Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2019/March

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requested move 14 September 2018

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

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

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

  • Support - I'd considered suggesting this myself. Out of pages on eight different projects, we're the only one that calls it anything other than simply "Pizzagate". If someone reads the article and doesn't come away with an understanding that it's a debunked and baseless conspiracy theory, then adding that little bit in the title of "No seriously it's reallytotallynot joking a conspiracy theory isn't going to push them over the edge. GMGtalk 20:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no benefit to moving it. None whatsoever. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Presumably this isn't the same as the Watergate scandal as there is no building, but I'd argue that the same reasoning applies here to, that "conspiracy theory" is part of its name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    If "conspiracy theory" is part of its name, why doesn't the article begin with "(The) Pizzagate conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory..." ? wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    OK, a Google search also seems to indicate that its just "Pizzagate" as well, but I'm not entirely sure either way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    I suggest something along the lines of "The Pizzagata conspiracy theory is a discredited story that..." —innotata 00:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't need to rename the article just because another conspiracy theory doesn't have the words "conspiracy theory" in the title. Wikipedia is inconsistent on this behavior, but when something is entirely known as a conspiracy theory, I'd say including that in the name is relevant (ie. 9/11 conspiracy theories). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is the epitome of a conspiracy theory. Yet, despite its utter absurdity, we still have regular visitors to this page claiming it hasn’t been debunked. The suffix –gate has come to mean scandal. It’s valuable to follow –gate in the title with conspiracy theory. I see no value in this move. O3000 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Objective3000: Why? Following –gate in the title with conspiracy theory is like having a title "Conspiracy theory about pizza (conspiracy theory)". Very redundant, as –gate already implies doubt in authenticity. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    -Gate denotes scandal, not conspiracy theory. Considering that many –gates were actual scandals, not invented crap, I prefer the current title. O3000 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    Pizzagate was an actual scandal, and the name "Pizzagate" refers to promoting the crap not what was alleged (and debunked). Just like the Gamergate controversy, which was also based on debunked allegations, which does not have "conspiracy theory" or anything similar in the title. wumbolo ^^^ 21:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    Inasmuch as 'gate' suggests doubt in authenticity, it's not something all readers will understand and that can go unexplained. —innotata 00:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Innotata: that can go unexplained I think that saying it's a conspiracy theory in the first sentence is explaining. And give me the part of WP:AT policy which says that article titles should "explain" anything. wumbolo ^^^ 08:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry guys, I don’t understand your responses. The suffix –gate originated with Watergate. No one disputed that Watergate was real. They caught the guys red handed. You could argue how far up the chain it went, in the early days. But, it was, from day one, a discovered illegal act. Hours later, they went before a judge. Pizzagate was completely, entirely, made up by conspiracy mongers. Realize that “Watergate” actually is accepted by spellcheckers it’s so well known. Pizzagate is, frankly, nutso. The conspiracy nuts stuck the false suffix on to relate it to Watergate. There simply is no comparison. When the suffix is incorrectly added, it should be identified, immediately, as a conspiracy theory. Realize that numerous living people, by name, are accused of pedophilia, considered by many as one of the worst of all crimes. If we have a title that suggests this is an actual scandal, we are dealing with rather serious BLP violations.O3000 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but this was a conspiracy theory, not just a Gateism.Slatersteven (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The title should be the name of the subject discussed in the article, not a commentary on it. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC) sockpuppet !vote struck — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose How to put it? "Pizzagate" isn't much of an article subject because it doesn't exist, "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is. —innotata 00:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Objective3000 and Slatersteven. APK whisper in my ear 01:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Common name. It's what it is called in reliable sources and what readers are most likely to enter in a search. And not to that it bears more similarity to a hoax than a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -gate refers to a scandal. This is not a scandal, it is a conspiracy theory. AusLondonder (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Cannot pass WP:CONCISE Red Slash 20:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per MPants, Objective3000, Slatersteven, and others. It's not a thing, whereas it does exist as a "conspiracy theory". That should be clear in the title. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    @BullRangifer: Take a look at this category: Category:Nonexistent people wumbolo ^^^ 21:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – this is about the conspiracy theory. "Pizzagate" doesn't exist, so it can't have an article. If it were an actual scandal, that would be a valid title. But it isn't. Bradv 06:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    This seems like the opposite of the actual standard we use on WP. Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories, Jonestown conspiracy theories, Bible conspiracy theory, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories are so named because Jade Helm 15, Jonestown, the Bible, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 9/11, the Death of Diana, the Moon landing, and the Oklahoma City bombing are all real things, and so the conspiracy theory needs disambiguating. While Crisis actor conspiracy theory, Roswell UFO incident conspiracy theory, and Montauk Project conspiracy theory all seem to be red links. Similarly, Unicorn (imaginary animal) doesn't seem to go anywhere, because whether or not something exists doesn't actually have anything to do with our article naming policies. GMGtalk 10:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Note that Crisis actor is actually about real-life crisis actors, with a section on claims about them in conspiracy theories. I would also venture a guess that Roswell, Montauk and Unicorns are all fictions that are much more widely recognized, nor do any of them have a name that implies an actual scandal. This is a fact that touches on our BLP policy. Whether or not the Montauk Project is true, for example, says absolutely nothing about whether a number of BLPs are satanic child-rapists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    No, I don't see any BLP implications in whether we follow normal naming guidelines and don't disambiguate where no disambiguation is necessary. That line of argument is a red herring. Following WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE does not constitute an endorsement of the theory. The article makes it perfectly clear where the veracity of the clams lie. GMGtalk 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    I do see BLP implications there. As do most of the others in this discussion. I agree that the naming of the article couldn't constitute an explicit endorsement of the theory, but it can present an implicit endorsement, which would have largely the same effect despite being a fundamentally different thing than explicit endorsement. I care more about results than process, so I prefer an article name that makes it clear that this is not a scandal, but a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well, that's just a misreading of BLP. There is nothing in either title that would constitute unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. GMGtalk 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Aside from the -gate suffix generally (and I say "generally" in a loose sense; I'm unaware of any other conspiracy theories using it) being used to refer to real scandals, you mean? I also don't see anything in WP:BLP that allows us to draw a distinction between hinting at a BLP vio and outright stating it. If you think that there's no precedent, I invite you to scour the WP:AE archives for BLP enforcement and count how many of those centered around content that didn't directly state an accusation, but merely hinted at it. You'll find more threads than you think, I suspect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    That doesn't really have anything to do with what part of "Pizzagate is the COMMONNAME for the subject" includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. GMGtalk 14:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    A title of Pizzagate alone suggests it’s a real scandal. I’d rather err on the side of BLP than COMMONNAME. Besides, WP:COMMONNAME says we usually use the common name. OTOH, WP:BLP is strident in its demands that call for careful editing of BLPs and specifically talks to article titles. Also WP:TITLE states: The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic.. 14:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)
    That doesn't really have anything to do with what part of "Pizzagate is the COMMONNAME for the subject" includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. GMGtalk 14:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    The OED has an article on –gate here. The term has come to mean scandal. Pizzagate as an actual scandal is poorly sourced (since it isn’t actual). Pizzagate conspiracy theory is well sourced, and a concise description as allowed by COMMONNAME. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    And the OED examination has no bearing or commentary on whether the suffix implies that the allegations are credible. It does manage to give passing mention to Climategate, which is another example of a "gate" where the scandalous allegations were real, but the foundation in fact was entirely spurious. The assertion that this suffix makes any implication as to veracity is, as far as I can tell, based only on personal opinion. GMGtalk 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    I think we’re allowed to use the OED as a reference to the English language.Face-smile.svg As a personal opinion, it’s shared with William Safire, an expert on language. More cites at: [5]. O3000 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    allowed to use the OED You still can't use RS to support something the RS doesn't say.
    shared with William Safire[citation needed]
    More cites at.[relevant? ] GMGtalk 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    OED, the primary RS for the English language, says what I said it says. –gate denotes scandal. This is not my “personal opinion”. The Safire cite is in the article I pointed to. The cites in the article support that –gate means scandal, and is also used facetiously at times. In fact, it separates Pizzagate out of the scandal lists into the very small conspiracy theory list. I know we don’t use WP as a source. I am using it as a source of many sources, which I don’t want to lengthen this TP with by copying them all here. You may have the last word. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, I guess I'd go with And the OED examination has no bearing or commentary on whether the suffix implies that the allegations are credible. And possibly That doesn't really have anything to do with what part of "Pizzagate is the COMMONNAME for the subject" includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. Since no one has actually addressed either of those points. GMGtalk 16:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Since no one has actually addressed either of those points. We have, it's just not been made clear: Me and the others who've mentioned BLP are of the opinion that the BLP issues override the problem with COMMONNAME. You may disagree that the proposed name has BLP issues, but that is why we have these discussions; to arrive at a consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Relevant: "Furthermore, they found that BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, 'Chelsea Manning'." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Evaluation of consensus) wumbolo ^^^ 16:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Hmm, is there any particular reason you decided to quote the ArbCom finding which goes into no detail? Instead of, you know, quoting the actual reasons why it was not considered to be a BLP vio... If I follow your link, it supports your argument. But if I follow the link that ArbCom was explicitly referring to... I suddenly find a discussion about whether one of two names a BLP was notable under is a BLP violation, something you might recognize as having nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    And neither title includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons. The only argument for BLP is that editors here have expanded the definition of the -gate suffix to mean "this has some indelible legitimate basis in fact", which is, as far as I can tell, not found anywhere other than the opinion of editors. All that has been offered in reply is a cite to the OED, which not only doesn't say this, but itself references another -gate that uncontroversially does not have a basis in fact. To be a scandal one needs only to be scandalous, and to be scandalous one does not need to be true.
    Yours is an OTHERSTUFF argument at its core, one which is entirely rebutted by saying "We don't needlessly disambiguate Unicorn, despite the fact that most named species of animals do in fact exist." GMGtalk 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    A better example is QAnon, which I mentioned in the nomination. It is also a conspiracy theory, and it also involves plenty of living persons. wumbolo ^^^ 17:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    The "usually" wording of the policy doesn't allow you to IAR; instead, the rest of policies and guidelines about article titles specify what else is allowed. wumbolo ^^^ 14:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    No permission is needed to WP:IAR; it's one of our core pillars and overrides policy. Regardless, no-one is suggesting we IAR here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    No IAR here. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are real living people who were targeted by the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. The current title makes it fairly clear that the thing was a smear and a hoax. I can see a case for moving this to Pizzagate smear or Pizzagate hoax but not just Pizzagate. ϢereSpielChequers 15:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move, but oppose the suggested title since the term "pizzagate" is still used to refer to a dispute after a 2004 football match. I think we should treat "conspiracy theory" as a parenthetical disambiguator, as in Pizzagate (conspiracy theory), much like the article title Spygate (conspiracy theory). FallingGravity 15:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    If I'm not mistaken, this article was moved from that title following an RM to move it to "Pizzagate" in December of 2016, see this diff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    And here is the discussion. Bradv 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, it's this discussion, a bit lower down on the page. Both have the same question, so it's easy to confuse them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you. That's the one I meant to link. Bradv 16:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    That's good to know, but I still think it's the best title per WP:PARENDIS. It's still possible for consensus to change. FallingGravity 16:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    I actually tend to agree. See my comments in that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    I have no problem with "Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)". O3000 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment can any one opposing the move point to any policies or guidelines for their position? The closest I have found is that it also refers to a sports scandal, but considering that Pizzagate re-directs to this page, that appears not to be a valid reason, per Disambiguation. TFD (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP has been pointed to numerous times already. Implying that this is a "scandal" as the -gate suffix does implies at least some legitimacy to the accusations made in this conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think renaming it to "Pizzagate" (if there is consensus), somehow signals that it is not a conspiracy theory. It doesn't have to be either-or in my opinion. The article can still outline how this is a conspiracy theory, and still be called "Pizzagate"-White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seems more common as a title. Removing "conspiracy theory" from the title won't make it look less of a conspiracy theory. Anatoliatheo (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a conspiracy theory and it should be kept as such. Watergate had happened, there is proof of it with respect to court filings and convictions. There is no such thing in this scenario, hence the title should be contain conspiracy theory in it. However I agree with FallingGravity comments and consider it as parenthetical disambiguator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicoindian (talkcontribs) 00:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. This is clearly the primary topic for "Pizzagate," so it doesn't need to be disambiguated beyond the name naturally used to refer to it in order to be recognizable. It's also more concise than the current name. — (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Oppose Pizzagate scandal, which no one is proposing but which seems to be the subject of opposition. — (talk) (same user as above, different location) 01:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:BLP trumps everything here. "Pizzagate" is not a real scandal, so referring to it as one in the title is not only incorrect, but also can give the impression that is a real thing and not the conspiracy theory that it is. What is gained exactly from moving it? Valeince (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Valeince: your last question is answered by the nomination, if you've even read it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    your last question is answered by the nomination, if you've even read it. No, it isn't. Hence why a half dozen people have said the same exact thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well, @Wumbolo:, I did read it before commenting, but just in case I read it again with my question in mind. Where exactly does it state what's gained by moving the title? Is it to fall in line w/ other articles? In which case I'll just point to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Is it because we want to to be as accurate as possible? Then I submit that the current title is the most accurate as the article is not about "Pizzagate", as that doesn't exist. It is about the conspiracy theory of a supposed child sex ring that involved a pizzeria. "Pizzagate" is used by conspiracy theorists to equate it a real world scandal, Watergate, to try and legitimize it. This brings me back to the question, what's gained from moving it? To make it just "Pizzagate" with no qualifier can make it seem like Wikipedia is saying that this is a real "-gate". What's to lose from leaving it at the current title? Absolutely nothing and we continue to call this what this is: a conspiracy theory. Valeince (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Valeince: the article is not about "Pizzagate" what?! Of course it is; it isn't about North Atlantic Deep Water. We have plenty of articles on things that don't exist. we continue to call this what this is that's the worst non-argument I've seen in this discussion so far. So why don't we even more accurately call this what it is: "Created by conspiracy theorists for conspiracy theorists, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, originally spread in the U.S. but the Internet is a global phenomenon"? wumbolo ^^^ 13:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Wumbolo, if you would stop arguing and try to absord Valeince's comment, it would become clear to you what they are saying: that "Pizzagate" was the name applied to a fictional satanic child abuse ring: something which does not exist. This article is about the conspiracy theory, not about the subject of the conspiracy theory being their rather obvious point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    So you would support creating a Pizzagate article about the subject of the conspiracy theory, if it gains enough notability? wumbolo ^^^ 15:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Now you're just being ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Hey fam. Anybody wanna help clear out q:Category:Americans? It's tedious and unrewarding. I see you guys are into that sort of thing. GMGtalk 15:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Valeince, who said everything which needs to be said here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: In case it at all matters, every article listed at this article's Wikidata entry uses "Pizzagate" (or its own language's script variant thereof) as their title, including the German, French, Hebrew ("Pizza Gate"), Polish, Russian, and Swedish Wikipedias. Likewise, the Commons category is simply "Pizzagate". The English-language label on Wikidata also has been simply "Pizzagate" or "pizzagate" since the item was created in December 2016 by FallingGravity and that only changed earlier this month when I changed the English label to conform to the current article title. Even now, the English Wikipedia remains the odd one out throughout the entirety of Wikimedia and—if Quora, the article's sources, and elsewhere on the Internet are any indication—throughout the Internet generally. Maybe that is not an issue, but "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" does not seem to be the common name, especially within the Wikimedia projects outside of the English Wikipedia.
    Lastly, as a note, I slightly refactored this section to avoid list gaps and ensure accessibility. The changes can be seen here. I hope that is acceptable. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC); slightly edited (added "of") at 19:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All reliable sources, without exception, refer to it as a conspiracy theory or words to that effect; and it is longstanding practice in such cases to include that in the title of the article to avoid inadvertently promoting WP:FRINGE theories. --Aquillion (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Aquillion: that's 100% false. If we include "conspiracy theory" in the title, then we are promoting a conspiracy theory, not the other way 'round. Which one is more promotional, "Apple A12" or "A12 (efficient and fast system-on-a-chip made by Apple Inc.)"? wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    That's not what "promotional" means. We're not advertising for Pizzagate, we're pointing out its factual status. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Well Aquillion accused the proposed title of being promotional. I don't see anything promotional; the only clickbait-style promotional aspect of it is that it contains "pizza" in its name. But if a reader has never heard of the topic before, they are going to read the article for themselves, and if they don't, it's not our responsibility to point it out in every possible way. wumbolo ^^^ 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    WP:BLUDGEON Oh, look what I dropped there. Hmm, wonder if it'll be useful? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Covering a conspiracy theory, when it is universally described in such terms in reliable sources, without saying that it is a conspiracy theory obviously risks promoting it. There is a risk that someone could see the name and think that it refers to an actual scandal or events (especially with the "-gate" suffix.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    Who goes to look something up in an encyclopedia and only reads the name? — (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Valeince. GirthSummit (blether) 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

RM discussion

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

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

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

If anything ending in “gate” must be a scandal, but this definitely is not a scandal, shouldn’t we avoid calling it a “gate” entirely? (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sophistry is obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I thought I was rather calling attention to preexisting sophistry, like saying we’re acknowledging it as a scandal by calling it by its name. — (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Obvious projection is also obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, so please don’t do that just because I poked holes in those arguments. This conspiracy theory (cf. the article’s opening words) is universally known by one name, so unless everyone reporting on it has decided to legitimize it by using that name while also debunking it, the whole argument is absurd. You can’t say the name falsely implies a scandal and continue using the name regardless, as we currently do. Use the name everyone else does or call it something else entirely, because this half-measure is ridiculous. — (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I poked holes in those arguments. LOL Good one. You can think you're doing whatever you want, but your whole argument was refuted before you even made it. The fact that you can't understand those refutations is really immaterial, though luckily for you, O3000 has the patience to at least try to explain them using small words. And Batman. Everybody loves Batman. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that was a brilliant use of Batman. But if people decide this is real without even glancing at the article, how is the title going to make them change their minds? Still seems ridiculous. — (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, ran out of breadcrumbs in the middle. Try again. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Sources exposing Pizzagate as fake still call it Pizzagate. We can call it Pizzagate even though it’s fake. — (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and people call Batman, Batman; not Batmangate. People know it’s fake. –gate means scandal and people still believe this idiocy is not cartoonish. See the difference? O3000 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
And we expect a title to change the minds of people who don’t glance at the first six words? — (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, let’s move the article on Ghandi to Ghandigate, since the title doesn’t matter and the first few words contradict the title. (I'm done.} O3000 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Whatever you do, don't move Santa Claus to Santa Clausgate. FallingGravity 03:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Well shit... Now I'm tempted to create Santa Clausgate as a redirect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
It isn't that hard to avoid the dreaded -gate suffix with a descriptive title, maybe something like Comet Ping Pong child sex ring conspiracy theory. This would avoid using a misnomer with potential WP:BLP implications because it makes clear it's a conspiracy theory, not one of those real scandals. FallingGravity 05:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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