Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for comment

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.

---

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

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

Survey

• Support Is anyone seriously disputing this? There was an editor who seemed to be advocating this, but he's been topic-banned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Yes. The word "debunked" is well cited and it is referenced from multiple reliable sources. There have been suggestions that it should be removed because other articles do not include the word "debunked" but I consider that to be a Red Herring - problems with other articles should not affect this one. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Wording could be different, but the gist needs to remain - I think it's a little awkward to have the word "debunked" right there, and so I would suggest an alternative formulation: "Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory which emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle, falsely claiming that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking, and connecting a number of pizzerias in Washington, D.C. and members of the Democratic Party to a fabricated child-sex ring." This improves the flow, while still clearly and directly factually stating that the claims it makes about people are factually false. I would oppose any change which removes from the lede entirely this sort of direct factual statement, because of the still-ongoing nature of the spread of these fictitious, libelous lies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that would be an improvement over the current wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Wording could be different, but the gist needs to remain "unproven and widely debunked"Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support current wording but... I support NorthBySouthBaranof's suggestion more. I've quoted it below to highlight it.

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

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I made a change to the language to better reflect my preferences. I don't think the word 'imaginary' in this context is very encyclopedic. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, "fabricated" sounds better and I've made the change in my suggestion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support saying "debunked", and also support "falsely claiming" and "fabricated". The sourcing is abundant, and we need to be accurate. I've read the argument above, about the risk of sounding like there are conspiracy theories that are not debunked, and it strikes me as a non-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support word(s) along these lines. - Not fussy about debunked vs. fabricated vs. falsely claiming and the like. As long as it agrees with the RSs. Objective3000 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Change Wording per NorthBySouthBaranof. Pretty much all lead paragraphs of Wikipedia articles regarding conspiracy theories do not say that word such as the debunked series of Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support "debunked" in first sentence, and "discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum" in 2nd sentence, and fictitious conspiracy theory" in 2nd sentence, and "determined to be false by multiple organizations" in 2nd sentence. This WP:BLP issue has led to actual violence with an actual gun, as described by an FBI Special Agent at File:US v Welch Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint.pdf. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that adding or removing "debunked" in the first sentence would change anything. The people who believe this theory tend to ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs. There are people who still believe that the Sandy Newton victims are actors, such as this individual who was arrested for giving death threats to the parents. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Holy ever loving crap... I knew that woman. Like, in real life. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

How long has she been believing these theories for? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. I last spoke to her before Sandy Hook happened. But she was always a Conspiracy Theorist. I met her in an AOL Local chat room about the X-Files in the late 90's. To be fair, I was a CT, too at the time. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support NorthBySouthBaranof and MjolnirPants' wording as presented here, which I guess is to say oppose using "debunked" but their wording accomplishes the same meaning. Good job. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Obvious, and factual, as cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per sourcing. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Change Wording - since it has been reportedly an ongoing issue, plus the word seems part of a redundancy/overload/conflict conflusion. The article is using the suffix "-gate", then 'conspiracy theory', 'discredited', 'fictitious conspiracy theory' and 'determined to be false'. This seems too much and also like different things so the article direction is muddled there. The 'gate' reads like an actual conspiracy existed, 'conspiracy theory' like it talking about the fringe nature of held by few, 'fictitious conspiracy theory' sounds like it's not a conspiracy theory and it is competing with 'debunked conspiracy theory' and 'debunked' as in some actual providing of evidence was the prominent event. I think just going with 'discredited' would be easier. Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support in some form per WP:RS, though some other wording could be used, e.g. "disproved", "false", "... falsely claiming that ...", etc., if people object to "debunked" in particular. I agree that the exact word "debunked" isn't usually used here, but it is not at MOS:WTW and I don't see it as automatically problematic, though it is perhaps more of a Snopes than WP approach.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps somewhat less than serious things, that may be BLP problems...followed by an echo chamber. TimothyJosephWood 01:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Dissent Whilst I have no doubt that much of the published gossip is wild exaggeration, and speculation. Am I alone in finding archived instagram pictures from the staff of the shop and the lurid comments of its followers extremely disturbing? [1]. Here is one source which alludes to the pictures, and properly retains Alefantis' comments in quotes only. [2]. Cpsoper (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Yet another "It might be true, look at this random blog!" comment. Thanks. We were running low on those. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC) These are archived pages from source, not 'a random blog' and the Washington Times is reasonably RS, despite its Moonie roots and continuing links. Cpsoper (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC) I guess you don't know how pastebin works, then. Nor do you seem to grasp that the fact that you find the purported comments on a purported instagram account 'extremely disturbing' doesn't do anything to evince the truth of this bullshit conspiracy theory. The fact that a reporter from a notoriously conservative news outlet seems to have some sympathy for the conspiracy theorists while reporting on a NYT story as if it were breaking news doesn't change that, either. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Methinks you do protest too much. The Pastebin page just lists archived links (which are widely reproduced in other archives like [3]) this one for example [4] gives the date and the original site the photo is linked to [5], now removed from public view. In his public appearances Alefantis has never disputed the genuineness of the images archived from his site. WT is conservative, but not notorious for Washington news. Cpsoper (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC) To be fair, I did find this source which says it's absolutely true. TimothyJosephWood 22:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Honestly though, these "sources" are complete garbage and every bit as reliable as what I linked to. ITS A PICTURE OF A BABY I BET IT GOT RAPED. So yes, you are alone, and I say this with absolute confidence that if it came out tomorrow morning that Podesta was indicted for this, there would be a nerd-fight cage-match to see who would be the first to put it in the article, and what the wording would be. But if this is all you have I believe this conversation is over. TimothyJosephWood 22:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Weird shit on Instagram? Why I never. Those pictures don't prove a damn thing about this theory. You can find secret symbols and suggestive imagery anywhere if you look hard enough for it. clpo13(talk) 22:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC) It's like talking to a brick wall... What part of "your emotional reaction to a bunch of instagram photos is not a reliable source" is confusing? Seriously! I mean, if we're going to add content based on our personal feelings, then I have quite a lot to say about people willing to believe this kind of ridiculous bullshit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Note This article has been here for a while now, and not once in that time has a single person come here with a reliable source that states "Pizzagate is true." That should be a red flag to everyone. If there was any reliable evidence, it would be public by now & there's no way every single reliable source in the world would be involved in a global conspiracy to keep it quiet. Enough's enough - can people please stop wasting everyone's time with a bunch of mocked-up images, codes thought up by trolls, blogs that say "it could be true, you never know, oooo!" and other useless junk. I'm challenging people to bring information that Pizzagate is true from Reliable, Independent Sources - not this pathetic nonsense. People are so ashamed of this weak information that they can't even bring themselves to log into their main Wikipedia accounts before they post it here. I say, man up - log into your actual account and present something real - or stop wasting everyone's time. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not ask the hard questions, nor does it do investigative reporting. We include only what is reported by reliable sources, and accusing someone of running a pedophile ring without a reliable source, is a violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate emerged from the Wikileaks emails, not from some alt-right conspiracy blog. No one has yet challenged the authenticity of any of the email released by Wikileaks. PizzaGate can only be called a conspiracy/be debunked if the emails, using pedophile codes will be proven as fake. If they are fake, then we need to ask; who sent them and was this a false flag?--Violet24 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC) And no one had demonstrated there was any such code. No one disputes the existence of the e-mails, only that there is no actual verifiable and proven evidence they in fact were coded communications. When we have had evidence that can actual be verified it has turned out to be fabricated, that is why the E-mails are [s]relevant[/s]Irrelevant to this being a debunked theory.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Come back when Podesta actually confirms that the emails are authentic. He hasn't yet, so it's pointless going on about them really. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Podesta has confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails, see for example the december 18 Meet The Press interview. The existence nor the authenticity of the e-mails is disputed, only their meaning and importance is at play. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC) That's not accurate, but thanks for posting. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC) What do you mean, Exemplo347, by 'not accurate'? In the interview (see c. 08:15 in video) he says, I quote: "(...) after Wikileaks started dropping my e-mails (...)". And the same is said in different words during the interview, and not a word about the e-mails being not authentic. Please don't accuse me of being unreliable. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support - "debunked," "discredited," and "fictitious" all work for me. The first two are somewhat better, though. GAB^gab 17:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support a change in wording which unequivocally signifies that the conspiracy theory has been discredited. It does seem like overload and a bit jarring for "debunked conspiracy theory" to be there in the lead. HelgaStick (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose because the claims it has been debunked are all based on other sources claiming it has been debunked. There has been no actual investigation into the claims and no one has gone through each claim systematically debunking them. It is stated that the DC police investigated and found nothing, but on submitting a FOIA request for the report of that investigation, a YouTube user was told that in fact, DC Police had done NO investigation (video uploaded on 23 December 2016). So they lied initially when saying they had investigated. This means that no one has actually investigated the claims or debunked them. All sources simply point to the fact that other sources have apparently debunked it in a circular fashion. The Pizzagate investigation also moved well beyond the pizza restaurant, and much more evidence has been discovered including linking the Clinton Foundation to child trafficking in Haiti and more besides. No source has even looked at these other findings. The fact that the police did not investigate is an important aspect of this story as many of the sources stating it has been debunked base that on the supposed police investigation. Therefore it cannot be said that this has been debunked. 77.243.183.11 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — 77.243.183.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He's right you know.jpg 76.72.9.197 (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — 76.72.9.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There hasn't been an investigation to prove that the two above IP addresses aren't Trolls from Olgino. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: One of those IPs is a British proxy, and the other part of a wide-open american network that's commonly (read: almost entirely) used for hijacked proxies. I know you were being sarcastic, but you're probably exactly right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The presence of irony does not necessarily mean that the earnestness is excluded. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As the person above me stated, a FIOA request revealed the DC police hasn't done any actual investigation. Sources cited claim DC police has said it was fictitious. But DC police hasn't done any investigation at all. They just said they did. They assumed it is false based on nothing at all. 217.63.154.8 (talk) — 217.63.154.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above cited Youtube video definitely fails meet the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Judgements about what is written in Wikipedia cannot be made on someone's unvetted personal opinion expressed in an Youtube video that isn't backed up by a reliable source, WP:VNT. Personal opinion, speculation and innuendo might be acceptable for Voat, but Wikipedia is different. A person can find a Youtube video to support almost any point of view. You need to fine more authoritative and reliable source to support your position. Paul H. (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So what would be needed for WP to believe he actually filed and got a response to a FOIA request?217.63.154.8 (talk)— 217.63.154.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Third party RS saying that there had been no investigation. I can claim I spioke on the pnoe only yesterday to Mr Assange who asured me that he had been personally handed the disk with the e-mails on by Vladimir Putin who told him "and now my best mate Donny will be president and soon America will be ours, MUhhhahhhaa!". But my word is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Who says we don't believe it? The fact that a couple of right-wing conspiracy theorists can't figure out the difference between "there is no ongoing investigation" and "we never bothered to investigate" is not our problem. The fact that a random youtube video that purports to show an email evinces nothing except for the creator's possible image-editing skills is not our problem. The fact that a non-notable person who just so happens to have a youtube account thinks this conspiracy theory is real is not our problem. You want to prove this bullshit true? Go do it on your own, and stop expecting WP to validate your bizarre beliefs for you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

For the police to initiate an investigation of a alleged crime, there needs to be at least probable cause to believe a crime has been committed - either a complaining victim or a credible witness will generally suffice. If nobody has done that, then there won't be an investigation. Anyone is welcome to go to the DC Police and file a police report; of course, that would require signing a legal document under penalty of perjury, and it doesn't appear any Pizzagate conspiracist believes in their nonsense enough to risk going to jail for filing a false police report. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Police have also likely never investigated the claim that Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer, and that's because...well...that claim is completely made up. Police don't investigate allegations based on lack of repudiating evidence; they investigate claims based on confirming evidence indicating the allegations may be true. There is none, and so there has been no investigation. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support The conspiracy theory is fake; we should call it as such. All the reliable sources denounce Pizzagate as untrue, and Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say. Joshualouie711^talk 22:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - exactly with Joshualouie711 said. Neutrality^talk 00:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the only opposition to this has come from white-racist editors who think truth is determined by race rather than facts. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No question in my mind that racism is involved with some folks. But, You go too far with words like "only". I'm not an admin, but I'd close this with snow if I weren't involved. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• @A Quest For Knowledge:. Yes. See archive. Multiple editors have questioned this, including at least one admin. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. WP:NPOV requires that we not just say it's been debunked, but go into detail how it's been debunked. I remember reading Holocaust denial not because I thought the Holocaust wasn't real, but because I wanted to know what Holocaust deniers were saying. The article not only explained what Holocaust deniers were claiming, but also explained the flaws in their arguments. That, to me, is the mark of a good article about a fringe theory. If it had just said that Holocaust denial had been debunked but didn't explain why, that would do our readers a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, @A Quest For Knowledge: - You've voted "support" in the survey, supporting the retention of "debunked" in the article. You've then, in response to another user's comment, said that changing the wording sounds better. Which is your vote? I only ask because here you say you would like the word "debunked" removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that the word "debunked" should be removed from the opening sentence, but not the whole article. The article can and should critically analyze this conspiracy theory. To be honest, I find the wording a bit insulting to our reader's intelligence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So you should vote "oppose" then, surely? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: No, if you don't understand the difference between the opening sentence and the entire lead or the whole article, I'm not sure what more I can say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble but this discussion is specifically about the lead. Thanks for posting. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! It's about the lede in general, not specifically the opening sentence. I suggest you reread my responses. I don't think I can make it any more obvious than I already have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

"Unproven" weakens the language somewhat. It's not as strong as an unequivocal phrase like "false" Exemplo347 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Except I rather do have so play devils advocate here and point out it has not been shown the code is false. Only that it has not on shred of evidence to support it. I would opt for the more neutral phrase just to stop the damn arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In a very formal sense, you are absolutely right. But in the heuristics of reality, the fact that all the 'evidence' has been shown to be false is, itself, convincing evidence that there is no truth to it. It's a sort of statistical syllogism: it's not false by definition but it's so unlikely to be true that it might as well be.

Why does this matter? Because Wikipedia documents reality. It's an encyclopedia, not an exercise in applying strict formal logic to real questions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's the point I've been trying to make for days. This is an entry in an encyclopaedia, not a web forum where anyone can post anything they like, slanted exactly how they like, to push whatever agenda they choose to push this week based on something they read on some random message board. Facts - cited, referenced facts - that's what Wikipedia articles need, not petty arguments over semantics based on the personal feelings of editors. This isn't 4chan - this site actually gets taken seriously. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel I must add to this discussion, because the article, as well as the talk page here, seems to omit some very important aspects of Pizzagate, which I'll try to adress short. Pizzagate is not 'a' conspiracy theory, it is in fact a still evolving amalgam of theories. Literally thousands of people are investigating what they find a suspicious network of relations that breaths a to them very disturbing suggestion of different kinds of evil. One of the major branches of this - ongoing and, like I said, evolving - investigation focusses on the Clinton Foundation and its international connections to (as some or many see it) supposedly criminal activitities and organisations; I stress here that it is for many of the researchers not a partisan issue. The Wiki-article fails to even mention the Clinton Foundation and the stress laid upon it under the name of Pizzagate. I find it quite unbelievable how a plurality of Wikipedians, that is: encyclopedians, picks only the obvious (and, indeed, clearly debunkable) surface of this 'conspiracy theory gone wild' and seems to try so hard to maintain it is a debunked conspiracy theory. It appears to me as if no one has felt the need to give a more elaborate account of this subject, and all are trying to get it over with and bury the subject by stating it as debunked. By the very definition (and the article's lead seems a poor one) of this many-headed monster it cannot be said to be debunked as long as it is growing, which in my opinion it still does. And no, I haven't seen a smoking gun, nor even a victim, but as someone said: 'Pizzagate is not a theory, it is an investigation' - Wikipedians in this case might learn something from that. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jürgen Eissink. I don't think anyone is against putting anything in the article on principle, but, because of the Wikipedia policy on verifiability, we can't include anything in the article that isn't backed up by a reliable source, even if it is true. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources is confusing so many people. It's been in place for years. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone has been here for years, and some who do still often get it wrong, which is why we should take care not to WP:BITE users who've only ever made three edits. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It was just a general comment really. People who have been here for longer than I have still keep getting tripped up by the Verifiability policy. 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Timothyjosephwood, reliable sources did focus on some of Pizzagate's theories concerning the Clinton Foundation, debunking it or not, for instance the Washington Post. I just felt obliged to notice that to many Pizzagaters Pizzagate is much bigger than the Wiki-article suggests, and that it seems akward to call debunked something which is much broader than a detail shown. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah ha. Now, this is a good point and with a really good source behind it. We could probably use this to add some breadth to the Origins section. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you got the point. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of the spin-off conspiracy theories could be good, as long as there's the word "false" added if it's in the sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say the initial allegations have been pretty conclusively debunked, and the wider issue is not really about Pizzagate and so it's proper place would be elsewhere (such as the Clinton foundation).Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems every bit as relevant as allegations that the FBI raided Clinton's home. ...And if anyone is seriously considering suggesting this be added to the main article for the Clinton Foundation, the only thing that's going to get you over there is an archive template and a link to WP:DONTFEED. The only reason WaPo is covering it is because of its connection to Pizzagate, and this isn't the first person that has suggested that the coverage of the actual content of the conspiracy theory has been shallow. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - mentioning pizzagate-related spin-off conspiracy theories (when they appear in reliable sources) is perfectly valid.Exemplo347 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Pizzagate is a word that references the false allegations that Hillary Clinton is involved in the running of a child sex ring out of the backs (or basements) of a chain of D.C. based pizza restaurants. That claim absolutely has been debunked. Now, the fact that this claim is one of numerous other claims alleging some human trafficking charges against Hillary Clinton, and that there are tangential claims surrounding it doesn't change the fact that the initial claim has been shown to be false. I might remind editors of a few things:

1. Moon landing hoax claims continue to grow and evolve, despite being long debunked.
2. The fact that there is a close-knit web of conspiracy theories involving the Clintons, many of which are related to this one doesn't imply that this one cannot be differentiated from others.
3. The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked has no bearing on whether this one has.
4. The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked doesn't imply that they are true, either.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

No, though it's worth pointing out that if they did, that would mean that the police didn't have the probable cause to launch an investigation. It would just lend more credence to the "this is bullshit" conclusion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.64.121 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Sorry for not being a 1337 super-wiki mod, and forgive my lack of credentials and wikipedia knowhow. I thought this is supposed to be a public encyclopedia open for discussion and such. Sorry I can't devote my life to understanding the nuances of all the rules here. Anyway, I just wanna say this: There are tons of "reliable sources" who cite an alleged investigation by the DC police department. These "reliable sources" also use this "investigation" as a reason this "consipiracy theory" has been debunked. None of the "reliable sources" actually cite a police report number or any kind of official record with the DCPD. If no investigation took place, and no reliable source can point to proof that an investigation took place, why is this claim allowed to persist?2601:202:4001:8B20:9130:AF5F:8B02:2242 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ooooooooooh. Scare quotes. You win. Pizzagate is totally true. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's open to discussion, within limits based upon the encyclopedia's foundational policies. We don't second-guess the undisputed and overwhelming conclusions of reliable sources. Wikipedians are not investigators, we're encyclopedia editors. The fact is that every single reliable source which has commented on this matter has declared it to be false, fictional, debunked, lies, nonsense, take your pick of phrases. As far as we are concerned, that's the end of it, until and unless anyone brings forth trustworthy reliable sources which seriously claim otherwise.

That you aren't interested in taking any time to "understand the nuances of all the rules here" means that you clearly aren't interested in seriously editing the encyclopedia, because a basic requirement of editors is competence, and competence requires reading, understanding and complying with our foundational policies. If you are, at some point in the future, interested in editing, you're welcome to review those policies, develop that understanding and join our community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Do the sources or the article claim there was a police investigation?Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change the nature of the RfC

Withdrawn for now

There have been three composed proposals made; the extant wording, the wording by NorthbySouth, and the wording contained in this archived thread. I would suggest we re-word the RfC to allow participants to clearly choose between those three alternatives (and of course, to propose their own) and collapse the current !votes to keep things from getting too messy. Any thoughts? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Let's keep this one to the original proposal. Sagecandor (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC) I'm mostly sitting this one out as proposer, but I think the best course of action would be to let the RfC run its course, and if consensus is against, follow that up with options. At least at that point, we would know that we need other options, and we would have actually accomplished something. What I don't want to end up with is an RfC that gives options A through F and no meaningful consensus is gathered for anything at all. TimothyJosephWood 20:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Good point. I'll go with that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

A comment: I think it would be helpful if this article discussed earlier rumors and hoaxes about child abductions. An especially intriguing example is a "fake news" story from early 2016 about a "Satanic dungeon" being discovered in the basement of a Chuck E. Cheese's pizzeria. See http://www.snopes.com/satanic-dungeon-chuck-e-cheese/

• Question - Is this going to be closed soon? It's gone on way longer than these things are meant to. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be split between keeping the word "debunked" and replacing it with the plainer (which is blunter, but has fewer negative connotations, IMHO) descriptive, "false". There seems to be a bit more support for keeping the current wording. So if no-one's opposed to deciding between the proposal by NorthBySouth and I, we can do that. If no-body wants to go through that again, we can just close this. I'm cool either way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've requested that an uninvolved Administrator review this Request for Comment discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure) as I think that's the best way to make this a clear-cut decision that won't be argued with later by Single Purpose Accounts or IP users. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 3 January 2017 (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.

Comment on Suggested Move to Pizzagate

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.

---

• Support WP:COMMONNAME says we should use commonly recognizable names. "Pizzagate" is the commonly used name for this article's topic. "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is a comparatively less used name in comparison to simply "Pizzagate". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to reopen an issue that has already been discussed & closed seems a bit disrespectful of your fellow editors, a bit pointless & potentially disruptive. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2016 (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.

@A Quest For Knowledge: Is there some specific reason that you're determined to reopen this already closed issue? Your editing is, as I said, becoming disruptive. This should be archived - if you missed the 14-day-long RfC discussion about this issue then that's your own fault. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair, "Pizzagate" would be my preferred article title. The fact that it's a conspiracy theory should be defined in the lead, while WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear. None of the sources refer to it as the "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" that I've seen. That being said, there's no rush to get this done. I'm perfectly content to wait until interest in it dies down and we don't have a messload of proxy IPs trying to fuck it up. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

My point is that the RfC discussion for this issue took place very recently, and the page title was changed as a result only 9 days ago. Do you think there's any justification for reopening this issue so soon? If not, this should just be archived. As I suggested during the RfC discussion, this issue should be revisited in a month or two - that doesn't mean it should be mindlessly dragged out. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you think there's any justification for reopening this issue so soon?

No, not this soon. Not until public interest dies down and the media stops writing stories about it. Once we have a more or less stable body of sources, then we can revisit it. I'm fine with archiving this, I'm just letting the current participants know that AQFK's concerns aren't limited to them (or even to editors with right-wing political views). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Does this article deny the antecedent?

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 appears to deny the antecedent when it refers to the child-sex ring as non-existent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be the logic of the article:

If the arguments given by pizzagate conspiracy theorists are sound, then the child-sex ring exists. (P→Q)

The arguments given by pizzagate conspiracy theorists are not sound. (~P)

Therefore, the child-sex ring is non-existent. (~Q)

This is not a valid argument (see the page for denying the antecedent), and it appears that the article is implicitly making this invalid deduction.

In other words, just because the reliable sources cited prove the arguments given by pizzagate conspiracy theorists are unsound (i.e. debunk them), that does not mean the sourced prove the child-sex ring does not exist. There could be some other reason why the child-sex ring exists. One could make the argument that it's unlikely, but that would need to be in a reliable source and it still doesn't prove the child-sex ring is non-existent.

If it is denying the antecedent, then it could also be said to commit the argument from fallacy (AKA the fallacy fallacy). IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't perform logical analysis on our sources, sorry. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that the article is implicitly making a logical analysis on the information in the sources using falacious reasoning. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Also the article is about Pizzagate, not the existence a of child sex rings. If the article claims the child sex ring (rather then Pizzagate) have been debunked you might have a point, does it? I cannot see that it does, so can we have an example please?Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

For example, the top image of the article has this caption (emphasis added): " "Pizzagate" connected Comet Ping Pong (pictured) to a non-existent child-sex ring." On an unrelated note, the article is inconsistent with whether it puts a hyphen between 'child-sex', and we should probably be consistent. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that the theory is debunked. Therefore, this article says the same. No need for logical inference of any brand. Objective3000 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my post. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that is. Not sure if there's much we can do about it. We can only repeat what the sources say. Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe the sources only debunk the arguments. I don't think any of the sources claim that the child-sex ring has been proven non-existent. It is the Wikipedia article that appears to be making the leap in logic when it says (emphasis added): "a non-existent child-sex ring." If any of the sources do commit the fallacy, then they shouldn't be considered reliable sources in my opinion. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't examined the sources so I cant really say but if that is the case then I agree with you, it should be changed.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, the personal opinions of editors have no place in Wikipedia articles - they are meant to be a dispassionate description of information from reliable sources and nothing more. Original research (including private opinions or analysis) has no place here. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If what he/she is saying about the sources is true then it is not him /her who is bringing his/her personal opinions in to the articleApollo The Logician (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So you haven't even read through the sources yourself? That's odd. Anyway, no single reliable source states that a Pizzagate-related child sex ring exists. The burden of proof here is on the people who want to suggest that it "might" exist if you want this information to be included in the article. Without a reliable source, what you're suggesting would create a false balance within the article, giving undue weight to a Fringe opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is that odd? I don't think it should be included in the article at all. All I am saying is that if he he/she is right then this article is fallacious.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As long as this article faithfully states what is contained in Reliable Sources, claims of fallacy are pretty meaningless. Wikipedia editors are not here to perform analysis of the reliable sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that and as I have already I stated I agree with it. Either you are missing IWillBuildTheRoad's point or yu havent been following what I have said. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are we still debating this when both of you agree it has nothing to do with improving the article? TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've followed what you've said, quite easily. What I'm saying is that none of it is relevant to the article. Talk pages are meant for discussions about improvements to the article - they're not a forum for general debate about the content. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well then you haven't understood what I WILL BUILD THE ROADS is saying.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've understood perfectly, it's not that difficult. You and the other editor are saying that this article should leave open the possibility that a Pizzagate-related child sex ring could exist. However neither of you are providing reliable sources to back up this attempt to insert false balance into the article. Are you understanding what I'm saying? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No they are saying no RS says the child sex ring has been debunked, so we cannot say it has. If RS have clearly said there is no sex ring then we need to source it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

None of the sources say "Pizzagate is partially fake" - the child sex ring is an integral part of the conspiracy theory that every single reliable source calls "debunked" or "fake" or "fictional" or "insane" - you can't cherry-pick bits of it when the reliable sources are so unequivocal in their statements. This strays into Original Research territory. Don't play semantics - the whole thing is fake according to every reliable source. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I would argue your argument is synthesis, the sources say Y so X must be true. We can reword the article to better reflect what the sources actually say, rather then extrapolate from them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Source found end of argument.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Again you have made clear that you have misunderstood the argument. The arguement is that the sources gave called the arguments for the conspiracy theory debunked but not the conspiracy theory itself.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I've added a source to the article that says there was no child sex ring. What now? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

And that is changing the goal posts, we are talking about the fact that no source claimed the child sex ring was fake. WEe now have that source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the logic: Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that alleges the existence of a child sex ring. The conspiracy theory has been debunked. Therefore, logically, the existence of the child sex ring has been debunked. Other child sex rings may exist, but by definition they have nothing to do with Pizzagate. This is one of the worst pretensions to logic I have ever seen, because it is premised upon one of the most fundamental failures of logic that one could ever describe. You are arguing that A¹ is an A, A¹ has been shown false, but since A¹ is a subset of A and not A itself, A¹ must therefore be true. You are mangling the laws of identity and non-contradiction in such an ignorant manner that the only possible response is to suggest you actually study the fundamentals of logic before you attempt to use them to push changes to this article.

Regarding the claims about the sources: The sources absolutely do not claim the "arguments" are debunked, but that the "theory", the "rumor", the "tale", the "story" is false. @Slatersteven: you are 100%, unequivocally wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

eg

In the span of a few weeks, a false rumor that Hillary Clinton and her top aides were involved in various crimes snowballed into a wild conspiracy theory that they were running a child-trafficking ring out of a Washington pizza parlor. The fast evolution of the false theory revealed how a powerful mix of fake news and social media led an armed North Carolina man to investigate the rumors about the pizza place, Comet Ping Pong, last Sunday.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? I never said anything about The arguments" being debunked and not the "theory" has not been, I said that you cannot claim that a sources says X because it says Y. As we now have a source explicitly saying that the Child sex ring hoax has been disproved it is a moot point, but I still do not see how a source saying that (for example) the photo's were faked can be used to say that the child sex ring allegation has been disproved. It can be argued that the above does (implicitly) say that the child sex ring allegation is false, and that is all I asked for a source saying it was.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? I never said anything about The arguments" being debunked and not the "theory" has not been, The part of my comment about what the sources debunk was not directed at you. The part about the logic was, but even that is fairly immaterial as an discussion of changes to the article, because as has been pointed out many time; we don't edit based on our own logical analysis of the exact wording of the sources. And once again to explain the flaws in your argument: the sources explicitly debunk the existence of the child sex ring, because the very existence of the child sex ring hinges upon the postulate that Pizzagate is true. Absent the truth of Pizzagate, the postulate that a child sex ring exists has no basis whatsoever. It's a bald assertion that doesn't merit any response. Furthermore, the logic used by the sources might be not deductive, but merely inductive, but that does not make it wrong. It merely makes it a statistical syllogism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: After I wrote the following post, I realized that you may have not been replying to me. If that's the case, please ignore this. — The sources claim to refute the arguments/evidence that pizzagate supporters use. Logically, the existence of the child-sex ring has not been debunked. Why by definition would the child-sex ring have nothing to do with Pizzagate? Definitions generally don't specify what something has nothing in common with (they can, but they generally don't). You are giving a strawman argument which replaces my argument with a contrived statement with little connection to my actualy argument. What are you talking about? I'm "mangling" the laws of identity and non-contradiction. Yes, I have studied (and currently am studying) formal logic (I haven't read the book you linked though), and I hate to say this, but I'm skeptical you have because you're making incoherent statements. No, I'm not "mangling" the law of identity and non-contradiction. The fallacious argument that gave as an example doesn't even violate the law of identity. Violations of the law of identity are generally false equivocations. The three classical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) aren't even used in logical arguments (they are simply metalogical statements about classical logics, not inference rules or axioms), so how would any of my statements be "mangling" the law of identity and non-contradiction and what effect would it have on my argument? I also never attempted to push changes to this article. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources claim to refute the arguments/evidence that pizzagate supporters use. That is blatantly untrue. The first two sources explicitly claim that the rumor is untrue. Further sources have been added that explicitly say this. I have quoted from the first source, above. Please read it and stop insisting upon untrue claims that we all know the truth of.

Logically, the existence of the child-sex ring has not been debunked. Why by definition would the child-sex ring have nothing to do with Pizzagate? I am honestly shocked that you would make this argument. Seriously. This exposes such a fundamental misunderstanding that I strongly suggest you study logic further before you say anything else about it. Seriously, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to let you know that you are seriously getting the logic wrong, and that the way in which you are getting it wrong is extremely basic. I know you're not likely to take my advice, but I wish you would. Read some books on logic. I linked to a free one that you can download. Maybe take a college class. You could audit a course for free, in most colleges in the US. You get the learning without the cost (or the credit). It's something I've done a few times and would recommend to anyone. Now, let me try to explain the problem:

Pizzagate is a claim that a child sex ring exists. We all understand that child sex rings, as a phenomenon, exist. The particular child sex ring claimed by Pizzagate is differentiated from other child sex rings in that the Clintons, the Podestas and Comet Ping Pong (and a few other businesses) are claimed to be involved in one. The truth of Pizzagate hinged entirely upon arguments; no legitimate evidence has ever been produced.

Now, the sources have examined the arguments which are the only reason to assign truth to Pizzagate. They have found these arguments to be fallacious in numerous, obvious and fundamental ways. They have then concluded (their conclusion being the statistical syllogism I referenced earlier which appears below) that Pizzagate is untrue. Since Pizzagate is -by their assertion- untrue, it must then be true that Pizzagate is untrue (this is the law of identity I referenced earlier). Here's where we get back to the definition of Pizzagate: a child sex ring. So it is explicit that if Pizzagate is untrue, then the existence of a child sex ring in which the Clintons, the Podestas and Comet Ping Pong is untrue. This might change if a new claim of such a sex ring arises with better evidence, but it is not just fallacious but extremely illogical to postulate such things absent any evidence or arguments.

I have allowed for the possibility of other child sex rings, however by definition these child sex rings would not be ones in which the Clintons, the Podestas and Comet Ping Pong are involved (this is the law of non-contradiction I mentioned earlier). Therefore the hypothetical child sex ring you have insisted might exist would have nothing to do with Pizzagate. Do you understand now? I hope so, though I highly doubt you've read this entire comment.

You have states (twice now) that you don't believe in pizzagate, yet you've argued for some time that we must allow for the possibility that pizzagate is true. That is where the comments numerous editors have made to you about WP policy come into play: WP policy says that we do not speculate, we do not attribute opinions as facts, and we do not attribute facts as opinions. Now, according to the sources (regardless of any real or perceived flaws in their logic), pizzagate is not in doubt or controversial: it is bluntly untrue. Therefore, this article must report that it is untrue. The claims that we are not accurately reflecting the sources are completely wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia is not a formal debate. We don't care whether or not the articles commit fallacies, so long as they follow the sources.

Not that it matters, because you are wrong. Implicit in normal language is a certain element of doubt. e.g. "I love my wife," in common parlance is taken as the equivalent of the formal statement "When thinking of the woman I perceive to be my wife, I experience an emotional state which I identify as 'love' based on numerous similarities it shares with what other people in my culture and time have said about 'love' in a subjective but experiential way which I cannot distinguish from reality."

This implication is based upon taking any definite statement made outside of a formal context to be a statistical syllogism. In this case, it is implicit in the article that it is written based on the best available sources, and that the conclusions therein are highly likely but not logically certain.

Finally, your own argument is an argument from fallacy as you've previously made it implicitly clear that you think this CT may be true, and this argument is clearly an effort to promote that agenda. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You would need to explain what the statistical syllogism is for this situation, because I don't see your point. I'm not saying we need to be 100% logically certain, I'm fine with any statistical arguments that could be presented. I have actually said in an earlier thread that I don't believe Pizzagate is true, so you may be confusing me with someone else. Also, I'm not making an argument from fallacy. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Iwillbuildroads has a valid point, the caption the picture should be changed, do any sources disprove there may be a child sex ring in operation? I suggest we remove "child-sex ring" and replace it with "pizzagate conspiracy"Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think at this point any sources could actually prove there is no child-sex ring (how would they even do that)? At this point, I conjecture that any sources we find will be denying the antecedent without realizing it, however since Wikipedia goes by what the sources say, I'm not sure there is anything we can do about it. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A reference from a reliable source, stating that no child sex ring exists at Comet Ping Pong, has been added to the article - this effectively renders your argument a moot point. Unless you're planning on moving the goalposts, this issue is resolved. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

My original concern has been partially resolved. My intention isn't to move the goalposts of my original argument, but rather to bring up whether we should blindly accept what the Rolling Stones opinion is (and maybe the answer is that we should). Is "13 Most WTF Stories of 2016" really material worthy for sourcing encyclopedic material? If the article provides no proof, should we trust it? Since the same article says Ken Bone was the antichrist, should we add that information to Wikipedia? It said 2016 was a shitshow, so should we say 2016 was a shitshow in the article for 2016? I'm just trying to understand since I'm new to Wikipedia editing. EDIT: Just to reiterate, I don't believe in Pizzagate and I'm not trying to force any political ideologies down anyone's throat, I'm just trying to understand how this is all considered in practice. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's exactly the response I expected, which is quite disappointing. You said it was unreferenced. I provided a reference. Now you're saying you don't like the reference? That is the perfect example of moving the goalposts & it completely undermines your previous arguments, as does stating that you're new to Wikipedia editing when you've been editing for almost 12 months. Don't be disingenuous. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

He has only reached 45 edits. He probably should have said inexperienced Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's irrelevant and I'm not sure why they felt the need to mention it. The original issue, that no reference was provided to deny the existence of a child sex ring at Comet Ping Pong, has been resolved. Attempts to move the goalposts undermine the perceived sincerity of the original argument. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not moving the goalposts. You provided a reference and now the reliability of it is being questionedApollo The Logician (talk)

Well Rolling Stone is a reliable source. The fact that people don't agree with how they arrive at their information is irrelevant. If you're about to launch into some sort of extended analysis of their reporting, this isn't the place to do it. Head on over to the Reliable Sources talk page here and discuss it there. Wikipedia article editors do not perform analysis of the reporting carried out by reliable sources (I'm getting serious Deja Vu) because it's Original Research. I don't know why you need this explaining to you again, it's really quite straightforward. The question of reliability in the case of Rolling Stone is not relevant here. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Again you aren't understanding the argument. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing complex about "You provided a reference and now the reliability of it is being questioned" Exemplo347 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note - I've added a citation to a reliable source that says there was never a child sex ring at Comet Ping Pong. Can this be the end of it, or is there going to be a few days of complaining about semantics and the reliability of sources first? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is time for an admin to close this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2017 (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.

Link to Breitbart?

Some sources attribute this conspiracy theory to Breitbart News: https://trofire.com/2016/12/06/breitbarts-pizzagate-conspiracy-fake-news-inspires-real-violence/ http://www.juancole.com/2016/12/terrorism-strategist-conspiracy.html apparently in particular because of this "pizza related" Tweet: https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552 - just came about these articles when searching for "Breitbart fake news".

Anything more substantial? Or is this just a conspiracy theory that Breitbart did it? :-) HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what The Ring of Fire Network is, but it looks disreputable on it's face... some weekly Florida talk radio show that started their own site. Seems likely that the fact that apparently you will rarely find their stories from any other source is a good indication we probably shouldn't be relying on them. Besides, the piece reads like a bad blog. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Double negatives

I'm concerned about double negatives making text confusing. "Pizzagate is a discredited conspiracy theory falsely alleging X" is awkward and unclear. There is no doubt whatsoever that PG is a discredited conspiracy theory. There is also no doubt that the conspiracy theory is alleging X regardless of whether or not the theory has any merit to it whatsoever. While we need to make certain the reader understands the theory has no merit, it is possible to go overboard and mumble the message. Thoughts?--That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's really a double negative. I do agree that the "falsely" in that sentence seems redundant. I'll have a quick tweak of that. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the first negative refers to the theory, the second to the specific allegation. It's not a double negative. Still, removing the word "falsely" improves the readability of the sentence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dont use facts against me :p

Thanks. Looks better. I know people get invested in making sure certain articles are unambiguous, but sometimes overzealousness makes it hard to tell the forest from the trees.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Police sketch

User:DrFleischman, the cited source is in regard to the sketch being done by a married couple who saw a single suspect. The source for the connection to the conspiracy theory is the NYT piece that takes up half a page worth of debunking where the image was placed. The NYT source also includes the image. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand the thought process, but it took me a good 10 minutes to puzzle it through. Maybe using the NY Times image (which is actually a bit different) and citing to the NY Times article would make it clearer. Even then, I wonder if these sketches are really necessary to explain the theory, and if they unnecessarily fan the flames. One might argue that the inclusion of the sketches in this context is a BLP violation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing the NYT is fine, and if you want to do the research on where the NYT image came from, whether the images of the Podestas that are contained within it are copyrighted themselves (I'll bet they are), and try to work out a fair use rationale, then be my guest. Or, we could just use the one that is a product of a government agency, and already properly licensed for use.

My original intent was to make a mashup picture, but gave up faced with reconciling three different images with two difference licenses, one of which was from flickr, so good luck on that being correct in the first place, and another of which is a derivative work of another picture that came from flickr.

Beyond that, using this picture and explaining what it is in context is not a BLP violation at all. It's actually exactly the opposite because it explains why the theory in this respect is nonsense. Using the NYT image which actually does imply that it is them on the other hand probably is. TimothyJosephWood 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have next to zero experience with Wikipedia's image licensing requirements and it's something I've been trying to avoid for years, so I'm going to decline your suggestion. :-) Perhaps there's another source that whose image we can use, and that explains its connection to Pizzagate? If not perhaps we should use no image? I was just extremely confused by both the caption and the source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theory. There are no suspects or victims of an invented crime, thus no images of them. Objective3000 (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No...the suspect in the completely unconnected but actually real disappearance of the girl in Portugal. TimothyJosephWood 21:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but is had nothing to do with the pizza joint pictured and discussed in the article. The juxtaposition causes BLP problems. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The article isn't just about Ping Pong. Ping Pong is one part of the conspiracy theory. It's just the part that's gotten the most attention because someone shot it up. TimothyJosephWood 13:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

debunked?

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.

---

how is it debunked?

"The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus? They can send it if you want. I know you’re busy, so feel free not to respond if it’s not yours or you don’t want it."

what is this? who sends an email like that? who cares about a handkerchief like that? it seems they hired a few more people to shut the rumors on wiki down as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.244.234 (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Go back over the archives, but to save you the bother. It has been debunked because every single piece of evidence that can be checked has been found to be false, and not one piece of the rest of it (the nudge nudge wink wink speculation about what e-mails really mean) has not been proven to in fact have any secret meaning. As to the rest of your post, it is not for us to speculate or analyse, we report what RS have said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

the devil looks after its own. they wont create a child sex ring and easily have it provable. I've seen the instagram posts, they post #murder #fun and stuff like that and when this popped out, they deleted all those posts. this email i posted here is not normal. it definitely carries some other meaning to it. its not right to enter right into the article with "ITS FALSE FAKE NOT RIGHT!!" while there are a lot of strong doubts. they also have enough money to make almost any claim they dont like debunked. unless they clearly explain what those stupidly suspicious creepy emails are and what they meant when writing those, this wont be debunked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.244.234 (talk • contribs)

Then I suggest you contact the newspapers with your evidence, as I said we do not speculate, we report. Every RS says this is debunked so that is what we say. As to your claim about Instagram, that is OR, and again if you have proof take it to the newspapers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

so you are saying common sense does not have power here, only power has power here? because common sense tells you something abrupt is going on. I told you they have money and people to buy out those newspapers. and media stance is also weird. normally something weird happens and media rushes all over it. now media doesnt care about it and some even keep refuting it and defending as if they have some outcome. some of the websites that talk about it has been shut down. and I dont remember any wikileaks stuff has been proven false.

when the first sentence of this article said "its debunked" I immediately thought those emails were fake, looks like they arent. so instead of saying debunked, maybe try and write "not proven yet" or something like alleged child sex ring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.244.234 (talk • contribs)

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.

Returning to the sketches

So, I got distracted with another project, one which I will promptly return to, but I think using Template:multiple image solves any copyright issues, since the images (and their licenses) are not in fact merged (making them derivative), but are simply presented together.

I'd like to think the caption makes the context abundantly clear in a BLP manner, leaving little or no doubt as to the veracity of the theory.

I would also add that Wikipedia has a hand in this whole thing to start with, since it was literally this exact image taken from Wikipedia that was used to spread the rumors in the first place. So not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but we may have a bit of an overarching moral obligation to flesh this particular part of the theory out with a bit more clarity.

• File:Efit images of Madeleine McCann suspect.jpg
• File:John Podesta.jpg
• File:Tony Podesta 2009.jpg

Police sketches (left) used by conspiracy theorists to imply the Podesta brothers (right) were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The original sketches were in fact of a single individual as described by two witness who saw a man while walking together on the night of McCann's disappearance near Praia da Luz in Portugal. The allegations were posted on TruthFeed, prior to being widely refuted by Snopes.com and others including The New York Times. MediaMatters described TruthFeed as a site with a track record of "fabricated information packaged to appear as a legitimate news story", and joined the The Wall Street Journal in calling for Google to remove the site from their ad service, in part due to the spreading of unfounded allegations related to Pizzagate.

References

TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless this is a settled WP guideline, someone needs to look at the copyright issues. "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work." [Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations]. In any case, I still don't think these images should be included. Given the similarities, this looks to be more of a case of wronging great rights. Objective3000 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A gallery does not constitute a derivative work, because it does not alter the image in any way. There are a great many ways that images may be formatted (see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial), but doing so does not affect the original copyright status of the image. Each image retains their original licensing. TimothyJosephWood 15:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Beyond that, this may actually be a situation where WP:CENSOR applies. It is neither claimed nor implied that there was any involvement, and in fact quite the opposite. All (explicitly exonerating) statements are well sourced to RS, and the images are of supreme encyclopedic relevance. That it may make someone uncomfortable is irrelevant. TimothyJosephWood 15:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are the images of "supreme encyclopedic relevance"? Surely the relevance is the accusation and then the debunking of the claim, not what the actual pictures looked like?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The sketches are the entirety of the evidence presented for these particular accusations. They are the accusation. Furthermore, they are used, and addressed on multiple comprehensive debunkings that we link to and rely on in the article as well as in the proposed caption. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And we do not have (as far as I can tell) any of the other "evidence" here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would love to have more relevant images, but this one happened to originate from Wikipedia, so it's licensed for use. Nothing else seems to be. I should know, I started the commons category and put everything I could possible find into it. Probably the second most relevant images we have are of the memorial, and WikiProject:DC actually had to walk out to the location to get those. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

hijacked hashtag

I don't see any RS discussing the recent hashtag hijack (say that five times fast) that's currently mentioned in the article. This link was removed as a source. If no one objects, I'll remove it. If there's additional coverage, we can re-add it. This is the only recent event that I see being discussed by multiple news organizations. APK whisper in my ear 05:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I removed the info. APK whisper in my ear 09:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead doesn't mention how much attention this received.

There are conspiracy theories sprouting all the time. The amount of coverage this one has received is immense should be noted in the lead, as well the speed of which grew. This NYT article is a good source. I would add something myself, but I guess I don't have enough edits.--That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We have to keep the lead concise - it already indicates the wide range of sources that have covered it. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Both of you make good points. I've made what I feel to be the best possible edit to address this. I hope the edit annoys you both, because that means it's a great compromise. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Works really well for me! I'll try to be more annoyed in the future. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Damnit! You'd better :| MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we have sources explicitly talking about how much media attention Pizzagate has received? I don't know if they're necessary, but they would be helpful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any sources which are about the attention primarily, but there are a lot of sources that support the claim it's gotten a lot of attention. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And there are sources which talk about the speed in which it spread. Most conspiracy theories don't get such exposure -- despite the theorists desire to "red pill" everyone. They need to know the Truth.That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we're not in the business of disseminating Truth, just verifiable information. But if there are sources about the speed of the spread, then by all means we should include them if we haven't already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I was being facetious about the Truth.That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Can someone who is technologically gifted fix the archive issue? There are no links to the December and January pages. APK whisper in my ear 09:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

archiveprefix was fixed two hours ago.[6] Wait for the next archive bot run to see if User:ClueBot III/Indices/Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory is updated correctly. That page is transcluded in the archives box. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 20:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to prevent future talk page disruption

We've had and will continue to have a bunch of civil-POV-pushing WP:SPAs come through trying to support the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Looking through the archives, I suggest that if someone does two of the three:

• contests that Pizzagate is debunked
• argues that InfoWars, Voat posts, or their interpretation of documents from Wikileaks are not illegitimate
• argues against the legitimacy of mainstream news sources

-- we just revert the post, instruct them to read the archives and warn them against reposting, and maybe even block them if they keep it up.

The reason I say "two out of three" is that it is entirely possible that someone might come along completely ignorant of the situation or the sources involved and ask if it really is debunked. Someone might also come along understanding the InfoWars is bullshit, but poorly phrases an argument that "fake news" better describes less harmful sites like The Onion. Someone might also contest mainstream sources in the article out of a sincere desire for us to use the highest quality sources to affirm that Pizzagate is debunked and do a poor job of phrasing it. That is why each point individually is not especially useful, but two out of three should be enough to shut down most of the SPAs I've seen here (while all three traits would still let most of the troublemakers in). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Would a FAQ at the top of this page be helpful? APK whisper in my ear 11:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That's another possibility, and it's an "and/or" one IMO. A FAQ would justify a single response of "see FAQ," and then treating further argument as disruption. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I oppose any removal of any talk page comments made in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It should be trivial to refute any of these points based on information provided in the article and previous discussions on this talk page. We don't ban questions simply because we don't like providing answers. We also don't remove other people's talk page comments—that is unnecessarily hostile, and not allowed. Bradv 17:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Emotionally, I agree with the OP. Intellectually, I agree with Dr. Fleischman. I think the best way to proceed would be to take the FAQ route with the caveat that the FAQ be on a separate page, and the "see FAQ" response MUST link to it. Those banners at the top of talk pages are too easy to miss when one comes to a talk page looking for a specific discussion, or to start a new discussion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I oppose, though even main stream sources like CBS' Ben Swann are beginning to question why no one has investigated the publicly available evidence [7], and I previously cited Washington Times article [8], which was concealed by other editors. The debunked description is not universally attested and should be removed. Cpsoper (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No and this has already been discussed. Also, Ben Swann is far from mainstream. He's an anti-vaxxer, believes another shooter was involved with the Sandy Hook massacre, www.infowars.com/was-rt-anchor-resigning-on-air-a-stunt-coordinated-with-the-guy-who-created-ron-paul-racist-newsletter-scandal/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} contributes] to InfoWars, etc. APK whisper in my ear 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the purpose of the alternative views project (which is in the header of this talk page) not to at least look at some alternative views? wikipedia is not the place for anyone to try to silence other peoples views, especially since this is the talk page, not the actual article, and discussing alternative views is in fact supposed to be encouraged. the single fact that he questions the currently accepted story on the sandy hook massacre and on vaccines means nothing. EmperorJimmu (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed with you, so I'm not going to get into it. Using phrases like "currently accepted story" does not help your case here. Regarding the Alternative Views project, the link you provided says (emphasis mine) "This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors. This should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, to engage in original research, or to use sources that aren't verifiable and reliable. We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources." I'm not one for back and forth dialogue when you already know the answer to the your questions, so this concludes the conversation on my end. APK whisper in my ear 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing you said was "concealed by other editors" at any point. Casting aspersions on your fellow editors is not acceptable, doing so when you know very well that it is false is a personal attack. Furthermore, that link does nothing to forward the case that pizzagate is true.

Not quite sure who you are addressing, MjolnirPants. The concealment of my edits is factual, you may prefer to call it collapsing, [9], to attribute motivation would be casting aspersion. WT is a mainstream source that viewed the allegations critically but seriously, as I indicated at the time [10]. Cpsoper (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And Ben Swann is not in any way "the preponderance of reliable sources". The fact that you can find one (or two, or even half a dozen) sources-who-might-look-reliable-at-first-glance-but-aren't-once-you-look-closer who say "it might not be fake," doesn't in any way change the fact that the vast (vast) majority of reliable sources all go out of their way to point out not only that this is fake, but that the premise is utterly ridiculous. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

to add on there, i got my links to sources about pizzagate deleted (links to wikileaks), and replaced with a big (REDACTED) message, what is going on if it's not being concealed by other editors? just a question. EmperorJimmu (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your post made unsupported negative claims about living people, which are categorically prohibited from the encyclopedia anywhere. Wikipedia article talk pages are not a platform for you to post your personal-opinion speculation about people, as you did in that post. Therefore, I redacted it and appropriately warned you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear who this comment is addressed to, Baranof. If it is reference to a link to the archived copies of the proprietor's own public Instagram account, with time and metadata stamps, it appears an odd application of BLP. The proprietor has in contesting the allegations himself validated these images [11], since concealing his own account, they are now the only public source of the material, and he has not disputed their authenticity, but relied upon them being seen to argue his case. What NYT did not discuss are the more distressing images or the other posted comments included universally in these archives, which gave rise to the allegations. Perhaps you can clarify your meaning. Cpsoper (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to the unsupported personal opinions about the contents of those Instagram accounts. Your claim that there is anything "distressing" about the images is likewise an entirely unsupported personal opinion and is walking the borderline of what is acceptable on a talk page. This is not a forum for you or anyone else to discuss what you think about something — your personal opinions are completely irrelevant. This page is a place to discuss improvements to the article based upon reliable sources. So either cite reliable sources or move on to another topic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WT called the archived images, 'bizarre and sexually suggestive', Ben Swann called them, 'too disturbing to show on TV'. I appreciate the second source is disputed here. Both sources had been named, and 'distressing' seems a fair summary, not a personal opinion. Cpsoper (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No, they do no such thing. The full quote from the Washington Times: Twitter users claim that “PizzaGate” should not be dismissed as a baseless conspiracy theory, given bizarre and sexually suggestive images.... The WT is repeating and attributing that phrase as the opinion of anonymous Twitter users. The fact that the Washington Times believes the uncorroborated opinions of anonymous Twitter users merits space in their Unification Church-funded pages speaks for itself as to that source's credibility. We, on the other hand, do not care what anonymous Twitter users think, and the opinion of anonymous Twitter users has no place in this encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times is a reliable source. Full stop. Ad hominem attacks on sources aren't helpful. What the full quote says is Reddit, YouTube, and Twitter users claim that “PizzaGate” should not be dismissed as a baseless conspiracy theory, given bizarre and sexually suggestive images from Mr. Alefantis’ own Instagram account (now set to private). This is clearly attributed to anonymous people, and the point the author is making is that these anons are explaining why they feel PG should not be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. The WT is not endorsing this opinion. Clearly the WT felt explaining why the conspiracy pushers are holding their position was important enough to include in their article. As this article is about a conspiracy theory, it makes sense that we talk about the people who are advocates and their rationale -- however wrong they may be. We have to figure out how to address the "blizzard and sexually suggestive images" phrase as BLP applies, but that shouldn't be too difficult. IMO this warrants inclusion in some manner.That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree — the Washington Times is, at best, a questionable source. As for the Instagram photos, we already adequately discuss the issue in the article — Some adherents identified the Instagram account of Alefantis, and used some of the posted photos to "prove" their conspiracy. Many of the images shown were friends and family who had liked Comet Ping Pong's page on Facebook. In some cases, imagery was taken from random unrelated websites and claimed to be Alefantis' own. That's all we need to say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WT is a terrible source. The quote you provided doesn’t help your case as the WT article is using Reddit, YT and Twitter as its sources. Are there any worse sources? These constant repeats suggesting that “bizarre and sexually suggestive images” were posted is not only a serious WP:BLP violation, and, frankly, sick; but should be revdel’ed. Indeed this part of this entire discussion should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times employees professional journalists, has editorial oversight, provides corrections when necessary. It is a newspaper, that probably is used in thousands of articles on Wikipedia. I've little doubt that this wouldnt pass muster at RSN. That they chose to examine social media to explain why people on social media are defending the conspiracy theory is undeniable. It doesn't make those anons correct. The WT doesn't say this, nor am I suggesting we say this. It is perfectly acceptable to say why people do or believe things -- even if they are wrong in their belief, because the source says so. You're reading too much into this. Using BLP as a cudgel to stop discussion is not helpful. This is a direct quote from the source, and at the moment we are merely discussing it.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You are now contradicting yourself. You quoted WT: ,should not be dismissed as a baseless conspiracy theory, given bizarre and sexually suggestive images from Mr. Alefantis’ own Instagram account (now set to private). You are now claiming: The WT doesn't say this. You don't get to have it both ways. The claim WT made that there were bizarre and sexually suggestive images is extremist, baseless slander and is a gross violation of WP:BLP. I suggest you delete your own edits. Objective3000 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We are not going to include in an article "some anonymous people believe X" when X is a highly-defamatory claim about a living person and there is no evidence that any reliable source considers X to be true. We might obliquely reference it, as the article currently does, but we are under no obligation to include the details of a claim that is, by all reliable accounts, completely baseless. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Read the article again. The WT is NOT saying PG should be dismissed as a baseless conspiracy theory. The WT is saying that social media users are using some Instagram photos as the reason for why it should not be dismissed. The source is explaining why those users feel that way, it is not endorsing that view. It's like saying flat earthers believe the earth is flat because they saw a picture of a sailboat falling off the edge of the earth. Don't react to the source,

react to what it is saying.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@NBSB, I'm ok with an oblique reference. We don't even have to mention them by name. That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There are 500 million tweets per day.[12] This is an encyclopedia, not a social media aggregator. Objective3000 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Then we can stop debating, because as I said, we already reference the fact that the nutters latched onto his Instagram account. :) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The number of tweets is a red herring. What matters is a reliable source has commented on the matter. What you think of the source is irrelevant. What you think of the importance of this particular quote against the backdrop of a billion tweets is also irrelevant. The source is A) reliable and B) germane to the topic. I've no skin in this rodeo, but I'm comfortable in my position that this source can be used. I've seen every trick in the book editors use to include or suppress material. If someone wants to use this source I will support them, especially if I think a new editor is being run roughshod over by Wikipedia parliamentary procedures. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Unequivocally opposed - While it may be a nuisance, there is no substantial talk page disruption that would qualify this proposal under TPO. Stonewalling contrarians is likely to lead to outright disruption on its own. There are reasons the article is what it is, and people are perfectly welcome to question that. If they do so well the article will be changed. If they do so poorly it will not. That doesn't relieve us of the burden of engaging in non-openly-disruptive discussion. TimothyJosephWood 02:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Edgar Maddisson Welch suggestion

I would like to add a suggestion for an addition to the article from a reliable source, Heavy.com:

Heavy - Edgar Maddison Welch: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

The article gives several facts about Welch, including:

"On social media, many of those who believe in the false PizzaGate theory are pointing to Welch’s past in movies as proof he is a “crisis actor,” hired to carry out a “false flag” operation at Comet pizza."

About Welch indeed this theory is spread in the community. Maybe this can be added to the article? Phrased in a neutral way like: "Many conspiracy theorists point to Welch's past in movies as proof he is a "crisis actor", which was hired to carry out a "false flag" operation at Comet Pizza."

Of course,there is no proof for this theory, but it is wide-spread regarding Welch in the Pizzagate theory, so it might be a valuable addition to the article. What do you think? UshilRasnal (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I just don't see this as having the weight to be included in this article. Perhaps if we ended up creating an article about Maddison, it would belong there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. But is he important enough for his own article? I can give it a try. UshilRasnal (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

He might be notable. I can't say for sure, though I suspect not. But even if he is quite notable now, there's a strong case to be made that WP:BLP1E applies here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It's already (sort of) in the article under the Comet Ping Pong shooting section: "Some conspiracy theorists believed that the shooting was a staged attempt to discredit their investigations." ^Falling_Gravity 17:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Spread on social media

I think this section would be an appropriate place to use this Washington Times article, which discusses internet "sluething" by proponents that PizzaGate is not a conspiracy theory.

"Social media users, sometimes referred to as "internet sleuths" cite alleged sexualized images hosted on Instagram as proof that PizzaGate is not a conspiracy theory. . Spin.com which has reviewed the Instagram images in question is unequivocal about the merits of that claim stating "we should note in the strongest possible terms that the Pizzagate theory has no basis in fact: "Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I’m adamantly opposed to any mention of or link to the WT article. It includes several salacious suggestions (wink, wink) without any effort to dispel validity. The last sentence is particularly egregious. Those with a predisposition to believe in this nonsense would likely come away from this article with a belief that something is awry. Not surprising given the source. Objective3000 (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the WT article really supports the claim "pizzagate might be true", but that last sentence sure looks ugly as sin to me. I see no point to it if not to influence the reader's POV. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not — that claim is both highly defamatory and completely unsupported. There is zero evidence of any "sexualized images" anywhere; the entire concept appears to be the wholly-fabricated delusion of anonymous Internet trolls. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

PizzaGate proponents claim there is, which is their basis for the conspiracy theory. The sources who have examined the imsges, such as the Spin article, say those claims have no merit. Is this not the case?That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And we are under no obligation to repeat evidence-free delusions of Internet conspiracy theorists; it places undue weight on that claim to even mention it. The word "sexualized" is highly inflammatory and false. We can and do mention that trolls found his Instagram account and stole pictures of family, friends and even entirely unrelated people; we are not going to say there are "alleged sexualized images" on that account as if that claim has any merit whatsoever, because it does not. You're asking to create a false equivalence between anonymous Internet trolls and reliable sources, and we should not do that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Where has anyone proposed we treat trolls like reliable sources? The two sources I mentioned certainly don't do that.That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nantucket, it's one thing to describe the basic contours of a conspiracy theory, while it's quite another to cite all of the arguments made in its support. See WP:DESCF and in particular, "Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Non neutral, why not say who made the claim (I.E. the Washington post or mr Ernst?) after all it is worded as if only one source had debunked the photo claim?Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

In-text attribution of reliably sourced content distracts from the content, implies that the source is questionable, and feeds the narrative that the mainstream media is in on the conspiracy. See WP:YESPOV and the bullet point "Avoid stating facts as opinions." If the reader wants to know where the information came from, they can easily click through the ref. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That policy literally says exactly the opposite of what you just said. TimothyJosephWood 18:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It does? Are you sure you didn't confuse the two bullets "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating facts as opinions"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Stricken. And for the record, this is an argument that has been brought up repeatedly by Slater, in basically any circumstance where a source is named regardless of context, and I don't think it holds water. TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The idea that any time you name a source you are imply that this is only one source. TimothyJosephWood 18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that is my point, the way the text is written one POV has a "and lots of people have said this" tone, and the other POV "and only one sourced has said it's not true" tone. Why is it the the POV that has the most RS supproting it is the one that is attributed to a single source?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Then why not attribute the other claim as well? Yes (by the way) I do think that if you say "X said this" rather then "many people said this" you are implying only one has said it (and no I did not say that anyway, I said "that attributing a widely held view to one source using language that implies they alone have aid it is implying they alone have said it").Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you have to evaluate these types of arguments on a case-by-case basis. There's little point in bickering over it in a situation in which you both agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what content are you referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The one in the OP, the suggested edit.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I think you meant Washington Times, not Washington Post. I thought you were referring to related content already in the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Links to Satanic ritual abuse and daycare sex hysteria

I can see that the McMartin preschool trial is mentioned in the "See also" section on this article, but I think a section linking Pizzagate to Satanic ritual abuse and the day-care sex-abuse hysteria of the past. Useful sources:

• Pierce, Charles P. (December 5, 2016). "America Was Always a Nation of Conspiracy Theorists. Now, They're Simply More Dangerous". Esquire.
• Beck, Richard (December 6, 2016). "A Moral Panic for the Age of Trump". Slate.
• Williamson, Kevin D. (December 6, 2016). "Which Fake News?". National Review.
• Wilkinson, Francis (December 7, 2016). "Behind the Venomous Witches of 'Pizzagate'". Bloomberg View.
• Lancaster, Roger (December 8, 2016). "What the Pizzagate conspiracy theory borrows from a bogus satanic sex panic of the 1980s". Washington Post.
• Young, Cathy (December 9, 2016). "'Pizzagate' Recalls the Debunked Child Sex Rings of the '80s and '90s". New York Observer.
• Evon, Dan (December 13, 2016). "Satan's Children". Snopes.

Obviously, issues of NPOV have to be considered. But this seems necessary to include, for context. HelgaStick (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

there is an archived discussion about this, as I also raised this question.10:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If I get the chance, I'll write up a draft section later today. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw the archived version. I've added this to the article: please feel free to trim, edit, reword etc. as per usual :D HelgaStick (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bradv: Regarding this: here is the discussion I was talking about. See also archived discussions on the topic (although bear in mind that not as much was written about the connections then, and the story had less prominence than now). HelgaStick (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with the addition, but I think the writing of the section might need some work to make it more focused on being background to this case. Also, it should appear in a "Background" section. I'll make that edit, myself right now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is off-topic, poorly sourced synthesis. A history of sexual abuse in the United States does not belong at the top of this article. This is about the bogus conspiracy theory, not people's appetite to accept conspiracy theories related to sexual abuse. Perhaps there is a quote or sentence from that section that could be useful later on in the article, but it doesn't belong here. Bradv 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There might be some synth in the section as written. I do seem to recall one of the sources linking this case to the SRA panic in the 80's and 90's, but I can't recall which one. HelgaStick, let's bring the section over here as a draft first, and see if we can't address Bradv's concerns, for now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all synthesis was done by the reliable sources which I mentioned above. All of them link Pizzagate to the SRA panic, but some go into more detail than others. HelgaStick (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bradv, I'd be very grateful if you could tell me what you think to be synthesis on my part here. I'm not meaning to sound combative here, I just don't understand what in particular you are referring to. HelgaStick (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Background (draft)

Many of the claims regarding the Pizzagate conspiracy theory have been linked to earlier paranoia regarding unfounded allegations of Satanic ritual abuse, child day-care abuse. In the 1980s alone, nearly 100 people (mostly child care workers) in the US were wrongly convicted of sexually abusing children, and many more falsely accused or charged. A segment featuring an alleged survivor of ritual abuse from a 1989 episode of 60 Minutes was widely circulated on social media in December 2016 in relation to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.

Allegations made by Edgar Welch regarding secret underground torture tunnels seemed to repeat discredited allegations surrounding the McMartin preschool in the 1980s, where teachers at that school were wrongly accused of abusing 400 children in secret tunnels. Kevin D. Williamson also made connections to "the Little Rascals Day Care case, in which a cook at the daycare was accused, along with the married couple who ran the place, of ritualistically abusing children in their care in horrifying ways related to sundry Satanic enthusiasms." However, whilst advocates of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory remain fringe, these earlier accusations achieved mainstream support.

Recent sexual abuse scandals such as the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases have also allegedly made individuals more willing to accept the claims of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, due to a moral panic over institutionalised sexual abuse of children, according to Richard Beck of Slate. Roger Lancaster also notes in The Washington Post that the allegations of the 1980s also had a big cultural impact in the US, thus making some more likely to accept the claims of Pizzagate.

References

I think most or all of this content is out of scope. Sure it appeared in sources discussing Pizzagate's historical and social context, but that doesn't mean we should use it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is WP:Synthesis and WP:Undue. Does not belong. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Please, tell me where I have synthesised material. As for undue, I can see where you're coming from and I wouldn't oppose the section being cut down. HelgaStick (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with HelgaStick in that I don't see anything in it which is synth. Nor do I see it as undue; it is discussed extensively in reliable sources which are primarily about Pizzagate. Those sources draw parallels and connections to Satanic ritual abuse, and use this to contextualize the conspiracy theory. It serves the same purpose here.

From where I sit, it looks fine. If you can explain why you think it's undue, or point out what claims you believe to be synth, we can discuss that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's either, but I think it's out of scope. While I can see it going either way this is an encyclopedia, not a sociology journal, and I don't think this kind of deep background is ideal as a matter of editorial discretion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think all we need is one sentence saying the link has been made then a link to the main article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Flyer22 Reborn: and @Bradv: These users have both made unqualified accusations of synthesis on my part and are therefore relevant to this discussion. HelgaStick (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

My first concern is that the entire section is sourced to blogs and opinion articles. My second concern is that the whole subject is off-topic for this article, specifically at the top. If it is necessary to mention this in order to provide a complete overview, let's do it towards the end of the article, and let's do it only as a brief quote or mention. We cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that this is an extension of Satanic ritualism in the 80s or that this is an extension of the Catholic sex abuse scandals — that is original research. Bradv 17:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough; I think it would be better to include this towards the end of the article, rather than at the beginning. And I'm not suggesting that we state in Wikipedia's voice that this is an extension of such scandals, but that it's necessary to note that the links have been made by reputable sources. As for the fact that the whole section is source to blogs and opinion articles, I understand your criticism but these have been published in reliable sources. HelgaStick (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I made the accusation of WP:SYNTH because it is. I am likely to make accusations against you in the future. But then again, you already know this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

On a side note: In case anyone has noticed that the draft looks different, HelgaStick changed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If a reliable source supports something, it's not WP:Original research. If we are adding detail that the reliable sources don't mention, that is, however, the WP:SYNTH aspect of WP:Original research. Furthermore, for cases like this, WP:INTEXT is at times going to be more appropriate than stating a matter in Wikipedia's voice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Unsurprisingly, you haven't actually answered the question. "Because it is" – could you please be more specific on what you this is actually synthesis in this? Where is the information that the reliable sources don't mention that you accuse me of adding, thus violating that aspect of WP:OR? Oh, and please stop saying that you'll make accusations against me in the future, it's not a particularly civil attitude to take. HelgaStick (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly because you're familiar with me and your interpretation of me is as skewed as it's always been? If I have to tell you what WP:Synthesis is, you shouldn't be editing. I will likely make accusations against you in the future; if you have an issue with me stating so, report me. And do stop pinging me; you know I'm watching this article, especially your edits to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and what you want to add is WP:Undue either way. Surely you know that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to tell me what synthesis is, I'm asking you to tell me which of my edits constitute synthesis. You still haven't answered that. All the information I have introduced has been mentioned in the reliable sources, as far as I am aware. If I've introduced anything not included by mistake and accidentally violated WP:SYNTH, I apologise unreservedly. But you haven't given me one iota of evidence for that.

And please stop promoting bizarre conspiracy theories on this talk page, this article is subject to enough pushing of fringe ideas. I know you from a revert you did in one other article and that's it. I was merely asking you to be more civil in your comments – obviously hasn't worked, has it?!

If you think it's undue weight, that's fine, and we can have that discussion here on the talk page and condense the information down – as has been suggested by other editors. But that's an entirely different conversation. HelgaStick (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself. And I'm not interested in your bogus "I only know you from [there]" claims. You should also focus on Bradv's latest comment above regarding your content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: You have claimed this section is synth. You have not pointed out any synth in this. Given the nature of your other remarks to Helga, I suspect you are opposing it simply because she(?) wrote it, which is -quite frankly- some bullshit that needs to go. If you have actual concerns about synthesis, then please explain them. Your refusal to do so thus far has only undermined your credibility. At this point, I would be surprised (pleasantly, but still) if you were actually able to provide a rationale for your complaints.

@DrFleischman: Would you be alright with a version that was trimmed down to, say, a three sentence paragraph, outlining the commonalities between the various sources who have made the comparison? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, your above characterizations are off the mark. Well, except for the fact that, as many at this site know, I do not entertain or support additions by editors I strongly believe to be past disruptive editors who have returned under a fresh account, which is not a bullshit reason to oppose at all. Since I cannot yet prove the "past disruptive editor" matter in this case at this point in time, I have not directly made the accusation. When it comes to the content at hand, I oppose for the same reasons that Bradv opposes, except for his interpretation of stating things in Wikipedia's voice. Stating things in Wikipedia's voice is not WP:Original research if the text is supported by reliable sources. In this case, stating things in Wikipedia's voice is a concern per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:INTEXT.

And, again, there is no need to ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If an objection to any edit is not based upon policy then it is invalid. A edit should never be opposed based upon who makes it, for whatever reason you think is justified.Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. And I did object based on policy. Two, to be exact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You also have no evidence to claim that I am this hypothetical disruptive editor. Please stop with these personal attacks. HelgaStick (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. The bulk of your content will not be going in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So... When you said it was SYNTH, you were lying? Mistaken? You're not making any sense. I asked you why you said it was SYNTH, you replied essentially that it's synth because it's undue, which is facetious in the extreme. Either you've changed your mind or you were being dishonest then or now. If you've changed your mind, you need to say so to be clear. If your current concern really is UNDUE, then please explain what claims stated in wikivoice in the above proposal you have a problem with. Going through sentence by sentence, I can't see any claims of fact in Wikivoice that aren't supported by the sources sufficiently to eschew attribution.

MjolnirPants, your above characterizations are off the mark. Well, except for the fact that, as many at this site know, I do not entertain or support additions by editors I strongly believe to be past disruptive editors who have returned under a fresh account, which is not a bullshit reason to oppose at all. Simply stating the same thing I alleged in a different way doesn't change my mind about it being some bullshit. Editors who elect to go for a clean start are actively trying to change their ways. For you to hold their past editing behavior against them without evidence of continued bad behavior is some petty bullshit. I suggest that in all your interactions with Helga, you refrain from making comments about her past editing unless you have very good reason to do so, and are in a forum where commenting on other editors is not frowned upon, such as WP:AE or WP:ANI. If your concerns about her behavior are justified, following her around making accusations is only going to make it more difficult for you to get sanctions applied when you eventually go to ANI or AE about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So when Bradv and I called the material WP:SYNTH, you concluded that it's not? In what way? Did you look at all of the material and all of the sources for it like I did? As for WP:UNDUE, the original material was undue weight because of how big it was. I didn't object because of anything stated in Wikipedia's voice. As for WP:Clean start, it is a policy, one I take very seriously, and it's very clear that the past account should not have any sanctions against it when starting a supposed clean start, and it's clear about what an actual clean start is. As for my style of identifying editors as non-new, it usually works for rather than against me. In fact, once brought up at WP:AN or WP:ANI, the non-new account is often identified as a sock. I will, however, take your advice regarding this editor for now, since it seems I'm in the presence of editors who are unfamiliar with one of the core things I do at this site. And my advice to you is to not assume that HelgaStick is female. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That includes allowing them to make editsSlatersteven (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake I took you to say earlier that you would prevent the bulk of their edits, based upon the assumption they were block evading, is that incorrect?Slatersteven (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The bulk of the edits won't be added to the article because of the valid objections of three editors so far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood, my apologies.Slatersteven (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So when Bradv and I called the material WP:SYNTH, you concluded that it's not? In what way? By reading the proposed text and the sources, and noticing that there are no claims made which aren't explicitly in the sources, with the possible exception of the claim that "many sources" have drawn the connection. However, whether this qualifies as synth given the fact that it is supported by the number of sources cited is an open question.

Did you look at all of the material and all of the sources for it like I did? I suspect I looked quite a bit closer, given your complete lack of evidence to back up your claims of SYNTH. I would like to point out that at this point, I've done more to evince your point than you have, despite the extremely weak support the example I just gave constitutes.

As for my style of identifying editors as non-new, it usually works for rather than against me. You are literally arguing that you're right because you're right. Which becomes a big problem when you're wrong. You may notice I haven't assumed you were wrong: I assumed you were right and that Helga is indeed a former problematic editor seeking a clean start. I might remind you that WP:AGF is a policy you are clearly flouting right now. If you have evidence, take it to ANI, SPI or AE. Otherwise, drop it before someone like myself, Helga or Slater decides your accusations have become disruptive enough to report you to ANI.

And my advice to you is to not assume that HelgaStick is female. I haven't assumed anything, I've merely chosen a gender based on the only available evidence; their user name.

I know I'm coming across as quite confrontational, and I apologize if I've hurt your feelings in any way. I'm not trying to engender an argument, but rather to push you to back up your objections with something other than raw assertions. You may very well be right: I'm not invested in either this proposed text nor in Helga's good reputation. I don't have a problem admitting I'm wrong about either. But you need to show me how I'm wrong, first. So far, you've only managed to undermine your own credibility here. I suggest you repair that with some substantive discussion about the subject of this proposal. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

When I look at the original material and the wording of the text, I see examples of WP:Synthesis. Maybe we are interpreting the policy differently. As for going into extensive detail about my concerns, I've been clear about how I am when it comes to my suspicions on matters like these. It's a part of my personality that does not change. I absolutely do not like to entertain edits in "returned disruptive editor" cases. To me, it gives validation to the editor in question. I'm not always right when it comes to calling an editor a sock, but I usually am. And I know the price of being wrong. As for WP:AFG, it's a guideline, not a policy, and, in cases like these, it's secondary in my eyes. It is secondary for very good reasons. On Wikipedia, two of the various areas I work in are the pedophilia and child sexual abuse areas. Time and time again, I have to deal with returning disruptive editors in these areas, and it's usually up to me to identify these editors quickly before too much damage is done. That includes making WP:AFG secondary. HelgaStick has taken an interest in these areas and HelgaStick's editing pattern looks eerily similar to two indefinitely blocked editors; I will continue to look the matter over obviously. As for dropping public accusations against HelgaStick or commenting any further on my issue with HelgaStick, I did drop it. You have continued to bring it up, even stating that you "assumed [I was] right and that Helga is indeed a former problematic editor seeking a clean start." The difference is I don't think that HelgaStick is seeking a clean start. I am of the belief that the WP:Clean start policy does not apply to HelgaStick. Either way, I did not mention anything about HelgaStick being a past account until you inquired about my issues with HelgaStick. I wasn't going to lie. Reporting me at WP:ANI for cases like these does not work. But, like I stated, I will take your advice regarding this editor for now. So I suggest you stop talking about it.

As for being quite confrontational, I'm used to that on Wikipedia. And you can't hurt my feelings. As for undermining my credibility, I'll just agree to disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As for undermining my credibility, I'll just agree to disagree. At this point, you can disagree all you want. It won't change the fact that you've convinced me that your concerns here are due entirely to your own suspicions about Helga, and have no basis in policy. To that end, I'm done asking you to back them up, and I'm just dismissing them.

@DrFleischman:, sorry for the duplicate ping, but the last one got buried. When you get the chance, I'd appreciate a response to my question: Would your concerns be ameliorated by reducing the section to a single, three sentence paragraph? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You can dismiss them all you want, but it's quite clear from the "too much text" objections that the majority of HelgaStick's original addition won't be sticking. Regardless of your "there is no synthesis" claim, I made a WP:Undue weight argument as well, and it's clear that others support it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OK can we get away from discussion about EVilHelga (I might create a new account in that name I rather like it) and just address the material?

So put your objections to the material here, just the material.

What I object to

Too long, I think it needs to just be one ow two sentences with a link to the main article.Slatersteven (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How about this? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Background (2nd draft)

See also: Satanic ritual abuse

Claims regarding the Pizzagate conspiracy theory have been linked to earlier paranoia regarding unfounded allegations of Satanic ritual abuse or child day-care abuse. A segment featuring an alleged survivor of ritual abuse from a 1989 episode of 60 Minutes was widely circulated on social media in December 2016 in relation to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Additional allegations made by Edgar Welch regarding secret underground torture tunnels seemed to repeat discredited allegations surrounding the McMartin preschool in the 1980s, where teachers at that school were wrongly accused of abusing 400 children in secret tunnels.

References

I would only say that the first sentence is written from the perspective of someone who has already read the article...i.e., "many of the claims", which presumably the author is already familiar with, but which instead, should assume relative ignorance on the part of the reader, and be written is such a way. TimothyJosephWood 23:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

MjonirPants, your proposal is an improvement, but I think it could be shortened even further to a single sentence about how some of the claims echoed previously discredited conspiracy theories about ritual satanic abuse. We already have the article False allegation of child sexual abuse; that's where expanded material of this nature belongs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, not too big of an expansion at that article. Per WP:Summary style, if a topic already has its own article, we summarize in the secondary article and leave the main article to cover the extensive material. But, yeah, appropriate content can go in the Satanic ritual abuse article, the Day-care sex-abuse hysteria article and/or the False allegation of child sexual abuse article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, I see a problem with your suggestion in that we're telling the reader "By the way, people have drawn connections between this and something else," without telling them what connections have been drawn. I'm not opposed to being terse here, but that strikes me as very unencyclopedic. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood I modified the draft from "Many of the claims regarding..." to "Claims regarding..." Tell me what you think. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Background (3d draft)

See also: Satanic ritual abuse

Pizzagate conspiracy theorists followed in a tradition of allegations stretching back some 30 years. They echoed previously unfounded, and otherwise unconnected rumors of Satanic ritual abuse, most famously in the child day-care abuse hysteria of the 1980s. Pizzagate proponents circulated a 1989 segment of 60 Minutes, regarding supposed abuse, with which they included references to Pizzagate in order to "raise awareness", despite the fact that, according to Snopes.com, "Investigations have produced no bodies, no bones, no bloodstains, nothing." Allegations by Edgar Welch of subterranean torture tunnels similarly echoed allegations of abuse at the McMartin preschool in the 1980s, investigations of which, according to Esquire, produced "no corroborating evidence," although it "made great TV."

Notes

References

Ok. Did a bit of a rewrite. It is admittedly about a dozen words longer (not counting the footnote), but in the interest of making sure we WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV regarding exactly why the original allegations are being reported here as basically false, without simply saying so in WP's voice, which as we've plenty seen, is likely to lead only to a barrage of comments here about how biased we all are. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

One question, how did a 1989 TV documentation mention Pizzagate?

Also I think rather more then just Esquire poopoed the McMartin preschool trial.Slatersteven (talk)

And again Snoppes is not the only people saying there is no evidence for Pizzagate.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the source, references to Pizzagate were added in the version uploaded to YouTube. As to whether it is rather more or rather less, that's the source we have which discusses both McMartin and Pizzagate in relation to one another, so that's the one that the statement is attributed to. \

And again Snoppes is not the only people saying there is no evidence for Pizzagate. ...Ok?... TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You do not say "references to Pizzagate were added in the version uploaded to YouTube", as it reads it sounds like the references were in the 60 minute spot from the start.

This is also my objection to the rest of the stuff I mentioned, it reads like these are the only people claiming Pizzagate lacks evidence, as to only one source linking pizzagate to the martin trial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

[13], [14], [15].Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed to "with which they included", to avoid ambiguity. And...I think you need to read a bit more carefully, because the proposed draft says exactly nothing about whether Pizzagate lacks evidence. The section is about similar claims made by others which also turned out to be untrue. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but it implies only one source has said it lacks evidence. Also I did not say anything about the proposed draft saying it lacked evidence what I said was "it reads like these are the only people claiming Pizzagate lacks evidence"Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As to your sources, the first appears to be a blog, the second mentions McMartin exactly zero times, and the third mentions it only a single time in passing. Doing a web search and dumping whatever you find without reading them...doesn't actually contribute at all to the conversation. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And for the it reads like these are the only people claiming Pizzagate lacks evidence, again, the draft says nothing about the allegations in Pizzagate lacking evidence. Is says that Pizzagate echoes previous similar allegations, and those allegations were unfounded. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My second source

"In the 1980s and 1990s, a wave of notorious cases involving allegations of ritual child sex abuse rings in day care centers swept the country. In California, the infamous McMartin Preschool case "

Reads like a reference to McMartin Preschool case to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As to your second point, what has that to do with what I said?Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah. It was under the fold. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've read this one, and I'm still thinking the second draft (by me, but I swear that's just a coincidence ;) ) is the best. I'm not worried about attribution of the claims because the claims are well-supported by virtually every source used in this article, and the attention on this page has died down somewhat. DrFleischman's concerns are (hopefully) addressed by the second draft, and those are the concerns that bear the most weight, from where I sit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, not addressed. I understand your desire to describe the similarities between Pizzagate and the allegations in previous cases, but I think they're a distraction. If readers want to understand these similarities they can click through to False allegation of child sexual abuse and read about them there. But I'm just sharing my opinion. If consensus is against me then I won't press the issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not understanding how relevant information about the subject is a "distraction". A distraction from what? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, sorry for dropping the ball on this discussion. A distraction from the rest of the article, which is more on point and therefore more encyclopedic. We see this sort of media coverage all the time about sensational topics like this. For example, every time there's a child abduction someone writes an article about the similarities and/or differences between that case and Jon Benet Ramsey. That doesn't mean Ramsey should be mentioned in every child abduction article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair summary of the situation. Concur, and also note that the proposed text seems more like an analysis, which should come later in the article, than "background". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, would your objection stand if the information was minimized, say by incorporating it into the Responses section? I have to agree that I'm no longer too keen on a background section that only says this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how it's phrased. A news article describing these sorts of links generally wouldn't be classified as a "response" any more than any other news story, but if the links were part of a noteworthy opinion then I'd think it would be appropriate. A hypothetical example would be if a notable person tied Pizzagate to other satanic ritual conspiracy theories and said society needs to stop making these sorts of allegations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A news article describing these sorts of links generally wouldn't be classified as a "response" any more than any other news story None of the sources used fail to at least imply that this is just more of the same, and can be treated as such. That certainly qualifies as a response. I don't see why the author would need to be notable. Again, I find the notion that this article shouldn't include any sort of analysis (or that we should limit ourselves to mentioning any analysis only in vague terms) spurious: we are an encyclopedia. We exist to inform. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As for your first point, we aren't allowed to include content that is only implied by the sources. As for your second point, that's a pretty broad overstatement of my position. Some analysis is encyclopedic, some isn't. As I've said already, connect-the-dots analysis of this type seems perfectly appropriate for an article about the dots (plural), such as False allegation of child sexual abuse. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say we should include the implication (note that the implication was "...and can be treated as such." as the "...this is more of the same..." is explicit in all of those sources) only that they evince that the sources are certainly reactions to the CT. Regardless, I'm out of energy for this. I think you're wrong about this being undue, but I don't care enough to keep arguing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Background alternative suggestion

See also: Satanic ritual abuse

Pizzagate conspiracy theorists followed in a tradition of allegations stretching back some 30 years of allegations of child sex abuse scares. They echoed previously unfounded, and otherwise unconnected rumors of Satanic ritual abuse, most famously in the child day-care abuse hysteria of the 1980s. Recycling many of the accusations.

References

Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So we've swung from not mentioning the preschool enough to not mentioning it at all? TimothyJosephWood 15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Did I say it was not mentioned enough, or that we did not link to enough sources?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't specify what connections have been made. It's just begging for a tag. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we link to the main article. I really do not believe we need to do more then just point out the comparison has been made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the Satanic ritual abuse article are the pizzagate connections made clear? I see a "see also" link, but again: that just says there's a connection, not what the connections are. The same goes for the daycare panic (which isn't nearly as closely connected as the SRA phenomenon). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I maybe over doing the idea we allow readers to make up their own minds.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing sources ensures that information is verifiable, but doesn't remove the need to actually include the information. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have some minor quibbles over word choice, but I'm okay with the level of detail. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Second suggestion

Pizzagate conspiracy theorists followed with a repetition of allegations stretching back some 30 years of allegations of child sex abuse scares. They echoed previously unfounded, and otherwise unconnected rumors of Satanic ritual abuse, most famously in the child day-care abuse hysteria of the 1980s. Recycling many of the accusations such as the existence of tunnels and reusing the video confession of an alleged victim (and linking her claims to Pizzagate)

(sans refs and links for brevity)

Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's better, but not quite ideal. I'm not advocating going into detail, but when it comes to claims of fact, we don't let the reader make up their own minds: we give them the facts. If we're going to say "there's a connection between these two things," we need to give at least a minimum of information about what those connections are. If we're going to leave the presentation of facts to the sources, then why do we have an article anyways? Why not just a list of sources? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Rather wordy and awkward. I think it would confuse some readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Flynn image

The article section "Flynn Jr. dismissal" currently contains an image of Michael T Flynn, but with a caption and accompanying article text that largely relates to his son, Michael Flynn Jr. Suggest that if an image is desired, we should be using one of the son, not the father. Or if the father is directly related to the article subject, we should amend the caption to that effect. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, this looks like a BLP violation to me. Michael Sr. shouldn't be tarred for Michael Jr.'s idiotic beliefs. I removed the photo. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have restored with an altered caption. Both Flynns are implicated in spreading the rumors online. Only one was fired for it. It is in the article and well sourced. Saying something negative is not a BLP violation. TimothyJosephWood 20:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You should not be reverting and restoring content that editors are calling a BLP vio in good faith while the discussion is ongoing. Regardless, thank you for the yuge improvement to the caption, which largely alleviates the BLP problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If the information is well sourced and relevant, I will revert it, because it's not a BLP violation. TimothyJosephWood 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

BLP is about more than sourcing and relevance, but regardless, I think we've found common ground on this one, as usual :-). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the change in caption, but do we have a source for the claim it now contains? This exact claim is not in the article body; which says had previously posted similarly conspiratorial material ..., but not tweeted conspiratorial accusations regarding Pizzagate. Also the "forced out for" is a claim, which is attributed in the sources. Suggest that the change to "forced out after" be reinstated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT TimothyJosephWood 21:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The "for/after" is already done by DrFleischman. The claim is convoluted, and I'm not immediately seeing a way to summarise for a caption. The article text is: ... who tweeted conspiratorial material regarding Hillary Clinton alleging that Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, drank the blood and bodily fluids of other humans in Satanic rituals, which Politico says "soon morphed into the '#pizzagate' conspiracy theory ..."; the POLITICO source text is even more convoluted. It discusses Flynn's tweets, saying that he posted about similar hoaxes, but makes it clear that he did not tweet about pizzagate. Is Michael T. Flynn, whose tweet included a reference to a rumor about John Podesta; that rumor, Politico says, morphed into the "#pizzagate" conspiracy theory. Flynn's son was forced out of the Trump transition team after posting tweets about #pizzagate.[16] acceptable? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Too wordy and confusing. How about this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Entirely agree w.r.t Too wordy and confusing. The latest is indeed simpler. But I am left wondering where is the direct link that warrants the image? The source that we currently use to make the connection categorically states ... Flynn never promoted the pizza rumors himself .... At what stage is the link between the pictured person and the article subject so indirect that we cross the line of WP:UNDUE? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I think it's close enough. It's a closely related rumor, his son tweeted about Pizzagate, and the two issues were closely tied in the way they were reported by the media, for good reason. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I, likewise, hear you. But that the only image of a person in the article is a person who was not involved or only tangentially involved at best is causing my conscience to itch. I'll give it a chance to ruminate and if it's still troubling may look for a wider (more editors) consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking, what do people feel about including some information about "Spirit Cooking" in the Origins section. I've been hesitant to add this because it would be yet another conspiracy we'd need to debunk, and could create some potential BLP problems, as if the current article didn't have enough. However, I think this would help explain how Pizzagate became a thing, and the connection to Flynn Sr.'s tweets. Here are some more sources that I've found which connect the two conspiracies. ^Falling_Gravity 05:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Spirit Cooking merits its own separate article. Some of our content about Flynn Sr. can be moved into it, including the photo that Ryk72 dislikes, and the Flynn Jr. content can include a short reference to the fact that his dad tweeted similarly about a related conspiracy theory. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that "dislikes" is shorthand for "is concerned does not align with core policy & BLP". :) "Spirit Cooking" (art) is currently covered in the Abramovic BLP article. Both "Spirit Cooking" & "Pizzagate" (conspiracy theories) are not mentioned in the Podesta emails article. I am in rough agreement with DrFleischman that "Spirit Cooking conspiracy theory" likely warrants its own article rather than extension of this article to cover "Podesta emails conspiracy theories"; but could be convinced otherwise if coverage of the two theories is predominantly as a pair in reliable sources. The concerns about NPOV & BLP would not necessarily be removed if including mention of Spirit Cooking here appears to only or mostly justify inclusion of content on Flynn - not that that is what is being suggested, of course. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Re "dislikes," yes, that is exactly what I meant. I didn't mean to sound dismissive of your concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Alleged Haiti/Silsby connection

BLP vio, conspiracy theory, most likely should be revdeled Objective3000 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A major aspect of the 'pizzagate' conspiracy is the Haiti connection and the arrest of Laura Silsby for human trafficking. This wikipedia article is nothing but easily disproven fluff and smears, and the omission of the Clinton Foundation's connections to human trafficking is a glaring example of the bias and propagandizing of wikipedia as an information source. I don't expect that this message will last very long, but hopefully at least one person will do the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:4003:3C3B:ADCD:542B:1C37:F1B2 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC) None of that is substantiated in the slightest (the 'connection' between Silsby and Clinton is that Clinton mentioned Silsby's charity a few times in leaked emails), and none of it has made waves in reliable sources so... Nope. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)