Jump to content

Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AQFK (talk | contribs) at 08:14, 25 December 2016 (Undid revision 756579167 by SineBot (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives

No archives yet.
This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Request for comment

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

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

Survey

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

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

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I made a change to the language to better reflect my preferences. I don't think the word 'imaginary' in this context is very encyclopedic. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "fabricated" sounds better and I've made the change in my suggestion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that adding or removing "debunked" in the first sentence would change anything. The people who believe this theory tend to ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs. There are people who still believe that the Sandy Newton victims are actors, such as this individual who was arrested for giving death threats to the parents. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy ever loving crap... I knew that woman. Like, in real life. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How long has she been believing these theories for? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I last spoke to her before Sandy Hook happened. But she was always a Conspiracy Theorist. I met her in an AOL Local chat room about the X-Files in the late 90's. To be fair, I was a CT, too at the time. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support NorthBySouthBaranof and MjolnirPants' wording as presented here, which I guess is to say oppose using "debunked" but their wording accomplishes the same meaning. Good job. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Obvious, and factual, as cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per sourcing. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Wording - since it has been reportedly an ongoing issue, plus the word seems part of a redundancy/overload/conflict conflusion. The article is using the suffix "-gate", then 'conspiracy theory', 'discredited', 'fictitious conspiracy theory' and 'determined to be false'. This seems too much and also like different things so the article direction is muddled there. The 'gate' reads like an actual conspiracy existed, 'conspiracy theory' like it talking about the fringe nature of held by few, 'fictitious conspiracy theory' sounds like it's not a conspiracy theory and it is competing with 'debunked conspiracy theory' and 'debunked' as in some actual providing of evidence was the prominent event. I think just going with 'discredited' would be easier. Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in some form per WP:RS, though some other wording could be used, e.g. "disproved", "false", "... falsely claiming that ...", etc., if people object to "debunked" in particular. I agree that the exact word "debunked" isn't usually used here, but it is not at MOS:WTW and I don't see it as automatically problematic, though it is perhaps more of a Snopes than WP approach.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps somewhat less than serious things, that may be BLP problems...followed by an echo chamber. TimothyJosephWood 01:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dissent Whilst I have no doubt that much of the published gossip is wild exaggeration, and speculation. Am I alone in finding archived instagram pictures from the staff of the shop and the lurid comments of its followers extremely disturbing? [1]. Here is one source which alludes to the pictures, and properly retains Alefantis' comments in quotes only. [2]. Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another "It might be true, look at this random blog!" comment. Thanks. We were running low on those. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are archived pages from source, not 'a random blog' and the Washington Times is reasonably RS, despite its Moonie roots and continuing links. Cpsoper (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you don't know how pastebin works, then. Nor do you seem to grasp that the fact that you find the purported comments on a purported instagram account 'extremely disturbing' doesn't do anything to evince the truth of this bullshit conspiracy theory. The fact that a reporter from a notoriously conservative news outlet seems to have some sympathy for the conspiracy theorists while reporting on a NYT story as if it were breaking news doesn't change that, either. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks you do protest too much. The Pastebin page just lists archived links (which are widely reproduced in other archives like [3]) this one for example [4] gives the date and the original site the photo is linked to [5], now removed from public view. In his public appearances Alefantis has never disputed the genuineness of the images archived from his site. WT is conservative, but not notorious for Washington news. Cpsoper (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I did find this source which says it's absolutely true. TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly though, these "sources" are complete garbage and every bit as reliable as what I linked to. ITS A PICTURE OF A BABY I BET IT GOT RAPED. So yes, you are alone, and I say this with absolute confidence that if it came out tomorrow morning that Podesta was indicted for this, there would be a nerd-fight cage-match to see who would be the first to put it in the article, and what the wording would be. But if this is all you have I believe this conversation is over. TimothyJosephWood 22:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weird shit on Instagram? Why I never. Those pictures don't prove a damn thing about this theory. You can find secret symbols and suggestive imagery anywhere if you look hard enough for it. clpo13(talk) 22:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's like talking to a brick wall... What part of "your emotional reaction to a bunch of instagram photos is not a reliable source" is confusing? Seriously! I mean, if we're going to add content based on our personal feelings, then I have quite a lot to say about people willing to believe this kind of ridiculous bullshit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has been here for a while now, and not once in that time has a single person come here with a reliable source that states "Pizzagate is true." That should be a red flag to everyone. If there was any reliable evidence, it would be public by now & there's no way every single reliable source in the world would be involved in a global conspiracy to keep it quiet. Enough's enough - can people please stop wasting everyone's time with a bunch of mocked-up images, codes thought up by trolls, blogs that say "it could be true, you never know, oooo!" and other useless junk. I'm challenging people to bring information that Pizzagate is true from Reliable, Independent Sources - not this pathetic nonsense. People are so ashamed of this weak information that they can't even bring themselves to log into their main Wikipedia accounts before they post it here. I say, man up - log into your actual account and present something real - or stop wasting everyone's time. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not ask the hard questions, nor does it do investigative reporting. We include only what is reported by reliable sources, and accusing someone of running a pedophile ring without a reliable source, is a violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzagate emerged from the Wikileaks emails, not from some alt-right conspiracy blog. No one has yet challenged the authenticity of any of the email released by Wikileaks. PizzaGate can only be called a conspiracy/be debunked if the emails, using pedophile codes will be proven as fake. If they are fake, then we need to ask; who sent them and was this a false flag?--Violet24 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

And no one had demonstrated there was any such code. No one disputes the existence of the e-mails, only that there is no actual verifiable and proven evidence they in fact were coded communications. When we have had evidence that can actual be verified it has turned out to be fabricated, that is why the E-mails are [s]relevant[/s]Irrelevant to this being a debunked theory.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come back when Podesta actually confirms that the emails are authentic. He hasn't yet, so it's pointless going on about them really. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Podesta has confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails, see for example the december 18 Meet The Press interview. The existence nor the authenticity of the e-mails is disputed, only their meaning and importance is at play. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate, but thanks for posting. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, Exemplo347, by 'not accurate'? In the interview (see c. 08:15 in video) he says, I quote: "(...) after Wikileaks started dropping my e-mails (...)". And the same is said in different words during the interview, and not a word about the e-mails being not authentic. Please don't accuse me of being unreliable. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Personally, i think the term ‘discredited’ is better, but I find ‘debunked’ acceptable The Happy Warrior (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - "debunked," "discredited," and "fictitious" all work for me. The first two are somewhat better, though. GABgab 17:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a change in wording which unequivocally signifies that the conspiracy theory has been discredited. It does seem like overload and a bit jarring for "debunked conspiracy theory" to be there in the lead. HelgaStick (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the claims it has been debunked are all based on other sources claiming it has been debunked. There has been no actual investigation into the claims and no one has gone through each claim systematically debunking them. It is stated that the DC police investigated and found nothing, but on submitting a FOIA request for the report of that investigation, a YouTube user was told that in fact, DC Police had done NO investigation (video uploaded on 23 December 2016). So they lied initially when saying they had investigated. This means that no one has actually investigated the claims or debunked them. All sources simply point to the fact that other sources have apparently debunked it in a circular fashion. The Pizzagate investigation also moved well beyond the pizza restaurant, and much more evidence has been discovered including linking the Clinton Foundation to child trafficking in Haiti and more besides. No source has even looked at these other findings. The fact that the police did not investigate is an important aspect of this story as many of the sources stating it has been debunked base that on the supposed police investigation. Therefore it cannot be said that this has been debunked. 77.243.183.11 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the person above me stated, a FIOA request revealed the DC police hasn't done any actual investigation. Sources cited claim DC police has said it was fictitious. But DC police hasn't done any investigation at all. They just said they did. They assumed it is false based on nothing at all. 217.63.154.8 (talk)
The above cited Youtube video definitely fails meet the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Judgements about what is written in Wikipedia cannot be made on someone's unvetted personal opinion expressed in an Youtube video that isn't backed up by a reliable source, WP:VNT. Personal opinion, speculation and innuendo might be acceptable for Voat, but Wikipedia is different. A person can find a Youtube video to support almost any point of view. You need to fine more authoritative and reliable source to support your position. Paul H. (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be needed for WP to believe he actually filed and got a response to a FOIA request?217.63.154.8 (talk)
Third party RS saying that there had been no investigation. I can claim I spioke on the pnoe only yesterday to Mr Assange who asured me that he had been personally handed the disk with the e-mails on by Vladimir Putin who told him "and now my best mate Donny will be president and soon America will be ours, MUhhhahhhaa!". But my word is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who says we don't believe it? The fact that a couple of right-wing conspiracy theorists can't figure out the difference between "there is no ongoing investigation" and "we never bothered to investigate" is not our problem. The fact that a random youtube video that purports to show an email evinces nothing except for the creator's possible image-editing skills is not our problem. The fact that a non-notable person who just so happens to have a youtube account thinks this conspiracy theory is real is not our problem. You want to prove this bullshit true? Go do it on your own, and stop expecting WP to validate your bizarre beliefs for you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the police to initiate an investigation of a alleged crime, there needs to be at least probable cause to believe a crime has been committed - either a complaining victim or a credible witness will generally suffice. If nobody has done that, then there won't be an investigation. Anyone is welcome to go to the DC Police and file a police report; of course, that would require signing a legal document under penalty of perjury, and it doesn't appear any Pizzagate conspiracist believes in their nonsense enough to risk going to jail for filing a false police report. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

OK, I stand corrected. WP:NPOV requires that we not just say it's been debunked, but go into detail how it's been debunked. I remember reading Holocaust denial not because I thought the Holocaust wasn't real, but because I wanted to know what Holocaust deniers were saying. The article not only explained what Holocaust deniers were claiming, but also explained the flaws in their arguments. That, to me, is the mark of a good article about a fringe theory. If it had just said that Holocaust denial had been debunked but didn't explain why, that would do our readers a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, @A Quest For Knowledge: - You've voted "support" in the survey, supporting the retention of "debunked" in the article. You've then, in response to another user's comment, said that changing the wording sounds better. Which is your vote? I only ask because here you say you would like the word "debunked" removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the word "debunked" should be removed from the opening sentence, but not the whole article. The article can and should critically analyze this conspiracy theory. To be honest, I find the wording a bit insulting to our reader's intelligence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you should vote "oppose" then, surely? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Exemplo347: No, if you don't understand the difference between the opening sentence and the entire lead or the whole article, I'm not sure what more I can say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to burst your bubble but this discussion is specifically about the lead. Thanks for posting. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! It's about the lede in general, not specifically the opening sentence. I suggest you reread my responses. I don't think I can make it any more obvious than I already have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Unproven" weakens the language somewhat. It's not as strong as an unequivocal phrase like "false" Exemplo347 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except I rather do have so play devils advocate here and point out it has not been shown the code is false. Only that it has not on shred of evidence to support it. I would opt for the more neutral phrase just to stop the damn arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In a very formal sense, you are absolutely right. But in the heuristics of reality, the fact that all the 'evidence' has been shown to be false is, itself, convincing evidence that there is no truth to it. It's a sort of statistical syllogism: it's not false by definition but it's so unlikely to be true that it might as well be.
Why does this matter? Because Wikipedia documents reality. It's an encyclopedia, not an exercise in applying strict formal logic to real questions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point I've been trying to make for days. This is an entry in an encyclopaedia, not a web forum where anyone can post anything they like, slanted exactly how they like, to push whatever agenda they choose to push this week based on something they read on some random message board. Facts - cited, referenced facts - that's what Wikipedia articles need, not petty arguments over semantics based on the personal feelings of editors. This isn't 4chan - this site actually gets taken seriously. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I must add to this discussion, because the article, as well as the talk page here, seems to omit some very important aspects of Pizzagate, which I'll try to adress short. Pizzagate is not 'a' conspiracy theory, it is in fact a still evolving amalgam of theories. Literally thousands of people are investigating what they find a suspicious network of relations that breaths a to them very disturbing suggestion of different kinds of evil. One of the major branches of this - ongoing and, like I said, evolving - investigation focusses on the Clinton Foundation and its international connections to (as some or many see it) supposedly criminal activitities and organisations; I stress here that it is for many of the researchers not a partisan issue. The Wiki-article fails to even mention the Clinton Foundation and the stress laid upon it under the name of Pizzagate. I find it quite unbelievable how a plurality of Wikipedians, that is: encyclopedians, picks only the obvious (and, indeed, clearly debunkable) surface of this 'conspiracy theory gone wild' and seems to try so hard to maintain it is a debunked conspiracy theory. It appears to me as if no one has felt the need to give a more elaborate account of this subject, and all are trying to get it over with and bury the subject by stating it as debunked. By the very definition (and the article's lead seems a poor one) of this many-headed monster it cannot be said to be debunked as long as it is growing, which in my opinion it still does. And no, I haven't seen a smoking gun, nor even a victim, but as someone said: 'Pizzagate is not a theory, it is an investigation' - Wikipedians in this case might learn something from that. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jürgen Eissink. I don't think anyone is against putting anything in the article on principle, but, because of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, we can't include anything in the article that isn't backed up by a reliable source, even if it is true. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources is confusing so many people. It's been in place for years. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone has been here for years, and some who do still often get it wrong, which is why we should take care not to WP:BITE users who've only ever made three edits. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a general comment really. People who have been here for longer than I have still keep getting tripped up by the Verifiability policy. 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Timothyjosephwood, reliable sources did focus on some of Pizzagate's theories concerning the Clinton Foundation, debunking it or not, for instance the Washington Post. I just felt obliged to notice that to many Pizzagaters Pizzagate is much bigger than the Wiki-article suggests, and that it seems akward to call debunked something which is much broader than a detail shown. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha. Now, this is a good point and with a really good source behind it. We could probably use this to add some breadth to the Origins section. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think you got the point. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some mention of the spin-off conspiracy theories could be good, as long as there's the word "false" added if it's in the sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fair to say the initial allegations have been pretty conclusively debunked, and the wider issue is not really about Pizzagate and so it's proper place would be elsewhere (such as the Clinton foundation).Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems every bit as relevant as allegations that the FBI raided Clinton's home. ...And if anyone is seriously considering suggesting this be added to the main article for the Clinton Foundation, the only thing that's going to get you over there is an archive template and a link to WP:DONTFEED. The only reason WaPo is covering it is because of its connection to Pizzagate, and this isn't the first person that has suggested that the coverage of the actual content of the conspiracy theory has been shallow. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - mentioning pizzagate-related spin-off conspiracy theories (when they appear in reliable sources) is perfectly valid.Exemplo347 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pizzagate is a word that references the false allegations that Hillary Clinton is involved in the running of a child sex ring out of the backs (or basements) of a chain of D.C. based pizza restaurants. That claim absolutely has been debunked. Now, the fact that this claim is one of numerous other claims alleging some human trafficking charges against Hillary Clinton, and that there are tangential claims surrounding it doesn't change the fact that the initial claim has been shown to be false. I might remind editors of a few things:
  1. Moon landing hoax claims continue to grow and evolve, despite being long debunked.
  2. The fact that there is a close-knit web of conspiracy theories involving the Clintons, many of which are related to this one doesn't imply that this one cannot be differentiated from others.
  3. The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked has no bearing on whether this one has.
  4. The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked doesn't imply that they are true, either.
MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any RS saying the police had carried out no investigation whatso ever?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the nature of the RfC

Withdrawn for now

There have been three composed proposals made; the extant wording, the wording by NorthbySouth, and the wording contained in this archived thread. I would suggest we re-word the RfC to allow participants to clearly choose between those three alternatives (and of course, to propose their own) and collapse the current !votes to keep things from getting too messy. Any thoughts? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this one to the original proposal. Sagecandor (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly sitting this one out as proposer, but I think the best course of action would be to let the RfC run its course, and if consensus is against, follow that up with options. At least at that point, we would know that we need other options, and we would have actually accomplished something. What I don't want to end up with is an RfC that gives options A through F and no meaningful consensus is gathered for anything at all. TimothyJosephWood 20:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll go with that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comment: I think it would be helpful if this article discussed earlier rumors and hoaxes about child abductions. An especially intriguing example is a "fake news" story from early 2016 about a "Satanic dungeon" being discovered in the basement of a Chuck E. Cheese's pizzeria. See http://www.snopes.com/satanic-dungeon-chuck-e-cheese/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.64.121 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

  1. PizzaGate is real. You are not. 152.179.71.62 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is your proposed edit, you seem to have forgotten to mention it?Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bentonville, but you need to actually propose an improvement to the article. This is not a forum to discuss Pizzagate in general. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not supported by reliable sources, nor even specific enough if it were. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple debunkers.

I think removing "and others" is not helpful. It would be burdensome to the page to put in all these cites.

"nutty" http://observer.com/2016/12/pizzagate-recalls-the-debunked-child-sex-rings-of-the-80s-and-90s/

"debunked" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/23/fearing-yet-another-witch-hunt-reddit-bans-pizzagate/?utm_term=.c3dc7b405e5d

"debunked" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-us-election-intervene-hacks-cyberattacks-dnc-podesta-emails-leak-help-victory-a7466986.html

"dangerous conspiracy theory" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security-monica-crowley_us_58542a74e4b08debb788afc4

"debunked" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist-appeals-trump-aid-o/

"A false story" http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fake-news-guide-2016-story.html

"fake story" https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&espv=2&biw=1164&bih=768&tbm=nws&q=pizzagate+debunked+%2B+BBC&oq=pizzagate+debunked+%2B+BBC&gs_l=serp.3...20802.22290.0.22529.6.6.0.0.0.0.210.779.2j3j1.6.0....0...1.1.64.serp..0.0.0.SwdYld1TP6s

And this is not all of them

I think giving a couple of examples and then saying "as well as others" does rather cover the reality rather well.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I end to think quite the opposite. I wouldn't be opposed to a table for it. It would probably help illustrate just how widely discredited it is. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to agree with Timothyjosephwood here. "And others" is too weasely; if all the others need to be mentioned, a table should be included to accommodate. HelgaStick (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto the above, except I don't think a table is the best way. I think the section needs an introductory sentence followed by a paragraph of nothing but "X said it's bullshit" sentences, something like:

The story has been widely discredited and debunked. Snopes.com and the Washington Post called it "False". The Observer referred to it as "nutty". The Huffington Post labelled it a "...dangerous conspiracy theory". The LA Times said it was "a false story".

And so on, in that vein. I think some better wordplay than I used might be in order, but you get the idea. Alternatively to that admittedly-horrible prose, we could do a bulleted list. I think that would smooth over any awkwardness in the language. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wut about...a table in the footnotes! OH BOY I LOVE FOOTNOTES TimothyJosephWood 18:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, we're probably going to get WP:QUOTEFARM hurled at us if we're not careful. Maybe a bulleted list, but just of periodicals, each with its accompanying citation. TimothyJosephWood 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I was thinking of when I asked this (could not remember what it was called). I am also sure there is one about over use of citations.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERCITE Objective3000 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERCITE is good advice 90% of the time, but at the end of the day it is still just an essay, and I think this would be a good WP:IAR situation even if it weren't. Central to the whole story of Pizzagate is not simply that it's false, but that it's easily and demonstrably false, and from its inception was based on not just complete nothing, but overwhelming evidence to the contrary, rather than simply the run-of-the-mill absence of confirming evidence. Part of this story of the story is the wide spread unanimous rejection by the press. So...the overcite is part of the story. TimothyJosephWood 20:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I saw the edit on your talk insisting that it has not been debunked. Objective3000 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that may make it into my museum one day. Haven't quite decided yet. TimothyJosephWood 20:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Something like this:

Periodical Description Source
The Observer "a nutty conspiracy theory about a child sex ring run from a Washington, D.C., pizzeria" [1]
The Washington Post "“Pizzagate” has yet to produce any actual evidence for its extremely weighty and life-ruining accusations" [2]

TimothyJosephWood 18:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Young, Cathy (9 December 2016). "'Pizzagate' Recalls the Debunked Child Sex Rings of the '80s and '90s". The Observer. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
  2. ^ Ohlheiser, Abby (24 November 2016). "Fearing yet another witch hunt, Reddit bans 'Pizzagate'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 December 2016.

Multiple bunk

I don't have time to do it right now, but we really should include the details from the NYT piece which addresses individual elements of the story. If we're going to tell that it was debunked, we should probably list what the bunk was, and why it was. TimothyJosephWood 21:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

debunked -> widely rejected (NPOV)

Not all credible sources say it is necesarily false, so maybe the first sentence should be changed per WP:NPOV: http://www.inquisitr.com/3766750/pizzagate-conspiracy-theory-or-something-more-sinister-gunman-arrested-at-comet-ping-pong-but-was-this-staged/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3754020/pizzagate-summary-what-is-spirit-cooking-who-is-marina-abramovic-news/ https://aceloewgold.com/2016/11/20/pizzagate-clinton-podesta-what-is-it-and-is-it-credible/

Due to these sources, I think the article should treat pizza gate as widely rejected or debated. I personally believe pizzagate is false by the way, I'm just trying to maintain NPOV on Wikipedia.

I also think the article should be careful in what it labels as fake news and real news. What is considered fake news and how do we objectively dismiss a news source as fake news? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these credible sources, what the hell is aceloewgold.com?Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are not reliable sources and have no place in an encyclopedia. WP:RS Objective3000 (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are reliable sources. Please read the reliable sources guideline for help understanding what qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, you can't possibly think those are reliable sources? That's laughable. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Suggested Move to Pizzagate

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory&oldid=756579335"