The fact that people have been harassed because of this ridiculous nonsense is the most pertinent thing about the theory to this restaurant; we don't need to talk any more about it in this article, which should focus on the pizza place.Just a Rube (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

HI. why are you so concerned about this pizza restaurant? and are not putting details about the national news story involving it? //tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.158.8 (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

But as of right now, Comet Ping Pong is internationally known for--perhaps the only thing it is known for these days around the world--is its association to Pizzagate <redacted>. l, and the fact that 85-90% of all edits to this page happened after the scandal broke out is proof of this. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I gotta say here I agree with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and FallingGravity and Just a Rube. We don't want an article about a pizza shop to become so weighted that it functions essentially for all intents and purposes to instead be an article about a conspiracy theory. Sagecandor (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the unilateral deletion of the paragraph by @Collect:.[1] Please discuss here before deleting it. Many editors worked on that section, which implies that more people think it should be here than not. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Only one solution for what is now known to be "fake news" (putting it charitably) involving living persons - remove it. It does not even rise to the level of "allegation" at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Appending: the concept of Wikipedia becoming one of the "dark crevices of the Web" is fully disheartening. Creating a new article which is similarly contrary to the clear intent of WP:BLP is worse than disheartening, it is the sort of article which brings the encyclopedia into actual disrepute. There are certainly (valid?) conspiracy theories to cover, but this one does not reach that bar. Collect (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: - When the topic reaches the level of generating an op-ed piece from the editorial board of one of the most influential newspapers in the country (and world), it has passed the bar of notability. ("‘Pizzagate’ shows how fake news hurts real people", The Washington Post, November 25, 2016, [2]) -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: - Also, there is certainly not just "one solution" for combating fake news. The old adage that "the antidote to bad speech (fake news) is more speech (better curated, checked and verified info in Wikipedia)" is useful here. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP says we should not deliberately harm living people. That is why WP:BLP is such an important policy. The Washington Post editorial comment makes the point that this sort of stuff is in the "dark crevices of the Web". Your position seems to be that Wikipedia should, indeed, willingly be one of the "dark crevices" and I disagree. Publishing a claim "It was alleged that George Gnarph raped and killed 500 people. By the way, this was on fake news sites." is not curative of the initial evil done. But heck, let's have Wikipedia join the "dark crevices club" if that is how others view the policy. Collect (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If there's any mention at all (which I am not certain there should be) at the very least we must very explicitly state that the claims are false and have been fabricated online, as a wide array of reliable sources discuss. This is not an issue of "NPOV", it is a question of presenting false, debunked, fringe defamatory claims about living people as anything other than what they are. I have edited the section to make it explicit in Wikipedia's voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion: limit it to pretty much "In November of 2016, some Alt-right fake news websites falsely implicated Comet Ping Pong and members of the Democratic party in a conspiracy theory that was thoroughly debunked by all credible sources that addressed it. Some conspiracy theorists stalked the restaurant and sent the owner death threats." Citing Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, Inquisitr, the New York Times, PolitiFact, the Washington City Paper, and both Washington Post pieces. That version does not hint at what the allegations are, gives the idea short shrift while preventing any good-faith challenge through citation overkill -- the latter two points making it quite clear we are not going to put up with that bullshit. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Ian.thomson: - Agree with this - the consensus was to keep the mention of pizzagate short and measured. It has since grown to talk about reddit, 4chan and its origins, which is way beyond the scope of this article (from this edit and onwards [3]). I have pared it back and removed the section heading. Please discuss here before expending on this, as it is in violation of WP:UNDUE. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy-style arguments from someone who isn't interested in learning what WP:GEVAL means and doesn't think that mainstream sources are reliable.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ian.thomson: You clearly have an agenda here. All the sources you shared did not address any specific facts/pictures/pieces of evidence raised, let alone thoroughly debunked the story, and you're pushing the "fake news websites narrative" without specifying which. Foreign mainstream media have been picking it up recently (Germany, France, Turkey, Russia, etc), so you can't claim that it is universally a bullshit anymore. If neutrality is one of the core values of Wikipedia, live up to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:25A9:EEF4:18FE:D510 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC) The Turks are only "covering" this because it helps fuel their anti-American narrative while providing a distraction from scandals in their own country. I would suspect the same is true of Russia. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC) By Ian.thomson's standard, unless you have mainstream sources to back your claim about the Turks, it is simply a "false" conspiracy theory. Germany, France, Russia and even China are covering this story too. What's your excuse to that? Edit: You added the Daily Dot article which is written from the American (left-wing) media's perspective, which differs from Turkey's. Who are you to decide who has more credibility? Are you speaking for Wikipedia and forcing your own opinion on its readers who consist of people from the left and the right and those from foreign countries as well? Does the CEO who asks the readers for donations know about this? Plus, what's your excuse for France, Germany, China and now Australia and India reporting this story? Do you think only the American main stream media is capable of telling the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:1136:E119:12DA:F706 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Anyone saying there's no evidence to prove it's false or complaining about later evidence isn't reading -- the mainstream sources presented have shown that the conspiracy theory starts off with an associate of David "the Queen is a lizard person" Icke combining a tweet by a troll account, an unsourced post on 4chan, and a post on a noted tin-foil hat site. Later "evidence" isn't even Pareidolia, it's just superstitious excitement over coincidences. And the standards used for sourcing here aren't simply one editor's, they are clearly spelled out and represent community consensus. If you think that the NYT is a fake news site, you are a delusional conspiracy theorist troll, do not belong here, and can (and should) be banned by an uninvolved admin. 120.199.57.178 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Yes, instead of carefully examining both sides, Wikipedia should engage in censorship, violating its readers' trust that relies on it being neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:1136:E119:12DA:F706 (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC) There's a difference between neutrally presenting views in proportion to their presence in professionally published mainstream sources; and giving debunked delusions artificial validity to balance it off with reality. 120.199.57.178 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC) <soapboxing removed> Here are Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. Washington Post and NYT qualify. You saying "search for this" does not. It is about as much of a coverup as we have at the Evolution article. Like young earth creationists, the conspiracy theorists here are simply wrong. We are not going to give them a platform to be wrong on. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Again, you're forcing your own views on others. Using an example completely irrelevant to Pizzagate does not help justify your claim. None of your sources cited discusses any findings which make people suspicious in the first place and thus does not really debunk anything. There is no evidence to prove if it is true or false. The MSM has been more wrong this year than all other alternative media combined, but I guess you have not learned anything from your arrogance. "You" are not giving us a platform. Do you speak for Wikipedia? Are you the God of this platform? Then, don't expect us to donate a dime. We are more than happy to tell the CEO why.#boycottwikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:c4cb:2cf0:1136:e119:12da:f706 (talk • contribs) I did not write WP:Identifying reliable sources, the community did. According to sources that meet those standards, Pizzagate is false. You are the one trying to force your crappy sourcing standards on our community to support your delusions, trying to dishonestly reframe the issue. If you are serious about boycotting Wikipedia, then quit posting. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Here's one credible source from RT Deutsch [4]. There are both sides of the story, but if you only present one side, you are deliberately against Wikipedia's claim to remain neutral (your community depends on it). You don't get to cherry pick which rule you want to enforce and which rule you would like to ignore. Be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:1136:E119:12DA:F706 (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC) RT has long since been found to be generally unreliable, since it is obviously nothing more a propaganda arm of the Russian government and has been shown in the past to push ludicrous and antisemitic conspiracy theories. You are misconstruing what neutrality is. As has been explained already at Talk:Pizzagate, there is a difference between neutrally summarizing views in proportion to their prominence in professionally published mainstream sources and giving debunked or unevidenced claims artificial validity under some pretense of "balance." You are in no position to accuse anyone of cherry picking rules, when all you do is latch on to one word, never find out what it means, don't bother understanding the rest of the community's decisions on matters, and yet still pretend to know what you're talking about. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Cite me your credible source to back the claim that RT has long since been found to be generally (super vague) unreliable. It appears that you are arrogant enough to decide which source is more credible than others. Please specify what sources you find credible and what criteria you choose in making sure that's the right call. The rules written by "your" community are not clear and specific enough. The MSM has been so wrong about politics this year, and you, of all people, still treat it as a bible, or worse, something unquestionable. The only undeniable fact here is that there is no conclusive evidence to prove if it's true or false. To claim that it's false is deliberately misleading. And all the talks about credibility only result in you hurting the credibility of this website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:1136:E119:12DA:F706 (talk • contribs) Do not vandalize other people's posts. Wikipedia's reliable sourcing noticeboard's archives contain a large number of discussions on the matter. The article on RT also contains a lot of sourced information documenting their journalistic malfeasance. While Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, the sources in that article are reliable. You've provided no sources that it's not false. Sources have been provided showing how it is false. If you aren't willing to accept mainstream sources, then you don't belong here. What would hurt the credibility of this site is to start sharing ideas originally started by madmen and racists as if they were plausible -- we're not giving the alt-right a platform for their sickness. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Deliberately dodged the questions asked. None of your words addresses any specific concern raised. Save all the irrelevant insults to yourself. Here are several other sources claim Pizzagate is an "alleged scandal"/speculation (could be true or false): 1. [5], 2. [6] and 3. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:1136:E119:12DA:F706 (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC) The question was answered, you just either aren't participating in good faith or weren't paying attention. The sources you cite do not counter the sources that regard it as false. The Inquisitr article affirms that "fact-checking site Politifact stated that the connection between Clinton’s alleged child sex network and Comet Ping Pong is “ridiculously thin.”" and points out that the conspiracy theory is being pushed by "white nationalists made up largely of racists [and] homophobic individuals." Did you not read it? Did you just search for anything that used the word "alleged" in the hopes that you'd find something in the grey? The Washington Times article likewise affirms The Washington Post and the NYT, further noting that the conspiracy theorists' claims "have been derided as “viciously phony” by Fox News’ Howard Kurtz." The IndiaTV article barely discusses the conspiracy theory directly, instead focusing on the backlash toward Huffman and going on about how fake news affected the election. Now, why would it be going on about fake news? And as has been mentioned before, views are presented in proportion to the prominence they receive in mainstream sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC) You're doing a great job, but really you should yourself the bother because tactics which work at other websites do not fly here. It's fake, fake, fake, all the way down, and that's what the article will say. Or, we could compromise and remove mention of the made-up ephemeral nonsense altogether. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC) None of what you said is conclusive enough to call it "false". It could be true, and you are not willing to accept any sources other than the establishment, so to you all valid arguments based on those sources are automatically void. So there's absolutely no room for an open-minded discussion here. Your claim entirely relies on the premise that the MSM must be right, but we all know that assumption cannot be more wrong. To claim otherwise is nothing but naive. If you dismiss other sources because of the criticisms against them, then you must also dismiss NYT[8]. In fact, no source is without criticisms, and that's why neutrality is important and it is only fair to present both sides of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:1136:E119:12DA:F706 (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider just moving most of the information about Pizzagate to Fake news website. I agree that the mention of Pizzagate in this article shouldn't be more than a few sentences. epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Can we tone down the language? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

HI. and I am wondering why Pizzagate is not featured on this article I also what to see what independent research you did to come up with why this is not featured// tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.158.8 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Research from reliable sources has found that the thing is a hoax started by a crony of a guy who thinks lizard people are real, and spread by fake news websites. Wikipedia does not use research by site users. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Since Ian.thomson is one of the Gods here and likes to use "rules" (not reasons) to justify his biased editing, I can play by your rules： WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV dictates "WP:BIASED (politically biased) statements of opinion (the MSM's own interpretation) can be presented ONLY with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited." So, instead of saying "Pizzagate is false", you should attribute the statements to the sources cited, i.e. "NYT claims that it is false". Be a law-abiding citizen and preach what you teach. Stop being a hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:414D:F9BC:7991:DCED (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which claims something is true? See WP:REDFLAG—a crazy made-up story would need multiple reliable secondary sources asserting its veracity before it need be taken seriously. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq - It has not been proven conclusively proven true or false, but because the claim that it is false is a statement of opinion (no matter how popular/mainstream) held by the sources cited, it should state as such. Otherwise it's against Wikipedia's written "rules of law". So your question is irrelevant. By the way, your statement that it is a crazy made-up story is also an opinion, not a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:414D:F9BC:7991:DCED (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As Johnuniq already said, we'd need a source that actually claims that it's true for there to be any contest. There are sources that explicitly describe it as false, a hoax, debunked, etc. None describing it as true. We don't just need "it's an conspiracy theory lacking evidence that only former Birthers find plausible" being misrepresented to mean "it could be true or false," but an actual mainstream source that explicitly supports the idea. That's why the Evolution article describes it purely as fact, and not merely "something accepted by the majority (i.e. all legitimate) scientists." Heck, even if there was a reliable source or two, Vaccine_controversies#Autism_controversies dismisses popular (i.e. sensationalist or non-professional) press as a result of WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE.

Also, WP:AttributePOV applies to opinions. Not facts. It's a fact that Pizzagate was made up by a co-writer of a dude who thinks lizard people are real, based on a white supremacist tweet and a couple of posts from forums known for making shit up. No sane, thinking adult with at least minimal critical reasoning skills could possibly think that anything reasonable could come from such a combination. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and for the next week, if anyone sees an IPv6 poster starting with "2602:306:C4CB:2CF0:", block them for block evasion. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This stuff actually happens (A giant network was just busted in Canada with over 300 arrests) and the links you guys have posted "de bunking" is literally the accused saying "Its not true". Sad day to find out wikipedia is run by pedo apologists :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1065:5600:F1A2:940A:7004:595D (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In the United States, justice is founded upon the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I know that may be unfamiliar to you in Olgino, but Wikipedia works similarly. Also, you as a person are blocked, and as long as you continue to evade your block, you are not welcome here. Let's put it this way: we don't have any proof that you're not being financed by the Russian government to pretend you're from Texas (even though you're oddly active at hours more consistent with Russia), so for the sake of neutrality, I guess we'll just have to say that it's not disproven that you're such hired troll. I mean, by the standard of everything you've been saying relating to Pizzagate, that's perfectly reasonable. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)