Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Requested move 14 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Pizzagate conspiracy theory → Pizzagate – The last discussion, two years ago when this was still recent, concluded with no consensus to move to Pizzagate. Now that almost two years have passed, we can better look at any long-term significance this might have. In the previous discussion, there were mostly two concerns: recentism and not including the "conspiracy theory" label in the title. I don't think recentism still applies, as promoting Pizzagate has become a very significant and consistently applied label for plenty of people, and many conspiracy theories have been compared to Pizzagate by reliable sources. There has been a lot of coverage of Pizzagate since the last requested move: [1] [2] [3] [4] With regards to the second issue that was discussed, the "conspiracy theory" descriptor in the title, there was concerns that this was inconsistent with other (cherry-picked) articles and that it somehow implies that the theory is true. That's not really the case, since a very similar conspiracy theory, Qanon, also begins the article with "_____ is a conspiracy theory which ..." and also doesn't have "conspiracy theory" in its title. Unless "conspiracy theory" is somehow part of the name of the conspiracy theory, the current title fails the WP:ATDAB policy as it is not covered by any of the listed disambiguation types. wumbolo ^^^ 20:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I'd considered suggesting this myself. Out of pages on eight different projects, we're the only one that calls it anything other than simply "Pizzagate". If someone reads the article and doesn't come away with an understanding that it's a debunked and baseless conspiracy theory, then adding that little bit in the title of "No seriously it's really^{totallynot joking} a conspiracy theory isn't going to push them over the edge. GMG^talk 20:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no benefit to moving it. None whatsoever. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Presumably this isn't the same as the Watergate scandal as there is no building, but I'd argue that the same reasoning applies here to, that "conspiracy theory" is part of its name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  If "conspiracy theory" is part of its name, why doesn't the article begin with "(The) Pizzagate conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory..." ? wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  OK, a Google search also seems to indicate that its just "Pizzagate" as well, but I'm not entirely sure either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  I suggest something along the lines of "The Pizzagata conspiracy theory is a discredited story that..." —innotata 00:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - We don't need to rename the article just because another conspiracy theory doesn't have the words "conspiracy theory" in the title. Wikipedia is inconsistent on this behavior, but when something is entirely known as a conspiracy theory, I'd say including that in the name is relevant (ie. 9/11 conspiracy theories). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is the epitome of a conspiracy theory. Yet, despite its utter absurdity, we still have regular visitors to this page claiming it hasn’t been debunked. The suffix –gate has come to mean scandal. It’s valuable to follow –gate in the title with conspiracy theory. I see no value in this move. O3000 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Objective3000: Why? Following –gate in the title with conspiracy theory is like having a title "Conspiracy theory about pizza (conspiracy theory)". Very redundant, as –gate already implies doubt in authenticity. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  -Gate denotes scandal, not conspiracy theory. Considering that many –gates were actual scandals, not invented crap, I prefer the current title. O3000 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  Pizzagate was an actual scandal, and the name "Pizzagate" refers to promoting the crap not what was alleged (and debunked). Just like the Gamergate controversy, which was also based on debunked allegations, which does not have "conspiracy theory" or anything similar in the title. wumbolo ^^^ 21:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  Inasmuch as 'gate' suggests doubt in authenticity, it's not something all readers will understand and that can go unexplained. —innotata 00:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Innotata: that can go unexplained I think that saying it's a conspiracy theory in the first sentence is explaining. And give me the part of WP:AT policy which says that article titles should "explain" anything. wumbolo ^^^ 08:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry guys, I don’t understand your responses. The suffix –gate originated with Watergate. No one disputed that Watergate was real. They caught the guys red handed. You could argue how far up the chain it went, in the early days. But, it was, from day one, a discovered illegal act. Hours later, they went before a judge. Pizzagate was completely, entirely, made up by conspiracy mongers. Realize that “Watergate” actually is accepted by spellcheckers it’s so well known. Pizzagate is, frankly, nutso. The conspiracy nuts stuck the false suffix on to relate it to Watergate. There simply is no comparison. When the suffix is incorrectly added, it should be identified, immediately, as a conspiracy theory. Realize that numerous living people, by name, are accused of pedophilia, considered by many as one of the worst of all crimes. If we have a title that suggests this is an actual scandal, we are dealing with rather serious BLP violations.O3000 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but this was a conspiracy theory, not just a Gateism.Slatersteven (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The title should be the name of the subject discussed in the article, not a commentary on it. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC) sockpuppet !vote struck — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose How to put it? "Pizzagate" isn't much of an article subject because it doesn't exist, "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is. —innotata 00:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Objective3000 and Slatersteven. APK whisper in my ear 01:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Common name. It's what it is called in reliable sources and what readers are most likely to enter in a search. And not to that it bears more similarity to a hoax than a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose -gate refers to a scandal. This is not a scandal, it is a conspiracy theory. AusLondonder (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Cannot pass WP:CONCISE Red Slash 20:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per MPants, Objective3000, Slatersteven, and others. It's not a thing, whereas it does exist as a "conspiracy theory". That should be clear in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  @BullRangifer: Take a look at this category: Category:Nonexistent people wumbolo ^^^ 21:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – this is about the conspiracy theory. "Pizzagate" doesn't exist, so it can't have an article. If it were an actual scandal, that would be a valid title. But it isn't. Bradv 06:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  This seems like the opposite of the actual standard we use on WP. Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories, Jonestown conspiracy theories, Bible conspiracy theory, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories are so named because Jade Helm 15, Jonestown, the Bible, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 9/11, the Death of Diana, the Moon landing, and the Oklahoma City bombing are all real things, and so the conspiracy theory needs disambiguating. While Crisis actor conspiracy theory, Roswell UFO incident conspiracy theory, and Montauk Project conspiracy theory all seem to be red links. Similarly, Unicorn (imaginary animal) doesn't seem to go anywhere, because whether or not something exists doesn't actually have anything to do with our article naming policies. GMG^talk 10:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Note that Crisis actor is actually about real-life crisis actors, with a section on claims about them in conspiracy theories. I would also venture a guess that Roswell, Montauk and Unicorns are all fictions that are much more widely recognized, nor do any of them have a name that implies an actual scandal. This is a fact that touches on our BLP policy. Whether or not the Montauk Project is true, for example, says absolutely nothing about whether a number of BLPs are satanic child-rapists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  No, I don't see any BLP implications in whether we follow normal naming guidelines and don't disambiguate where no disambiguation is necessary. That line of argument is a red herring. Following WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE does not constitute an endorsement of the theory. The article makes it perfectly clear where the veracity of the clams lie. GMG^talk 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  I do see BLP implications there. As do most of the others in this discussion. I agree that the naming of the article couldn't constitute an explicit endorsement of the theory, but it can present an implicit endorsement, which would have largely the same effect despite being a fundamentally different thing than explicit endorsement. I care more about results than process, so I prefer an article name that makes it clear that this is not a scandal, but a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Well, that's just a misreading of BLP. There is nothing in either title that would constitute unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. GMG^talk 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Aside from the -gate suffix generally (and I say "generally" in a loose sense; I'm unaware of any other conspiracy theories using it) being used to refer to real scandals, you mean? I also don't see anything in WP:BLP that allows us to draw a distinction between hinting at a BLP vio and outright stating it. If you think that there's no precedent, I invite you to scour the WP:AE archives for BLP enforcement and count how many of those centered around content that didn't directly state an accusation, but merely hinted at it. You'll find more threads than you think, I suspect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  That doesn't really have anything to do with what part of "Pizzagate is the COMMONNAME for the subject" includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. GMG^talk 14:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  A title of Pizzagate alone suggests it’s a real scandal. I’d rather err on the side of BLP than COMMONNAME. Besides, WP:COMMONNAME says we usually use the common name. OTOH, WP:BLP is strident in its demands that call for careful editing of BLPs and specifically talks to article titles. Also WP:TITLE states: The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic.. 14:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

  That doesn't really have anything to do with what part of "Pizzagate is the COMMONNAME for the subject" includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. GMG^talk 14:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  The OED has an article on –gate here. The term has come to mean scandal. Pizzagate as an actual scandal is poorly sourced (since it isn’t actual). Pizzagate conspiracy theory is well sourced, and a concise description as allowed by COMMONNAME. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  And the OED examination has no bearing or commentary on whether the suffix implies that the allegations are credible. It does manage to give passing mention to Climategate, which is another example of a "gate" where the scandalous allegations were real, but the foundation in fact was entirely spurious. The assertion that this suffix makes any implication as to veracity is, as far as I can tell, based only on personal opinion. GMG^talk 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  I think we’re allowed to use the OED as a reference to the English language. As a personal opinion, it’s shared with William Safire, an expert on language. More cites at: [5]. O3000 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  allowed to use the OED You still can't use RS to support something the RS doesn't say.

  shared with William Safire

  More cites at. GMG^talk 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  OED, the primary RS for the English language, says what I said it says. –gate denotes scandal. This is not my “personal opinion”. The Safire cite is in the article I pointed to. The cites in the article support that –gate means scandal, and is also used facetiously at times. In fact, it separates Pizzagate out of the scandal lists into the very small conspiracy theory list. I know we don’t use WP as a source. I am using it as a source of many sources, which I don’t want to lengthen this TP with by copying them all here. You may have the last word. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Sure, I guess I'd go with And the OED examination has no bearing or commentary on whether the suffix implies that the allegations are credible. And possibly That doesn't really have anything to do with what part of "Pizzagate is the COMMONNAME for the subject" includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. Since no one has actually addressed either of those points. GMG^talk 16:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Since no one has actually addressed either of those points. We have, it's just not been made clear: Me and the others who've mentioned BLP are of the opinion that the BLP issues override the problem with COMMONNAME. You may disagree that the proposed name has BLP issues, but that is why we have these discussions; to arrive at a consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Relevant: "Furthermore, they found that BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, 'Chelsea Manning'." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Evaluation of consensus) wumbolo ^^^ 16:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm, is there any particular reason you decided to quote the ArbCom finding which goes into no detail? Instead of, you know, quoting the actual reasons why it was not considered to be a BLP vio... If I follow your link, it supports your argument. But if I follow the link that ArbCom was explicitly referring to... I suddenly find a discussion about whether one of two names a BLP was notable under is a BLP violation, something you might recognize as having nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  And neither title includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. The only argument for BLP is that editors here have expanded the definition of the -gate suffix to mean "this has some indelible legitimate basis in fact", which is, as far as I can tell, not found anywhere other than the opinion of editors. All that has been offered in reply is a cite to the OED, which not only doesn't say this, but itself references another -gate that uncontroversially does not have a basis in fact. To be a scandal one needs only to be scandalous, and to be scandalous one does not need to be true.

  Yours is an OTHERSTUFF argument at its core, one which is entirely rebutted by saying "We don't needlessly disambiguate Unicorn, despite the fact that most named species of animals do in fact exist." GMG^talk 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  A better example is QAnon, which I mentioned in the nomination. It is also a conspiracy theory, and it also involves plenty of living persons. wumbolo ^^^ 17:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  The "usually" wording of the policy doesn't allow you to IAR; instead, the rest of policies and guidelines about article titles specify what else is allowed. wumbolo ^^^ 14:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  No permission is needed to WP:IAR; it's one of our core pillars and overrides policy. Regardless, no-one is suggesting we IAR here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  No IAR here. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose there are real living people who were targeted by the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. The current title makes it fairly clear that the thing was a smear and a hoax. I can see a case for moving this to Pizzagate smear or Pizzagate hoax but not just Pizzagate. ϢereSpielChequers 15:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support move, but oppose the suggested title since the term "pizzagate" is still used to refer to a dispute after a 2004 football match. I think we should treat "conspiracy theory" as a parenthetical disambiguator, as in Pizzagate (conspiracy theory), much like the article title Spygate (conspiracy theory). ^Falling_Gravity 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  If I'm not mistaken, this article was moved from that title following an RM to move it to "Pizzagate" in December of 2016, see this diff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  And here is the discussion. Bradv 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, it's this discussion, a bit lower down on the page. Both have the same question, so it's easy to confuse them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. That's the one I meant to link. Bradv 16:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  That's good to know, but I still think it's the best title per WP:PARENDIS. It's still possible for consensus to change. ^Falling_Gravity 16:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  I actually tend to agree. See my comments in that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  I have no problem with "Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)". O3000 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment can any one opposing the move point to any policies or guidelines for their position? The closest I have found is that it also refers to a sports scandal, but considering that Pizzagate re-directs to this page, that appears not to be a valid reason, per Disambiguation. TFD (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP has been pointed to numerous times already. Implying that this is a "scandal" as the -gate suffix does implies at least some legitimacy to the accusations made in this conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think renaming it to "Pizzagate" (if there is consensus), somehow signals that it is not a conspiracy theory. It doesn't have to be either-or in my opinion. The article can still outline how this is a conspiracy theory, and still be called "Pizzagate"-White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 19:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seems more common as a title. Removing "conspiracy theory" from the title won't make it look less of a conspiracy theory. Anatoliatheo (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It is a conspiracy theory and it should be kept as such. Watergate had happened, there is proof of it with respect to court filings and convictions. There is no such thing in this scenario, hence the title should be contain conspiracy theory in it. However I agree with FallingGravity comments and consider it as parenthetical disambiguator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicoindian (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. This is clearly the primary topic for "Pizzagate," so it doesn't need to be disambiguated beyond the name naturally used to refer to it in order to be recognizable. It's also more concise than the current name. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pizzagate scandal, which no one is proposing but which seems to be the subject of opposition. —67.14.236.193 (talk) (same user as above, different location) 01:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BLP trumps everything here. "Pizzagate" is not a real scandal, so referring to it as one in the title is not only incorrect, but also can give the impression that is a real thing and not the conspiracy theory that it is. What is gained exactly from moving it? Valeince (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Valeince: your last question is answered by the nomination, if you've even read it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  your last question is answered by the nomination, if you've even read it. No, it isn't. Hence why a half dozen people have said the same exact thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  Well, @Wumbolo:, I did read it before commenting, but just in case I read it again with my question in mind. Where exactly does it state what's gained by moving the title? Is it to fall in line w/ other articles? In which case I'll just point to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Is it because we want to to be as accurate as possible? Then I submit that the current title is the most accurate as the article is not about "Pizzagate", as that doesn't exist. It is about the conspiracy theory of a supposed child sex ring that involved a pizzeria. "Pizzagate" is used by conspiracy theorists to equate it a real world scandal, Watergate, to try and legitimize it. This brings me back to the question, what's gained from moving it? To make it just "Pizzagate" with no qualifier can make it seem like Wikipedia is saying that this is a real "-gate". What's to lose from leaving it at the current title? Absolutely nothing and we continue to call this what this is: a conspiracy theory. Valeince (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Valeince: the article is not about "Pizzagate" what?! Of course it is; it isn't about North Atlantic Deep Water. We have plenty of articles on things that don't exist. we continue to call this what this is that's the worst non-argument I've seen in this discussion so far. So why don't we even more accurately call this what it is: "Created by conspiracy theorists for conspiracy theorists, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, originally spread in the U.S. but the Internet is a global phenomenon"? wumbolo ^^^ 13:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Wumbolo, if you would stop arguing and try to absord Valeince's comment, it would become clear to you what they are saying: that "Pizzagate" was the name applied to a fictional satanic child abuse ring: something which does not exist. This article is about the conspiracy theory, not about the subject of the conspiracy theory being their rather obvious point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  So you would support creating a Pizzagate article about the subject of the conspiracy theory, if it gains enough notability? wumbolo ^^^ 15:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Now you're just being ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Hey fam. Anybody wanna help clear out q:Category:Americans? It's tedious and unrewarding. I see you guys are into that sort of thing. GMG^talk 15:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Valeince, who said everything which needs to be said here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment: In case it at all matters, every article listed at this article's Wikidata entry uses "Pizzagate" (or its own language's script variant thereof) as their title, including the German, French, Hebrew ("Pizza Gate"), Polish, Russian, and Swedish Wikipedias. Likewise, the Commons category is simply "Pizzagate". The English-language label on Wikidata also has been simply "Pizzagate" or "pizzagate" since the item was created in December 2016 by FallingGravity and that only changed earlier this month when I changed the English label to conform to the current article title. Even now, the English Wikipedia remains the odd one out throughout the entirety of Wikimedia and—if Quora, the article's sources, and elsewhere on the Internet are any indication—throughout the Internet generally. Maybe that is not an issue, but "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" does not seem to be the common name, especially within the Wikimedia projects outside of the English Wikipedia.
  Lastly, as a note, I slightly refactored this section to avoid list gaps and ensure accessibility. The changes can be seen here. I hope that is acceptable. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC); slightly edited (added "of") at 19:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. All reliable sources, without exception, refer to it as a conspiracy theory or words to that effect; and it is longstanding practice in such cases to include that in the title of the article to avoid inadvertently promoting WP:FRINGE theories. --Aquillion (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: that's 100% false. If we include "conspiracy theory" in the title, then we are promoting a conspiracy theory, not the other way 'round. Which one is more promotional, "Apple A12" or "A12 (efficient and fast system-on-a-chip made by Apple Inc.)"? wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  That's not what "promotional" means. We're not advertising for Pizzagate, we're pointing out its factual status. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Well Aquillion accused the proposed title of being promotional. I don't see anything promotional; the only clickbait-style promotional aspect of it is that it contains "pizza" in its name. But if a reader has never heard of the topic before, they are going to read the article for themselves, and if they don't, it's not our responsibility to point it out in every possible way. wumbolo ^^^ 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  WP:BLUDGEON Oh, look what I dropped there. Hmm, wonder if it'll be useful? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Covering a conspiracy theory, when it is universally described in such terms in reliable sources, without saying that it is a conspiracy theory obviously risks promoting it. There is a risk that someone could see the name and think that it refers to an actual scandal or events (especially with the "-gate" suffix.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Who goes to look something up in an encyclopedia and only reads the name? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Valeince. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

RM discussion

What is the thing we’re calling Pizzagate? Is it a scandal? A conspiracy theory? A made-up concept?

If Pizzagate is not the name of a scandal, how can calling it Pizzagate be calling it a scandal?

If Pizzagate must be the name of a scandal because it ends in “gate”, what then is “Pizzagate conspiracy theory”? A conspiracy theory surrounding the actual and real scandal known as Pizzagate?

If anything ending in “gate” must be a scandal, but this definitely is not a scandal, shouldn’t we avoid calling it a “gate” entirely?

—67.14.236.193 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sophistry is obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought I was rather calling attention to preexisting sophistry, like saying we’re acknowledging it as a scandal by calling it by its name. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Obvious projection is also obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so please don’t do that just because I poked holes in those arguments. This conspiracy theory (cf. the article’s opening words) is universally known by one name, so unless everyone reporting on it has decided to legitimize it by using that name while also debunking it, the whole argument is absurd. You can’t say the name falsely implies a scandal and continue using the name regardless, as we currently do. Use the name everyone else does or call it something else entirely, because this half-measure is ridiculous. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I poked holes in those arguments. LOL Good one. You can think you're doing whatever you want, but your whole argument was refuted before you even made it. The fact that you can't understand those refutations is really immaterial, though luckily for you, O3000 has the patience to at least try to explain them using small words. And Batman. Everybody loves Batman. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was a brilliant use of Batman. But if people decide this is real without even glancing at the article, how is the title going to make them change their minds? Still seems ridiculous. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, ran out of breadcrumbs in the middle. Try again. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources exposing Pizzagate as fake still call it Pizzagate. We can call it Pizzagate even though it’s fake. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and people call Batman, Batman; not Batmangate. People know it’s fake. –gate means scandal and people still believe this idiocy is not cartoonish. See the difference? O3000 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

And we expect a title to change the minds of people who don’t glance at the first six words? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, let’s move the article on Ghandi to Ghandigate, since the title doesn’t matter and the first few words contradict the title. (I'm done.} O3000 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't move Santa Claus to Santa Clausgate. ^Falling_Gravity 03:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Well shit... Now I'm tempted to create Santa Clausgate as a redirect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn't that hard to avoid the dreaded -gate suffix with a descriptive title, maybe something like Comet Ping Pong child sex ring conspiracy theory. This would avoid using a misnomer with potential WP:BLP implications because it makes clear it's a conspiracy theory, not one of those real scandals. ^Falling_Gravity 05:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

Please either cite the BBC INTEXT where § Spread on social media directly quotes their use of the mainstream internet, or remove or rephrase the quote; the use of quotation marks without context makes it look like scare quotes. 151.132.206.26 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The presence of a source at the end of that sentence looks like the quote comes from that source. And sure enough, it does. So I'm not going to be doing this, but I'll leave your request open for the next editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

A footnote is not WP:INTEXT attribution. Please review that link. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was. Please review my comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Looked like a cited quote to me. I can't see how it would be considered scare quotes. O3000 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

From the lack of WP:in-text attribution of the direct quote in addition to an inline citation at the end of the sentence. Or do we need to have an RFC about rewriting that section of the guideline? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Is "mainstream internet" really so novel that it couldn't go without quotation marks? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think you're going to change my mind by refusing to listen and pretending a guideline page says something we both know it doesn't? If so, then I've got some oceanfront property to sell you... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Mainstream Internet is a pretty fuzzy term. I prefer it in not-so-scary quotes. I dropped out of the oceanfront property market since the hurricane. O3000 (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

<elbow>Ixnay on the exposingya eyemay amscay to the eyepeeyay. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I used its exact wording. We're using a direct quote from the source, for whatever reason, without in-text attribution. The guideline says to use it. We aren't. Personally, I'd just remove the quote marks or rephrase if it's too fuzzy (in which case we probably should avoid it anyway). Not sure why there's any controversy over this. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines don't say that every use of quotes -no matter how minimal- requires in text attribution. Go re-read it carefully and note the examples. I read that link when you first posted it, even though I've read that entire page dozens of times. The page doesn't require a change in the article, so I bore that in mind as I read your argument, understood it, and rejected it because your argument was that it looked a certain way to you, and it doesn't look that way to me. I could go into a lot more detail about why it would be inappropriate to use an in-line citation in this situation, but your responses weren't asking for clarification or alternative solutions, it was to condescending imply that my unwillingness to accede to your request was some sort of policy violation. So I mocked your arguments, instead. O3000 gave much the same response as me, and then also mocked your arguments. Meanwhile, neither one of us has actually closed your request (which we both can do, easily) which would discourage other editors from making the change, because we're not that opposed to the change, just the way you're going about arguing for it. So now two experienced editors are having fun at your expense, all because you're not listening to us and not being patient about it. So do you want some advice? Stop responding. Just wait a few days, maybe someone will make the change. If no-one does, or if another editors closes this request, then just accept it and move on to something else, or else think up a compelling reason to make the change, instead of trying to berate anyone who doesn't want to do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Everybody take a breath, please. Everyone's made their points pretty clearly a couple of times. Mocking and sarcasm (from everyone here) is not helpful. I'd like to try and zoom back in on the WP:MOLEHILL, if I may.

I agree with MPants and O3000 that it's not an unreasonable request. I also agree with them that it doesn't read as scare quotes - the "mainstream" internet would be scare quotes, but as is I don't see it. Removing the quotation marks when we all agree that we're quoting the BBC article moves closer to plagiarism, which I'm not willing to do. As such, IMO we're either rewording it a bit or leaving it as is, and I'm fine with either of these options. @IP - this is your request, so I'd like to hear your specific suggestion for rewording, and then go from there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not if the "scare quotes" argument is productive. I don't think there's anything wrong with "according to the BBC". I've also tried copy-editing the sentence a little bit. Hopefully this doesn't break anything. ^Falling_Gravity 23:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't read as scare quotes to me, but it seems distracting regardless. The BBC isn't the only outlet to use "mainstream internet" in reference to Pizzagate. The New York Times also used these two words to describe the same concept in almost the same context. Per WP:NONENGPLAG, this two-word phrase seems like a simple and obvious way to describe a relatively straightforward concept. Both the BBC and the NYT are reliable, so I don't think it's plagiarism to use the phrase in Wikipedia's own voice. Obviously there is a huge amount of room for civil disagreement, though. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• All this over quotes? Who cares? Just remove them. Reddit is the 18th most visited site in the world. It's only somewhat below us. It's not like it's a misplaced euphemism or something. GMG^talk 00:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, it works in many ways. Given that both BBC and NYT use the term, I have no problem with WikiVoice. I also have no problem with inline attribution. I lean slightly to the current text as it’s clean and simple, and I prefer brevity. But, I wouldn’t even bother with a !vote in an RfC on a choice. I just think this is a waste of time. As Hector Barbossa said in Pirates of the Caribbean, it’s more of a guideline than a rule. O3000 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I (the same anon editor) sincerely apologize for any offense. I meant none, and clearly failed to make my intended tone (or lack of one) clear. And you’re right—my read of the guideline was to take the one example that includes a direct, quotation-marked quote as the example of how to handle direct quotes. The other examples all use indirect quotes or paraphrasing, and some of those with no attribution, which I thought I initially suggested as an alternative here (apologies if I wsa unclear in that). I’m not trying to say this is why I’m right; I’m saying this is what I understand it to be. It could very well be I’m misreading the guideline, but I’m genuinely not sure how when we’re working with a sample size of 1 in those examples. Could you explain your take on it?

As for alternative phrasings: the internet at large? The rest of the internet? Spread across the internet? More well-known/popular websites [than 4chan]? Something along those lines, but hopefully better written. I also agree with those claiming the term is common enough to just use it. But if for some reason we’re intent on keeping the wording as is and as a quote, the most recent edit seems ideal. And this seems less than likely, but we could just gloss the term if we wanted to use it multiple times throughout, and there’d be no question who said it, it’s just a thing we’re defining. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, I was having a good time. (And I don't, in any way, require you to not have a good time, too. In fact, I'd prefer if you did. In fact, for future reference, if I ever mock something you say again, feel free to return the favor. The more outrageously inane you get, the more we'll get along like old friends.) Good on you for taking some correction too, it's pretty rare in the world these days. I can say with great assurance that I am completely indifferent to all of those wordings, and if you would like to write out a proposal using one, I'll copy it over. I see you found someone willing to explicate the attribution already, and as I mentioned; while I wasn't inclined to do that, I'm content enough if there's a few editors on board with it. At this point, tweaking the current wording is something I can't think up even a mild objection to, so I'll bite if no-one beats me to it. Also, let me know if you change your mind about that oceanfront property. It's a steal. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

RM followup

Some editors find Pizzagate problematic because (although in common use) the name could be seen to imply a legitimate scandal involving living persons. Some editors find Pizzagate conspiracy theory problematic because it looks like unnecessary and unconventional disambiguation. What say you to a completely descriptive title that avoids these issues by avoiding the name? Someone above suggested Comet Ping Pong child sex ring conspiracy theory, but I don’t know if we should tie the restaurant’s name to it. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As this ended up not just being about the one Pizza place no.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Any title that contains "conspiracy theory" without parantheses is no better than the current one. The current one is at least semi-concise. wumbolo ^^^ 11:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we make it a technical move to Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) while we’re stuck here? Edit: guess not. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It used to be there. It was moved here per the consensus arising from this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

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 10 December 2018

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

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

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)

• Sounds good to me then.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 22:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Epstein

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)

Comet Pingpong

There's many pizza restaurants in DC. Why was this one targeted, specifically? 108.200.234.93 (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place for such discussions unless you think the article is not clear on that point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019

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)

• Y Done , Nice catch. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 23:53, 30 June 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2019 Infowars section - "as" should be "or". It's an obvious typo.

RandyAndyPandy (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The only "as" present in the Infowars section is a quote. See the source here.

Also, "or" would change the entire meaning of the sentence such that it would deny that the false accusations were made by conspiracy theorists. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

Message decoding:

Keywords that are used for this type of talks, mail, etc.

Hotdog = Boy Pizza = Girl Cheese = Little girl Pasta = Little boy Ice cream = Male prostitute Walnut = Person of colour Map = Semen Sauce = Orgy Dominoes = Domination Pillows = Drugs Oysters = Sedatives Chicken = Young boy Siu Angel (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
• This is a conspiracy theory. No need to stroll that deeply into the mire of something that is a complete invention. O3000 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing info about /CFG/ (the origin and organization of pizzagate)

when reading on the primary sources description, i suppose they are personal accounts of the situation, but the whole point of pizzagate was to analyze the entirety of the DNC and Podesta leaks for literally any corruption, and their main goal was to figure out what they called "the clinton money laundering machine". so, it's weird cause they're writing to and about themselves, so we can't link to direct evidence of a 'scandal' if its from the individual who committed it?

what concerns me about every discussion about pizzagate, is I never hear anyone talk about the Clinton Foundation General investigation (hereafter /CFG/). that was the backbone of pizzagate, and was the main loosely organized internet op that did all of pizzagate. if you couldn't sift through emails for relevant info or extrapolate further connection between individuals, event, and organizations, then you could make memes, if you couldn't make memes, you could share memes. and thus, there was an organized campaign to spread all the information they could find. and the comet ping pong caught on hardest because it was tabloid, strange, easily meme'd. i know google has done a lot of work to hide the documents, but i can usually find it again by following links through forums and archived pages. and this thing was like a thousand pages long. they would dump info as they found it, then others would go back over it, and connect any dots and place those snips of info under the relevant pages dedicated to that group or individual.

/CFG/ main doc. there should be other versions outside of scribd, but this will atleas show you what your looking for if you don't have an account. https://www.scribd.com/document/329527190/329473424-Clinton-Foundation-General-CFG-Google-Document-as-of-October-30-2016

one of their primary spreadsheets on the e-mails and the only things they found relevant or damming. https://drive.google.com/open?id=150761QowC0yKnjDQl-duanMVLUcQXihA

understand, being 4 years ago, and all the rampant internet cleanup has broken many links. i had save a couple links and docs i remember seeing when i find em, cause 4chan organizing their manpower is a really interesting thing to witness. and the internet isn't supposed to forget things ever occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidfaic (talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

seeing as its october 30th, i imagine that was probably the most up to date snapshot. but this [originally a google doc] IS pizzagate. this is the origin of pizzagate itself, even if you claim it was a social media phenomenon, it was an orchestrated phenomenon by these guys. and so i don't understand how people have completely blown over this in their investigating. it seems wrong to paint it as an absurd natural phenomenon when it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidfaic (talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

On 4chan, everyone who posts can play at being an investigator, and every lurker gets to play at being an anthropologist. On Wikipedia, however, you need to cite reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research, especially not in support of fringe views. The links you provide are unreliable and primary sources, and are not usable here. You will need to cite reliable, independent sources for any of this. Further, this page is not a platform for discussion the topic itself. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

New Jersey Corrections Officer Charged with Receipt of Child Pornography and admits "Cheese Pizza" is a reference to child pornography. 10/19/17 https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/press-release/file/1005496/download Maybe pizzagate is not a consipiracy theory. 2601:282:4003:ADB0:D90C:A22E:4C32:504 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This in no way suggests that Pizzagate is not a conspiracy theory. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

We would need reliable secondary sources to make a connection to that and this topic before we can include anything regarding this.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Tone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I will start with the very intro:

"Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle.

Right from the start with the phrase "debunked conspiracy theory", this article is clearly stating that a "conspiracy theory" might have some factual merit until it's proven otherwise. The tone of this article is so ironic it's painful when juxtaposed against the behaviours and attitudes of many Wikipedia editors who demand the "evidence" for even most innocuous edits (cue edit war).

Yet when it comes to applying the same sort of scepticism to the very articles that make up this site, that logic goes out the window, and suspension of belief is permitted. The whole article is back to front. First it outlined how it got started, spread, who was involved, etc. It's only when you read the bottom third does the actual rebuttals start. But then it goes up with the a section entitled entitled "Debunking" like any of this "Bullsh;t" needs any rebuttals! The claims and lies should be an addendum at the end of the article, this article should be about the harm this did very innocent people by sick individuals. It shouldn't be - well here are all the facts - but they're all false! 81.147.178.87 (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I would rather you had put this is rather less confrontational tones as it has some merit. But it is hard to see how we can not have its genesis first.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That cause this: Debunking The conspiracy theory has been widely discredited and debunked. It has been judged to be false after detailed investigation by the fact-checking website Snopes.com and The New York Times.[47][61][62] Numerous news organizations have debunked it as a conspiracy theory, including: the New York Observer,[63] The Washington Post,[64] The Independent in London,[65] The Huffington Post,[66] The Washington Times,[67] the Los Angeles Times,[68] Fox News,[69] CNN,[70] and the Miami Herald.[5] The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia characterized the matter as "fictitious". So the theory was debunked by same people and organization who are all behind this? LOL! 95.103.233.36 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Bynk

A UK newspaper was behind a US pedo ring?Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

PIZZAGATE IS REAL 2600:1700:B6F0:1ED0:A1EA:B29D:CD62:E545 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not say its not, the conspiracy theory is real, only its allegations are false (which is what we say).Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hypothesis not Theory

The title of this article should be “pizzagate conspiracy hypothesis”, as this is not a proven event. Sajjad664 (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting idea. The term "conspiracy theory" has a specific, defined meaning as a two-word phrase. It is not the same as just the words "conspiracy" + "theory" alone. I think "conspiracy hypothosis" would not convey the same information, and would be confusing to most readers who are familiar with the more common phrase. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is a joint phrase referring to a type of paranoid delusion, just as "buffalo wings" does not mean that any sort of bovid can fly. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the event is not proven, the claims (and lies) there was an event are proven to exist.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Can you please update this page with more current links and more content 99.35.61.207 (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any in mind?Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

It's literally been debunked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It isn’t debunked, Hillary Clinton lost the appeal in court about the email now she has to testify stop trying to feed people false information so they believe whatever narrative you have goin on 24.74.58.170 (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Anyone arguing "it's not debunked" just needs a WP:CIR block, not a response. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

It's literally been debunked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm the first sentence, ("Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle.) And the fifth, (Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed the emails contained coded messages that connected several high-ranking Democratic Party officials and U.S. restaurants with an alleged human trafficking and child sex ring.) The words "debunked" and "falsely" should be ommited. As this is a conspiracy theory, the accounts of higher powers shouldn't affect the credibility of this theory. And the reader should be able to decide for themselves. Pryerat (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

It's literally been debunked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It’s not debunked. 2600:6C46:4B00:106B:1C63:F9E:6CE2:2C08 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)  Not done: It was debunked. See the above discussions. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Honestly, I'd've just reverted. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: I see reverting talk page comments as unnecessarily hostile with few exceptions, such as personal attacks. It's a three-word comment by an IP. We should assume good faith and avoid biting the newcomers. Yes, this is patent nonsense, but when that is the case, it's very easy to simply respond with a hard "no." I realize that "assume good faith" may seem a bit naïve a suggestion by me. I do agree that this is likely a bad-faith comment, but removing such comments – rather than tersely dismissing them due to their lack of merit – is throwing fuel on the fire when we're dealing with conspiracy theorists. "Censoring" their comments (as they'd likely put it) runs the risk of feeding the trolls. So, I prefer to act based on the assumption of good faith, especially on the first response. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Having looked through similar conspiracy theory wiki pages, e.g. just looking through List of conspiracy theories, it appears that Pizzagate is treated uniquely in being described as 'debunked'. It appears that similar pages refer to 'claims' being 'debunked' but not conspiracy theories as a whole. Seems tautological to describe it as a conspiracy theory but at the same time describe it as debunked. Also, have looked at the above discussion as was suggested and the citations for the first sentence of the article re why 'debunked' is deemed appropriate. On this I would say that none of these articles actually 'debunk' the theory, this appears to be opinion: NYT article describes the theory as false but provides a timeline and no actual 'debunking'; PolitiFact article again describes the theory as false on some occasions but this appears to be largely opinion as the article also presents a timeline and even debunks claims of debunking; Snopes (is this a reliable source?) although concludes that the theory is false also says "we are unable to locate any substantive aspect of the claims that could be fact-checked or otherwise held up to the light to determine their veracity" - this is not debunking. I suggest that 'debunked' as a description for this theory is removed as the evidence for its debunking in the 'debunking' section is sufficient. HEditsH (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Yes, but by the same token most have a bit more basis then "Piazza is a code for pedo". But you might have a point, as there is no actually evidence to debunk we should say (rather than Debunked) ""Pizzagate" is a faked conspiracy theory that lacks any evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Incredible as it seems, as you can see, there are rather a lot of people stopping by that believe this is real. Debunked adds some, apparently needed, emphasis. And of course it has been debunked that there isn't a pedophile ring in the basement of an establishment that has no basement. O3000 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Re 'faked' as a suggestion for change, you would have to have sources for this and as a previously mentioned, the current articles claiming it is 'fake' appear based on opinion and there is already a substantial section in the article dedicated to the theory's debunking. Regarding using the word 'debunked' to influence what people believe appears outside of the spirit of Wikipedia; the article speaks for itself. The basement comment is also noted in the article so I don't see the need for 'debunked' at the start. And again, I suggest this conspiracy theory article should be treated the same as other conspiracy theory articles, as such described purely as a 'conspiracy theory' without 'debunked'.HEditsH (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Sorry wp:fringe crops up at this point. There is almost zero hard evidence (one or two disproved allegations about cellars and fake photos) and a lot of outright cobblers. There is no evidence so saying it is faked or debunked based on sources that say so (even if they are opinions) is valid. Yes we need to make it clear from the off there is nothing to see here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC) This isn't just fringe, it's WP:SKYBLUE territory. The entire thing is just made up gibberish based on some people's revenge fantasy against politicians & whoever else they want to "punish." It never had any coherency to begin with. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Yep. And we don't have to use the exact wording used by sources. O3000 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I would agree. Most conspiracy theories have a genesis in an event that many find inconceivable (the Kennedy assassination 11/9) and are attempts by people to come to terms with events they cannot (or do not want to) believe are real. The problem with this one is its genesis was not a reaction to an event, nor an attempt to explain something. It was literally made up from the off, using not even spurious logic but pure invention.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Archives

The archives are a complete mess. Some pages only have one or two tiny threads. Unless there's any objections, I plan on spending a couple days consolidating the archives into fewer pages & following current naming conventions (ie. "Archive 1, Archive 2," etc.), then PRODing the old pages for deletion. Just wanted to drop a note here in case anyone objects. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And done. New archives are up, we have a new Archivebox for the consolidated archives. There is an MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/TalkPizzagateOldArchives. If folks would be willing to look over my work and then add a !vote at the MfD, I'd appreciate it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Unproven but not debunked

It's literally been debunked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not very happy about the way this article is written. I would say that the Pizzagate theory (the name of the theory definitely should no way include the term 'conspiracy theory'!) is unproven but not debunked or proven false. Certain details may have been shown to be incorrect, but there may still be some core truth. It is not impossible that those people who may be implicated themselves added the false details to the theory in order to make it easier to discredit. This is a standard tactic. Some of the reasons against the theory given in the article are lame, specifically: (1) >Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia. However, The Times noted similarities were also found in the logos of a number of unrelated companies, such as AOL, Time Warner, and MSN.< So what? The logos aren't the only evidence for the theory. If the theory is true, then one would expect such logos, which would have to be relatively subtle. The place isn't gonna advertise its covert business in big neon signs! The unrelated companies might also have similar logos for similar reasons! (2) >Theorists claimed an underground network beneath Comet Ping Pong; the restaurant has no basement, however, and the picture used to support this claim was taken in another facility.< I have seen something credible on YouTube which suggests that although Comet Ping Pong does not technically have a basement (belonging to it), it does have a "permanently locked" door leading to old railway tunnels under the city. The fact that 'the picture used to support this claim was taken in another facility' is unfortunate, but inconclusive. ... Skepticemia (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I suggest you go through the archives and see how many times we have discussed this, yes it has been debunked as all of the actual hard evidence has been shown to be false. That is my only comment.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC) You appear to have missed my point that details have been shown to be false, so the theory as stated is technically false. For a hypothetical (imperfect) analogy, someone with influence could reword the Holocaust theory so that it says that 6 million and 47 Jews were killed. That exact number could hypothetically be shown to be false, thus debunking the theory as stated! At any rate, of course there is no "hard evidence" for the theory, or it would have resulted in criminal convictions by now. It remains unproven. Certain details are incorrect (which may have been added later for the purposes of debunking), but given recent events like the Epstein/Maxwell saga, some sort of core truth is far from implausible, so the question becomes one of how many details can be changed while still retaining essentially the same core theory? ...Skepticemia (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC) See FAQ.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC) No, it has been totally debunked and is, frankly, a nutcase conspiracy theory. Suggesting that certain individuals were running a pedophile ring with no evidence is a violation of WP:BLP and common decency. O3000 (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC) theory /ˈθɪəri/ noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Note a theory is "intended to explain something", A theory is not a random and spurious accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Reliable sources say it has been debunked, we say what reliable sources say. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Debunked

It's literally been debunked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could we go ahead and get rid of the term “debunked” in this? It has not been debunked. Thanks! Gonk178 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC) See the FAQ, end of conversation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) @Gonk178: It appears that WP is being tainted by politics here. Pizzagate is clearly an unproven accusation which may well be completely false, but it certainly has not been debunked. Agendas are clearly at play, adding the term "conspiracy theory" to the name of the theory, instead of just classifying the Pizzagate theory as a conspiracy theory, and placing too much focus on minor details that can be demonstrated to be false (like the lack of a basement, but apparently a door leading to abandoned tunnels instead!) Skepticemia (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC) @Skepticemia: Unless you have a reliable source to back up your claims, begone. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC) @Gonk178 and Skepticemia: Dozens of professional news sources, all in competition with each other and ready to tear each other down, can agree that the Pizzagate CT is false. Fox News and CNN both agree on this. You'd know that if you actually read the article. The investigating police department found that the conspiracy theory relies on a bunch of easily disproven facts, such as Comet Ping Pong not having a basement to keep anything in (much less children). Then there's the sheer hypocrisy of a porn site that regularly shares lolicon material deciding that the Comet Ping Pong owner having pictures that happened to feature children in the background on his Instragram was somehow sinister in some way. Honestly, that alone (overt pedophiles complaining about someone putting up pictures of people he cares about) should tell you fucked in the head and soul anyone who believes in Pizzagate is. It is not merely "unproven," it is so utterly false that if you post anything else implying that it is not false, you're very likely to be blocked for crass inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. To even pretend that you just want "both sides" (as Skepticemia would pretend to do next if I hadn't pointed out that move) presented requires concerning bias on your part. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC) OTOH, I still believe the Earth is toroidal, because in acidum veritas. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge with child sex conspiracy theories

This article should not exists because it will lead to a deadly with hunt in a few months from now. Corporatechildslave (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, this subject is notable on its own. Also your claim (in your edit summary) that this article will get people killed is pretty ludicrous. — Czello 10:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The article exists because the information about this insane idea exists elsewhere. Getting rid of this article will do nothing about the news coverage of the insane idea. Even getting rid of the news coverage will not get rid of the people who are fucked in the head enough to believe the Pizzagate CT. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This is why I asked them why, this is all over the right wing rant sphere, so our article can only be informing people who are not part of that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

69.146.76.87 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

yall really want everyone to believe this is a conspiracy when its right in our faces lMAO

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Proven True

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/9/1870513/-Jeffrey-Epstein-is-Pizzagate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.58.155.14 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Kos is not a reliable source, especially a community piece that clearly states was not vetted by staff.

That said, as someone who is fully on board the "Epstein didn't kill himself" train, this rhetoric isn't a good idea. Associating an actual conspiracy that probably involves a variety of political figures in both parties and many 1%ers with a delusion on par with the Daemonolatreiae libri tres is not a good idea: it only discredits those who want a real investigation into Epstein's death and gives justification to the lunatics that believe in Pizzagate. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Also it does not even say that it says "he short form, Pizzagate, which is not true in detail". It then goes on to (in effect) say the only parts are true is that some people abused children.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, pizza exists. And e-mails. And basements, though not at Comet Ping Pong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we sure this is not proven true? This article was just released a couple days ago: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/28/paedophiles-using-cheese-pizza-emojis-secret-code-social-media/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z-vap (talk 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Or that got the idea from this. There was a WW2, there was a A battle of the Bulge, that does not make the film battle of the bulge a documentary.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2020

Add third sentence to first paragraph under the heading "Criminal Responses": "Welch believe that there was a basement and/or tunnels under the pizzeria where children were being held, but no such tunnels or basement physically exist."

Also add a second sentence to the fourth paragraph under the heading "Debunking": "No tunnels or basement exist under the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria where children were claimed to be held." 2605:E000:1303:50C9:D55F:9E5A:140B:D6E9 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The lack of any physical evidence is already sourced to there is no real need to attempt to provide evidence of absence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

Not useful conspiracy theorizing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Change 'debunked conspiracy theory' to 'conspiracy theory' as the Clintons have since been seen associated with well documented sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Change 'Extensively discredited' to 'denied' as an insufficient investigation was carried out to fully discredit the theory. DanielJosephMcG (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC) What does the association between the Clintons and the Trumps with Jeffrey Epstein have to do with a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement where conspiracy theorists claimed one would be found? BD2412 T 23:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC) It has everything to do with the Clinton as her emails indicate her presence there. Why are you pretending not to know this common information that even mainstream sources reported? Clinton was on episteins plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Please provide a reliable source if you want a change to be made. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Those of y'all wanting us to emphasize the Clintons need to think long and hard about this. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

YouTube ban

"YouTube bans QAnon, other conspiracy content that targets individuals"

Article explicitly calls out Pizzagate. It's rather narrowly worded though:

“On the one hand, it is certainly more aggressive than their current harassment or conspiracy theory policies,” Lewis said. “On the other hand, by only prohibiting conspiratorial content that specifically targets other individuals or groups, it may leave huge amounts of leeway for QAnon content to continue to thrive.”

Should fit somewhere into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree "“threatens or harrasses someone by suggesting they are complicit in one of these harmful conspiracies, such as QAnon or Pizzagate,”", so it does not link QAnon to Pizzagate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

... did you miss the very first paragraph?

YouTube said Thursday that it would no longer allow content that targets individuals and groups with conspiracy theories, specifically QAnon and its antecedent, "pizzagate."

That's specifically linking the two. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No it says one came before the other, and that they will no longer allow "content that targets individuals and groups with conspiracy theories" including those two. Now we could say "YouTube no longer allows content relating to pizzagate".Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Worried about bias

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia, and I am a little worried on how Wikipedia is viewed by each side of the political spectrum. Wikipedia seems to face more accusations about liberal bias than conservative. I notice the Donald Trump, Gamergate, and Pizzagate articles all seem to be biased. It calls Gamergate an "harassment campaign", despite being a clear opinion, and Pizzagate "debunked" despite several people holding the opinion that it is not debunked. These articles all contain clearly biased news sources. I feel we should make Wikipedia more right-wing friendly so Wikipedia doesn't seem so biased. Wikipedia should be a place where literally anyone can get information and not have a politically-motivated agenda shoved in their face. I'm a neither left nor right leaning individual who is into politics. I want to get points from each side, not just one. I am worried Wikipedia consists of mostly liberal biased editors. I would like a more centrist Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be for everyone. Like, how do you think a person who supports either Donald Trump, Gamergate, or Pizzagate would feel in reading these articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellindahouse (talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to current events, Wikipedia is effectively an aggregation of media reports as only these qualify as reliable sources and as we are well aware, the media has a narrative and is extremely biased. See Post-truth. FAISSALOO_(talk) 08:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Mitchellindahouse, Wikipedia says what reliable sources say. Basically every single published reliable source calls Pizzagate debunked. We do not provide false balance either, by giving veiwpoints held by a very small minority the same amount of airtime as majority opinions. Just because some people believe Pizzagate does not make it true. Unless you can provide reliable sources that say it is not debunked, the description will remain as is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Like, how do you think a person who supports either Donald Trump, Gamergate, or Pizzagate would feel in reading these articles?

Hopefully they'd feel more informed. But Wikipedia is not here to advocate a particular political slant, nor do we alter articles to assuage particular fans. "Centrism" does not mean both sides get a say, when one side is clearly, factually wrong. Pizzagate & QAnon are abject nonsense, so we're going to call a spade a spade. Pizzagate is debunked and QAnon is a hoax. There is no point equivocating on those topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a very common problem. Homeopaths, Ayurveda fans, creationists, Reptiloid believers, Scientologists, flat-earthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, believers in witchcraft, climate change deniers, New-Agers, antivaxxers and Holocaust deniers also have it. But if we pandered to them, all those people who want actual facts instead of random bullshit would complain, and that would be much worse. It would also make Wikipedia completely worthless as a source of information.

If you want a site that embraces random bullshit and rejects actual facts, you will have to go somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hey @Mitchellindahouse: Welcome to Wikipedia. Feel free to stop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. As others have indicated, the type of neutrality that Wikipedia seeks is the fairly represent what the preponderance of reliable sources say. We don't necessarily represent "all sides" merely because they are opinions that some hold. People of all types take issue with this, especially those on the political extremes. But as a matter of policy, we do not engage in false balance in cases where one side is sufficiently a fringe view held only by a small minority of people. GMG^talk 13:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Mitchellindahouse:, Wikipedia is a repository of information with emphasis on facts, but it is not the arbiter of truth. By publishing popular "conspiracy theories" you allow people who are otherwise ignorant of them to at least understand the context of what is being claimed and decide for themselves if their is any merit to it.
In this way, Wikipedia is educating people away from fringe ideas and towards know facts. Unfortunately, many people in this space are completely unaware of their own biases and can't resist efforts to add adjectives to their entries and omit facts that are otherwise relevant to suit their own preferences. Food4tht — Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 10 August 2020

@Food4tht: So how do you suggest we change the article? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What facts do we omit?Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would omit facts that are not facts. The Wikipedia page says in part, "conservative journalists" spread the conspiracy theory on social media without naming any conservative journalists who did or even saying what a conservative journalist is. The footnote is quoting BBC Trending, which is a blog from BBC, not BBC News. BBC Trending doesn't apply the same journalistic standards of BBC News and should not be treated with the same seriousness. Later on in the Wikipedia page the same source is used with the phrase, "the BBC", not "BBC Trending". Removing such things helps remove the bias without effecting the debunking of Pizzagate.Scottca075 (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Well its does (in the body say fake news sites and at least one specific organ. What we do not need is a lait of them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: Well for starters I would make sure to add Jeffery Epstein as the primary impetus for the resurgence interest in the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Food4tht (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 August 2020‎

Unless you have a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source that says that, we can't add it. And from what I've seen, there hasn't been a resurgence as much as that has been used by the far-right (while ignoring all the photos of Epstein with a hero of theirs, and a certain lawsuit regarding both of them) to get lazy centrists to support the CT. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because cheese and green is real and the moon is real does not mean that the theory the moon is made of green cheese if valid. As said above we need wp:rs saying there is a link Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

While Pizzagate isn't true, I'm not sure that it's exactly "debunked". Really, Pizzagate (like a lot of other silly conspiracy theories) is unfalsifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

NOt quite as it made a lot of specific claims that have been shown to be false.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above reply; I think the "unfalsifiability" of conspiracy theories has more to do with the viewpoints and standards of the people who adopt those theories. By any normal standard of proof, Pizzagate is false. Wingedserif (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

False theory

[6] "false theory" is more definitively false than "conspiracy theory" and hence preferable

For false ideas, we should not use wording that is "more definitively false", we should wordinng that is th most appropriate. Acousmana is right, it is not a "theory". False theories are epistemologically much better than conspiracy theories, and that wording gives the idea too much credit. --Hob Gadling (talk)

I dislike "false theory" as it does not read right, it look odd.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

it's wonky, and per this edit, it's not a theory, nor is it a false theory, it is completely fictitious nonsense, calling any of this theory insults our intelligence - we put the word conspiracy before it to let our readers know what they are dealing with. Acousmana (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, but "conspiracy theory" is even worse. Conspiracy theories are not intrinsically false and there are (a very few) historic examples of conspiracy theories that later turned out to actually be true. Of course, I am not suggesting for one moment that this utter and irredeemable nonsense might ever be proved true. It has already been totally debunked. So... What should we say instead? We could say "false conspiracy theory" but that sounds weird. Something without "theory" in the title at all would be best. "False narrative" sounds good to me. Do we like that or does any body have any other suggestions? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are not intrinsically false, they aren't, but that's the established term and we are stuck with it, but the inference is that burden of proof applies in such cases (in other words, "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence"). It's very simple, someone had a notion that the dude's injury was somehow related to his support for Pizzagate and they discussed this idea on Reddit, it's that simple: a notion discussed on Reddit. Acousmana (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In German the word theory is more and more substituted by 'myths', if it's just one loose things, or 'ideologies', if many conspiracy myths are lumped together into one bigger one. That wording does it more imho justice, because theories are usually used in science and they can be proven or disproven whilst most of the 'conspiracy theories' are debunked and should not be namen theory after that. Skasperl (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ich agree that wr have to abandon the use of 'theory' for those dellusional fabrications. How about 'myths'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 (talk • contribs) 22:14, February 3, 2021 (UTC)

How is this a sacred narrative? Dimadick (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidentiary claims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article doesn't address any of Pizzagate's evidentiary claims and so does a TERRIBLE job of debunking. "It's false because it's fake"-- just tautology. 172.113.33.43 (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What "evidentiary claims" are those?

Also, the job of Wikipedia articles is not to "debunk". It is to summarize what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh right, another thing. The article does not say "it is false because it is fake". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As has been said what hard evidence? Do any RS say any of the claims (even if not hard evidence) have any validity?Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inviting assistance on new Pizzagate-related article The Finders (movement) (1980s "cult" frequently cited by Pizzagaters as evidence of government-backed child abuse)

This is one of those "how is there not a Wikipedia article on this already???" topics for me, because over the last few years as I've perused conspiracy-related content on social media, I very commonly see believers urge each other "go read up on The Finders." So in the past when I heard about it I just did some cursory googling, it seemed to be a Satanic Panic incident in the 1980s that didn't amount to too much, but the fact that people are still talking about it 30+ years later, and that it's been covered in a few RS's, lead me to conclude there should be a Wikipedia article on the topic.

Long story short, in 1987 two guys got arrested in Florida with six scruffy kids in their van, got accused of child abuse, turned out they were part of some weird absurdist commune, issue got resolved with no criminal charges, but some concerned citizen somehow got Congress and the DOJ involved, word got out that somehow the CIA had commented on the issue to DC Police, and so for decades now a portion of people are convinced these folks were a child-abusing cult protected by the government

In any case, I think it's a topic of relevance to anyone interested in Pizzagate and related issues, as part of the longer backstory, so I invite your participation to improve the brief article I've begun. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Coded language

Discussion started by a now-blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I've added some excerpts in the emails that were covered in RS secondary coverage. We need some examples of what the core theory actually is (basically allegations of coded language in emails + allegations that social media postings by associates of Comet Ping Pong are suggestive of child abuse/trafficking), there's virtually none of that in the article. An editor has claimed that a 'handkerchief with a map on it that seems pizza-related' and 'playing dominos better on cheese than on pasta' does not suggest code; obviously it does. The one correspondent even wraps waitresses in quotes, confirming it is code. Code for what, I'm not making any claims. There is no claim in the paragraph that the theorists are correct, or that the RSs say so. JWilliams835 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC) There is a claim in the text that the language is unusual, which is not only OR, but rathe ridiculous, as Slatersteven pointed out in their edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC) You can say it's ridiculous, but it's not. The use is absolutely highly unusual, and is obviously code. For what, again, I'm not making a claim. Please provide one other example of a seemingly pizza-related map on a handkerchief (or any other object), or any example of playing dominos on top of foods.JWilliams835 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC) In light of your claim that it's "obviously code", I say that's equally as ridiculous and direct you to WP:RGW as a useful read. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Please provide any examples that would negate that it is unusual (in any case, I removed that characterization). When one wraps a word in quotes, that is suggestive of another meaning.JWilliams835 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC) https://www.butlerandhill.co.uk/products/personalized-map-napkins?variant=34815682830&currency=GBP&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&utm_campaign=gs-2018-11-14&utm_source=google&utm_medium=smart_campaign&gclid=CjwKCAjwwqaGBhBKEiwAMk-FtCBGyhvNUvnPI4t36dWc2rKMHa7eK9CRYteFNnRTWkxdjAVDWJCoLxoCy_IQAvD_BwE, you can (literally) but napkins with maps on to promote your business.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC) I never heard anyone use the phrase "absolutely highly unusual". That is highly unusual and obviously code. What you actually mean must be "I slaughter komodo dragons and eat their toes for second breakfast". --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC) I said seemingly pizza-related maps, not any map on any object (pre-printed promotional paper napkins, which are not cloth handkerchiefs)JWilliams835 (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC) So? this shows that yes, napkins (which might be mistaken for hankicheifs) might well have maps on them. This is why we do not do OR.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC) It's NOT original research to say that the theorists believe the emails in question are code. That fact is documented in the RSs. I removed the word unusual BEFORE you reverted me.JWilliams835 (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC) True, it is OR to say its obviously a code (the basis of your justification).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC) OK, but that was never in the edits that you reverted. That was here, on this page. All I said was that the theorists believe it is code, which is true and substantiated in RSs.JWilliams835 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC) I just want you to know that your wit and your LOTR reference did not go unnoticed, or unappreciated, Hob. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC) No it does not obviously suggest code, it may well be anything from typos to Cherry-picked (assuming they are even real). You also need to read wp:primary, and wp:or. At least one source (you used) says these claims are false (do your edit?). So (even if) we include this we must make it clear these are false claims.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC) The RSs indicate they are real. I removed 'unusual' since that was arguably OR, though may well have been described as such in the sources. I can certainly add 'Outlets X, Y, and Z say the claims are false and code is not being used' below.JWilliams835 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC) No they do not, find one RS that says these might be real.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC) They do not suggest they are false.JWilliams835 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC) NO, they say it, using the word FALSE.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC) They say the characterizations of the emails are false, which is established in the lede and is why I used the words allegations and allegedly. They don't say that the emails themselves are fake.JWilliams835 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC) And? this is why we can't repeat them, as they are wholly unsubstantiated allegations against living people, read wp:crime. It is also only an allegation these are in fact code words. We do not mince words, these are not allegations they are outright falsehoods (as every RS says).Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC) How is it criminal to use code words? This article is about a theory, and the theory is based largely on [false, according to the sources] interpretation of emails that are apparently real. The article should say what those allegedly coded statements are, then say that the RSs (and obviously law enforcement, since there are no charges) say they are false; not hide them from readers. JWilliams835 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC) What? Sorry, but we do not repeat false allegations of criminal activity (and that is what the accusation is, pedophilia, a crime). No, we do not need to say what those allegations are, only that they have been debunked.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Not all theorists believe the emails themselves must refer to pedophilia. Some believe they may refer to unwitting sex with prostitutes or non-criminally manipulated individuals (e.g. people who feel pressured to have sex, or are technically paid for other services, and are not raped or engaging in prostitution), which is not a crime.JWilliams835 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Irrelevant, they are not obviously code, and no RS says they are code. And wp:blp still applies. This is going nowhere, it's clear you do not have consensus and this is getting wp:tenditious. I am bowing our now with my opposition in place to this addition. It's you against three, I suggest you drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Debunked

Also a discussion with a sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. See Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_7#Unproven_but_not_debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_7#Debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#"unproven"_but_not_"debunked", Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Debunked_conspiracy_theory, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Refuting_the_Conspiracy_Theory_many_times_throughout_the_article, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_5#Not_neutral,_pushes_view_of_pizzagate_being_false_and_debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4#Question_about_statement, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4#Changes_to_the_opening_paragraph, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#"Debunked_conspiracy_theory", Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#TAKE_"DEBUNKED"_OUT_OF_THE_FIRST_LINE!, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#Is_it_really_debunked?_(weasel_words), Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2#debunked? and Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2#Request_for_comment. Note that last one was an RfC with a WP:SNOW close. Also see the FAQing FAQ at the top of this FAQing page, first FAQing question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC) The main issue with it was 'as a conspiracy theory,' which suggests that all conspiracy theories - i.e. any theory involving illicit collusion by two or more people - are automatically debunked, and that's not at all the case.JWilliams835 (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC) That's not a problem which your edits corrected, and that's not a problem for this article, in any case. And the fact that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are debunked means it's not a problem, in any article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Yes, they did correct the problem. I said they 'reported it to be debunked,' which is an accurate description of the cited material, which in some cases don't debunk anything but merely echo that it is debunked. And no, the vast majority of CTs are not debunked, since there are untold millions, perhaps billions of conspiracies every year.JWilliams835 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Do either of you object to the current language? If not, we can call it a moot point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC) No, your edit looked good to me. It's only the failure for us to assert the fact that I object to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC) This particular one is clearly debunked, though. It requires the presence of a basement where there is none. No amount of theorizing causes a structure like that to appear or disappear. We can say in Wikipedia's voice that this is a debunked theory. BD2412 T 19:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Actually, there is a basement; or at least Alefantis said so in 2015:https://archive.is/2O5n7#selection-1587.586-1587.612 "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." Alefantis also posted several pictures on Comet's instagram account showing work activities taking place in a basement. Re: the wording, not objecting.JWilliams835 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Say it with me now: There. Is. No. Basement. Because there isn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 'Ask it with me now:' then why did he say 'the basement'? Not a basement, the. Maybe it's technically the basement of Buck's Fishing & Camping next door, or another adjacent/nearby building/address. Seems odd to say there's a basement, post pictures of a company basement repeatedly, then deny there's any at all without clarifying the past comments.JWilliams835 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Did anything about that random quote claim this basement was in the pizzaria? No? Then it's wildly speculative to claim that there's a basement in a building that has been verified to have no basement. And why the hell would they try to "clarify" when conspiracy nuts are just going to repeatedly ignore or twist such a statement anyway? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Yes, in fact, it did: ALEFANTIS: "Well, we make everything from scratch. Other restaurants, even good restaurants, will, like, not roast their own peppers. You can just buy the roasted peppers in a can. Or you can buy garlic oil. Some products you can get, and they’re consistent and they’re easy. But I didn’t even know that existed actually until they said that. I was like, “What do you mean? There’s another way? You can just buy these things?” Because a lot of restaurants will open a can and put it on. 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." Obviously, he's talking about his own restaurant in this paragraph (in a very long interview that is essentially only about his restaurant). Then he says 'we [i.e. the restaurant] store them in the basement [i.e. the basement of the restaurant, or perhaps that of an adjacent address].' And you think it's 'wild speculation' to assume he's referring to his restaurant's basement?? You people are impossible.JWilliams835 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Do you really not understand the concept of a metaphor? Also, that shit about Alefantis "repeatedly" posting pictures of a basement is directly addressed in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC) The main issue with it was 'as a conspiracy theory,' which suggests that all conspiracy theories - i.e. any theory involving illicit collusion by two or more people - are automatically debunked This is not what the term "conspiracy theory" means. So you're basing your argument on an incorrect assumption. A conspiracy meets your definition, whether it's speculative or proven. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are not based in fact, rather they're a string of misunderstandings and outright lies spun into a narrative to invent a novel story. They invariably fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. This is why Watergate scandal was a conspiracy, even before it was proven, while Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory. The latter is patent nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC) So is every real conspiracy a 'debunked conspiracy theory' or 'patent nonsense' until proven to be real? Or we could just call it a theory about a potential conspiracy without getting our undies in a bunch.JWilliams835 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Yawn. GMGtalk 19:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC) GreenMeansGo What do you mean, "yawn"? You weren't yawning when you rickrolled us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Apologies. I started reading about the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories and briefly slipped into a coma. GMGtalk 19:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC) I've been writing an opera about the archives here. The fat lady gets her head chopped off in the beginning, just to let you know that it never ever ever ends. The greek choir chanting "lock her up" starts out amusing, but by the 5th hour, you'll understand why there are metal detectors at the entrances and a strict "no weapons" policy; for the safety of the cast. On the plus side, it's got two or three whole Pagliacci's worth of singing clowns. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit

Can someone please remove the Category:Pizzerias in the United States?

A conspiracy theory isn't a pizzeria. The Comet Ping Pong article already, and rightly, has that category.

188.151.17.188 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems a valid objection, why is this here?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)