Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePizzagate conspiracy theory has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 24, 2018Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why does Wikipedia say that Pizzagate is "debunked"?
All known reliable sources say the theory was either proven to be false or debunked. Our neutrality policy and our guideline on fringe theories explicitly warn us against presenting a false balance of unsupported and supported claims.
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.
Q3: How about the Wikileaks e-mails?
The Wikileaks e-mails are primary sources, and we are required to be extremely cautious with them when using them to make assertions about living people. Extensive use of primary sources is prohibited by our policy prohibiting original research.
Q4: Why doesn't this article simply present the evidence and let readers decide for themselves?
This article is about allegations that living people have committed exceptionally heinous crimes. As such, we are legally and ethically obliged to remove potentially defamatory material and to avoid even the suggestion that these people have committed any crimes without credible allegations supported by exceptionally reliable sources. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Additionally, it is our purpose to build an encyclopedia. This means documenting all aspects of the subject, including summarizing any conclusions on the subject made by reliable sources.
Q5: Why isn't the article called simply "Pizzagate"?
Due to the "-gate" suffix implying some sort of genuine scandal, letting the name stand alone may unintentionally lend credence to an unsupported conspiracy theory.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconA version of this article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on July 25, 2019. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 


Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018[edit]

Please un-bold "Pizzagate" in the lead per MOS:BEATLESINUS, or rewrite the sentence to include the full title. 151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that since Pizzagate redirects here, the term should be bold per MOS:BOLDTITLE. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot about bolding redirected terms. Thanks. —151.132.206.26 (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[edit]

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 Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of long-standing and fundamental content[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019[edit]

Please remove the boldface from the opening sentence. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, the partial title “Pizzagate” should not be bolded in the lead. 96.8.24.95 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Epstein[edit]

Not relevant to this article O3000 (talk)
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 69.160.202.154 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

In what way?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
See WP:V. That means Wikipedia must stick to mainstream WP:RS, which unfortunately tend to call victims of pedophilia "underage women". wumbolo ^^^ 13:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Huh? O3000 (talk) 13:21, 13 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 Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)