Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting.
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE. Note that the biographies of living persons policy applies to all areas of Wikipedia, including this talkpage.
Q2: But what about all the evidence collected on social media?
Our policies prohibit us from engaging in original research, or from using material drawn from user generated content. This includes most blogs and social media sites such as Reddit, Facebook, and 4chan.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Ah, I forgot about bolding redirected terms. Thanks. —126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I'm setting this to 'answered', but I'm not strongly opposed to rephrasing this or adjusting the wording, if someone thinks that would be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2019
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change "Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed that the emails contained coded messages" to "Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory claimed that the emails contained coded messages" Stalkad (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, and doesn't accommodate fringe theories. Please discuss and gain consensus before re-adding a requested edit template for this issue. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia "summarizes reliable sources", but we should seek as much as possible to maintain high standards of academic discourse that keep with established standards and customs of journalism and academic writing. With this in mind, it's worth mentioning that it extremely extremely unusual to describe an opposing view or set of claims as being false - generally only when the opposing position has been logically or empirically proven to be false. In fact if you look at the Wikipedia pages for other conspiracy theories, the authors generally make no use of predicates like "false" or "wrong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4E00:55A0:F921:DB45:74B5:DB57 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is neither academic writing nor journalism, it's encyclopedic writing. We do not give false weight to conspiracy theories (see WP:DUE). Nearly every source shows that the conspiracy theory was disproven or false, and thus we say what they say. Unless you find reliable sources that say otherwise, the article will stay as is. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Removal of long-standing and fundamental content
Money emoji, I suggest you immediately self-revert your renewed deletion. You broke BRD. You may not have noticed the DS notice at the top of this page, but you just violated it and can be blocked without warning. An immediate self-revert will often head that off. We all make mistakes.
You must follow WP:BRD in a case like this. Instead of waiting for you to start the Discussion part of BRD, I have started it for you.
That content is indeed long-standing, even by your definition, and it's pretty fundamental to this article. This started with conspiracy theory mongering. You need a clear consensus to remove such content, so if it really means that much to you, you need to engage in a discussion and convince other editors who watch this page. If that doesn't work, only then should you start an RfC on the matter. BTW, we do not delete deadlinks here, and the reason that tweet is "dead" is because it was deleted, so it's not really dead in the traditional sense. That guy is still pumping out hateful conspiracy theories about Hillary and Podesta. Some people seem to thrive on deception. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW, my mention of "vandalism" was about your first removal. Usually, such removals of important content are done by driveby vandals who don't understand the topic and don't care. My first instinct was to label your first removal "vandalism", but I changed my mind after I discovered you're an experienced editor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I do not believe I broke the discretionary sanctions (which I believe is reserved for personal attacks and edit warring) or WP:BRD as I thought my edit summary was enough of an explanation; That said, I'll happily self revert and have a discussion here. As for the content, in the article it says "On October 30, 2016, a white supremacist Twitter account that presented itself as belonging to a Jewish lawyer in New York included a display of a claim that the New York City Police Department, which was searching emails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop as part of an investigation into his sexting scandals, had discovered the existence of a pedophilia ring linked to members of the Democratic Party" Isn't that enough there? There are sources that verify he said this, so it seems repetitive to have a block quote. I removed it because I thought that someone might point that out while looking through the article for the FA review, so I premtivly removed it. I have no strong feelings about it either way, I just thought someone would see it as unnecessary💵Money💵emoji💵💸 21:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC).
Okay, now I better understand your thinking about the deletion. If the content you quote from the body contained an exact quote of the tweet, I'd understand, and possibly sympathize, with your deletion, but I think having the exact wording, in this case as the actual piece of offending evidence "in your hand", so to speak, is much more powerful, so I believe it's good to keep the tweet. We sometimes do this even when there is an exact quote in the body. We like to populate articles with a few images, and this tweet also serves that purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I've re-added the boldface text. Since Pizzagate redirects to this article (and most readers probably know the topic by this name only), it's valid per MOS:BOLDTITLE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can someone add something about Epstein? This is relevant and complicates the narrative. It should be at least noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Epstein is not getting covered in this article until a reliable source explains how Epstein somehow can be connected with a debunked conspiracy theory. I don't see how its relevant in any way. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)