![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
There are four threads about this on this page already. Stop beating this dead horse. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone else find it interesting that Wikipedia calls this conspiracy theory "debunked" in the first line of the article, yet there is no mention of "debunked" in any other conspiracy theory on the site, such as the 9/11 theory, fake moon landings, etc.? Wikipedia tries to act neutral with all conspiracy theories except this one; really makes you wonder who is actually editing this. I also bet this post will be deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.214.250 ( talk) 14:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
On Voat there is the following thread: https://voat.co/v/pizzagateunedited/1447885 If someone approves of pedophilia, that isn't a crime, but as I see in these links Wikipedia has a troubling past with child pornography scandals. How can we be certain of objectivity in these kind of theories if these things happened in the past?
Another problem with the objectivity is that the CIA has infiltrated Mainstream Media in the past in one of their secret projects, if sources like The New York Times are used, but these same newspapers are infiltrated by organizations which are possibly related to child abuse and sex trafficking, which is what pizzagate is about, how can they be objective sources to use?
I 'm sorry if these questions are controversial, but they are important to ask. UshilRasnal ( talk) 20:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
By no way is the theory debunked. All the emails were real, are you saying they were not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglypuff22468 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the e-mails are real, what has not be proven (and thus does not need disproving) is what the word Pizza means. As has been said many times, any evidence that has been represented (where methodology or validity can be checked) has been shown to be false by RS. Until someone can come up with the code breaking techniques (beyond "they share the same initials) published by RS then it has been debunked by RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It does not mean there's a pedophile ring in the basement.But "anchovy pizza" does. Let's be clear that people who eat pizza like that are the scum of the earth. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Why not just remove it and everyone will be happy? Or just simply replace "debunked" with "unproven"? TheBD2000 ( talk) 17:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"...posted multiple tweets on Twitter conspiratorial material regarding..."
The word containing should be added between 'Twitter' and 'conspiratorial'. I can't fix it because the page is protected. IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 07:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice that some of the text in the article are saying that child sex abuse is "false" or "non-existent". This seems to violate WP:NPOV since Wikpedia isn't supposed to take a stance one way or another, just report what reliable sources have stated. Saying that it's debunked according to Fox News, etc is of course valid, but stating in the article whether it's "true or false" is advocating a specific POV, rather than just reporting that sources have declared it debunked.
(For example, the photo at the top should not say a "non existent" child sex trafficking ring, it should say something along the lines of "a child sex trafficking ring which was declared to be false by Fox News)-- 206.255.15.95 ( talk) 00:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this good enough to include? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gKTiUaloDDA
It is James Alefantis interviewed, but I 'm not sure how relevant it is or could be for this article. UshilRasnal ( talk) 19:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone think mention of Philadelphia pizza restaurants being harassed belongs? I know the Brooklyn and Austin restaurants are mentioned, but the Philadelphia story hasn't received attention outside the city's media. (so far) Just wondering if we should include every restaurant that's harassed. APK whisper in my ear 03:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
To avoid an edit war, who thinks Salem witch trials should be added to the "see also" section? I don't because it doesn't seem related to the topic, not to mention it was several hundred years ago. I understand the part about mass hysteria, but as far I know, the conspiracy theorists haven't brought up witchcraft. APK whisper in my ear 08:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Done This seems pretty uncontroversial and there's no obvious reason to drag it out any longer on an article that gets 15k page views per day.
TimothyJosephWood
18:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
a few ranters...I mean...to be fair, a few thousand...give or take. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to talk about how Alex pulled videos, you need to include a video he made a new video with Joe Rogan. And then offer a referenced link to the YouTube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 20:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Because it is being heavily implied that Alex Jones has completed backtracked on pizzagate. This is demonstrably false and misleading as he clarifies what happened in the Joe Rogan interview. Either give both sides of the story, or delete the Alex Jones section entirely if you can't be fair and balanced about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 14:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It is my understanding that after a FOIA was filed the DC metro Police admitted they didn't conduct any investigation. Yet news sources cite them as part of their debunking, and they cite the news sources. All of the debunking sites given merely repeat what 1 site said, which is namely the NY Times. So was the limit of the DC Police's "investigation" merely reading a NY Times article? If so, then the DC's claim of doing an investigation and finding it "fictitious" is dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 20:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
So you all admit then that it is irresponsible to host lies. Either the DC Metro Police did an investigation and found it "fictitious", or they dismissed it based on a "preliminary assessment, in which they most definitely did not look at all the evidence. Assessments are not thorough investigations, so why pass it off like it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 15:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see that under "informational notes" there is some defense against the claim that Infowars is fake news, but in the article it blankly states that Infowars is fake news. This is quite clearly an opinion. Opinions should not be presented as facts on Wikipedia. The lines under "informational notes" should be included in the section that links to it, so that both sides are addressed fairly and accurately. 104.148.178.88 ( talk) 21:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
"looking through the first paragraph, there are several words that can be considered weasel words, for example, calling the theory debunked (when it cannot possibly be fully debunked yet, as there have been no public investigations yet, and investigations by online communities are ongoing. inclusion of multiple "fact check" or debunking articles is perfectly reasonable, but using "debunked" in the opening sentence is essentially personal opinion), using words such as allegedly fills the criteria for weasel words, i suggest using more neutral words, such as "the theory asserts that...". In addition, when it says "a fabricated child-sex ring" not only does this not make sense (implying the theory asserts that the child sex ring is fabricated), but it is also claiming absolutes (that the theory is 100% debunked) which have not been proven.
again, i am currently reading through the articles, and i am seeing the same stuff. for example this:
The story was picked up by fake news websites such as Infowars.com, Planet Free Will and the Vigilant Citizen
calling these websites all fake news is again, personal opinion and should not be written as if it were fact. this line is sourced to this article, which is a shabby collections of websites, with minimal detail. This source is mediocre at best, it is effectively an opinion based article (while claiming it is fact in this wikipedia page) as CBS news is in no way an authoritative figure for determining whether a news website reports ONLY on fabricated stories. Instead something more neutral and balanced, like this, should be used:
"The story was picked up by news websites such as Infowars.com, Planet Free Will and the Vigilant Citizen, however these have been considered fake news websites by CBS news"
i would like to point out too, that these websites are not the only ones picking up the pizzagate story (without blatantly attacking it), in fact CBS affiliate CBS46 ran a report on pizzagate too [1]
References
In accordance with the five pillars of wikipedia, i think this article should be neutral. i am not trying to push any particular narrative, however it needs quite a few changes to be properly neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorJimmu ( talk • contribs)
No, that is clearly against the policies Ian.thomson has just listed for you.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports the findings of reliable sources such as in this case mainstream newspapers, which are secondary sources.
It is ironic that you complain about this article's sources being "opinion" just before you cite (hypothetical) opinion polls.
not knowing that InfoWars is fake news
in light of you not knowing that InfoWars is fake news, rather clearly marks you as yet another conspiracy theorist who's only pretending to not be here to POV-push.
There is nothing plausible about Pizzagate except to conspiracy theorists who confuse fantasy with plausibility.
Well try looking at the section we have on what has been debunked (pretty much everything). If I go to the police and say "I know that X does Y because he once said "I do Z" and Z means X" they are not going to investigate. Thus we are left with using the (limited) investigations of the media (such as looking at where a photograph was taken) and using their analysis. Now until someone offers an explanation as to why every piece of "evidence" that has been checked has been shown to be false or misrepresented we do not need to challenge (or have any reason to) those conclusions. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
Benn Swann's Reality Check on pizzagate should be included as it is the most balanced "mainstream" reporting on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 15:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Why Ben Swann was removed after his reporting on pizzagate is irrelevant. Not asking to offer conspiracy theories as to why he was sidelined for a week or why all of his social media was pulled. His report got mass circulation, even in the mainstream media who attacked him and posted images of him wearing a tinfoil hat. He took the issue seriously and that is all pizzagate researchers ask, but people seem to have a problem with that. To exclude it and make up excuses to do so just goes to show how biased you are being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Back to the point, Swann also got coverage in The Daily Beast and Salon in addition to the Inquisitr article above. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's an "attack" to make an obvious observation. Ben Swann and his Reality Check segments are recognized on a national level, not just his local area. You are intentionally minimalizing his credibility when this "local news anchor" gets exclusive interviews with President Obama where he asked him about ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 17:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It does change the narrative, because the narrative is to not take pizzagate seriously and treat it like ludicrous fake news. Ben Swann treated the issue seriously and that doesn't fit said narrative. TimothyJospehWood is at least being reasonably fair. Other editor's biases are clearly showing. That is not an attack, it is just being alleged as thus to get a dissenter banned for breaking the rules. It does add to the article, it gives a bigger picture on the issue and shows why some take the issue seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 17:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
So answer me this then. Why is Alex Jones included and not Ben Swann? Surely the information provided about Alex Jones belongs on the Alex Jones page by using this rationale about Swann, and not here on the pizzagate page. This is the evidence I present as bias, as asked for by Obecjtive3000. Clearly the Alex Jones section is included because it fits the narrative that pizzagate has been debunked. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, Ben Swann at least has journalistic credentials, not matter how much those credentials are downplayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 17:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A question about "reality check", what time is it aired on the CBS national network (or even the local affiliate)? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Then Ben Swann also "helped propagate it" by treating it seriously. It did get national coverage as his segments get uploaded to YouTube, with hundreds of thousands of views, unlike other local news anchors. Alex jones is conspiracy, Swann is a journalist, so him giving it serious attention "gives it legitimacy", even if your argument is that it "propagates". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
After a exhausting lengthy discussion at
WT:RS, I've been thinking about this quite a bit, and I think there may actually be a legitimate issue here to address, so I'm going to argue against myself. When we first put the "fake news" description in the article, it was on the eve, and the immediate wake of the election, when sources seemed to pretty much agree what it meant, and who it described. After events in the White House over the past few days, and the apparent willingness of POTUS to liberally use the term as, what can only be described as a pejorative, combined with the gargantuan news coverage that these events have received, I'm starting to reconsider the usefulness of the term.
I'll admit that I initially balked at User:Masem's suggestion that the term lacked a clear meaning, but after the last WH press conference, I wonder if we are not getting to a place where we are running afoul of WP:EUPHEMISM, WP:TERRORIST or both. As example, and since fake news has essentially become a synonym for tabloid, I think it would be a much clearer choice in an article where we were considering calling an outlet a "tabloid" with no further comment, or actually describing what was meant by tabloid according to more elucidating descriptions in RS. For example, saying something along the lines of:
Infowars, an outlet with a reputation for publishing unreliable stories and political propaganda, described by X, Y and Z as fake news...
I'm not arguing that the nature of Infowars has changed, or that our description wasn't accurate at the time we introduced it, but rather than the term fake news itself has become a moving target. When probably the most covered person in the world (maybe second to what...the Pope?) uses the term pejoratively, it begins to change the actual meaning of the word. In an age where Bruce Willis was fighting Alan Rickman, terrorist may have had a fairly objective meaning, but in the age of 9/11 that's changed, and I think we may be in a situation where the actual meaning conveyed by the label is becoming shallower every time it hits the airwaves. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
to mean what they literally meanI think that's really the problem, because there seems to quickly be two different definitions of the term, one which is synonymous with tabloid, and one which means broadly news I disagree with. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that's really the problem, because there seems to quickly be two different definitions of the term,Well there are more than two definitions of the term, but only one literal meaning of the term. This is what I was referring to. For instance, imagine talking about fake subway tokens. There would be no debate over what is meant, because there's no idiomatic meaning associated with "fake subway tokens". However, there has been, since near the end of the current election cycle, an idiomatic meaning associated with "fake news" because the reliable news media started using the term, and lots of different people began to weigh in, each with their own thoughts. After a few weeks, that boiled down to a handful of idiomatic meanings, such as "news outlets which aren't trustworthy," "any media outlet which looks like news but isn't" and "media outlets that publish false stories as real news for the purpose of political propaganda or to generate ad revenue." But none of those change the original, non-idiomatic meaning of "stuff that looks like news but isn't" which, perhaps also comes with the caveat "and is treated like news" to distinguish it from pseudo-news.
Oh boy. That article is some grade-A pristine original research right there...Ahh, yes. I didn't look at it before I linked it. Well, I'm taking the link out of my comment and adding it to my to-do list, then.
But more on topic, regardless of the what the literal dictionary definition of the term is, that doesn't mean that the word, as used, in practice, which is exactly the way it will be read, isn't important.Of course not. The idiomatic meaning is just as important as the literal one. Especially for article titles. The article Fake news should be about the phenomenon being reported on, which uses all those idiomatic definitions. I'm just saying that when we use the term in the body of an article, we should give serious thought to sticking to the literal definition whenever possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
There are four threads about this on this page already. Stop beating this dead horse. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone else find it interesting that Wikipedia calls this conspiracy theory "debunked" in the first line of the article, yet there is no mention of "debunked" in any other conspiracy theory on the site, such as the 9/11 theory, fake moon landings, etc.? Wikipedia tries to act neutral with all conspiracy theories except this one; really makes you wonder who is actually editing this. I also bet this post will be deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.214.250 ( talk) 14:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
On Voat there is the following thread: https://voat.co/v/pizzagateunedited/1447885 If someone approves of pedophilia, that isn't a crime, but as I see in these links Wikipedia has a troubling past with child pornography scandals. How can we be certain of objectivity in these kind of theories if these things happened in the past?
Another problem with the objectivity is that the CIA has infiltrated Mainstream Media in the past in one of their secret projects, if sources like The New York Times are used, but these same newspapers are infiltrated by organizations which are possibly related to child abuse and sex trafficking, which is what pizzagate is about, how can they be objective sources to use?
I 'm sorry if these questions are controversial, but they are important to ask. UshilRasnal ( talk) 20:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
By no way is the theory debunked. All the emails were real, are you saying they were not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglypuff22468 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the e-mails are real, what has not be proven (and thus does not need disproving) is what the word Pizza means. As has been said many times, any evidence that has been represented (where methodology or validity can be checked) has been shown to be false by RS. Until someone can come up with the code breaking techniques (beyond "they share the same initials) published by RS then it has been debunked by RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It does not mean there's a pedophile ring in the basement.But "anchovy pizza" does. Let's be clear that people who eat pizza like that are the scum of the earth. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Why not just remove it and everyone will be happy? Or just simply replace "debunked" with "unproven"? TheBD2000 ( talk) 17:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
"...posted multiple tweets on Twitter conspiratorial material regarding..."
The word containing should be added between 'Twitter' and 'conspiratorial'. I can't fix it because the page is protected. IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 07:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice that some of the text in the article are saying that child sex abuse is "false" or "non-existent". This seems to violate WP:NPOV since Wikpedia isn't supposed to take a stance one way or another, just report what reliable sources have stated. Saying that it's debunked according to Fox News, etc is of course valid, but stating in the article whether it's "true or false" is advocating a specific POV, rather than just reporting that sources have declared it debunked.
(For example, the photo at the top should not say a "non existent" child sex trafficking ring, it should say something along the lines of "a child sex trafficking ring which was declared to be false by Fox News)-- 206.255.15.95 ( talk) 00:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this good enough to include? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gKTiUaloDDA
It is James Alefantis interviewed, but I 'm not sure how relevant it is or could be for this article. UshilRasnal ( talk) 19:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone think mention of Philadelphia pizza restaurants being harassed belongs? I know the Brooklyn and Austin restaurants are mentioned, but the Philadelphia story hasn't received attention outside the city's media. (so far) Just wondering if we should include every restaurant that's harassed. APK whisper in my ear 03:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
To avoid an edit war, who thinks Salem witch trials should be added to the "see also" section? I don't because it doesn't seem related to the topic, not to mention it was several hundred years ago. I understand the part about mass hysteria, but as far I know, the conspiracy theorists haven't brought up witchcraft. APK whisper in my ear 08:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Done This seems pretty uncontroversial and there's no obvious reason to drag it out any longer on an article that gets 15k page views per day.
TimothyJosephWood
18:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
a few ranters...I mean...to be fair, a few thousand...give or take. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to talk about how Alex pulled videos, you need to include a video he made a new video with Joe Rogan. And then offer a referenced link to the YouTube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 20:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Because it is being heavily implied that Alex Jones has completed backtracked on pizzagate. This is demonstrably false and misleading as he clarifies what happened in the Joe Rogan interview. Either give both sides of the story, or delete the Alex Jones section entirely if you can't be fair and balanced about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 14:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It is my understanding that after a FOIA was filed the DC metro Police admitted they didn't conduct any investigation. Yet news sources cite them as part of their debunking, and they cite the news sources. All of the debunking sites given merely repeat what 1 site said, which is namely the NY Times. So was the limit of the DC Police's "investigation" merely reading a NY Times article? If so, then the DC's claim of doing an investigation and finding it "fictitious" is dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 20:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
So you all admit then that it is irresponsible to host lies. Either the DC Metro Police did an investigation and found it "fictitious", or they dismissed it based on a "preliminary assessment, in which they most definitely did not look at all the evidence. Assessments are not thorough investigations, so why pass it off like it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 15:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I see that under "informational notes" there is some defense against the claim that Infowars is fake news, but in the article it blankly states that Infowars is fake news. This is quite clearly an opinion. Opinions should not be presented as facts on Wikipedia. The lines under "informational notes" should be included in the section that links to it, so that both sides are addressed fairly and accurately. 104.148.178.88 ( talk) 21:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
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.
"looking through the first paragraph, there are several words that can be considered weasel words, for example, calling the theory debunked (when it cannot possibly be fully debunked yet, as there have been no public investigations yet, and investigations by online communities are ongoing. inclusion of multiple "fact check" or debunking articles is perfectly reasonable, but using "debunked" in the opening sentence is essentially personal opinion), using words such as allegedly fills the criteria for weasel words, i suggest using more neutral words, such as "the theory asserts that...". In addition, when it says "a fabricated child-sex ring" not only does this not make sense (implying the theory asserts that the child sex ring is fabricated), but it is also claiming absolutes (that the theory is 100% debunked) which have not been proven.
again, i am currently reading through the articles, and i am seeing the same stuff. for example this:
The story was picked up by fake news websites such as Infowars.com, Planet Free Will and the Vigilant Citizen
calling these websites all fake news is again, personal opinion and should not be written as if it were fact. this line is sourced to this article, which is a shabby collections of websites, with minimal detail. This source is mediocre at best, it is effectively an opinion based article (while claiming it is fact in this wikipedia page) as CBS news is in no way an authoritative figure for determining whether a news website reports ONLY on fabricated stories. Instead something more neutral and balanced, like this, should be used:
"The story was picked up by news websites such as Infowars.com, Planet Free Will and the Vigilant Citizen, however these have been considered fake news websites by CBS news"
i would like to point out too, that these websites are not the only ones picking up the pizzagate story (without blatantly attacking it), in fact CBS affiliate CBS46 ran a report on pizzagate too [1]
References
In accordance with the five pillars of wikipedia, i think this article should be neutral. i am not trying to push any particular narrative, however it needs quite a few changes to be properly neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorJimmu ( talk • contribs)
No, that is clearly against the policies Ian.thomson has just listed for you.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports the findings of reliable sources such as in this case mainstream newspapers, which are secondary sources.
It is ironic that you complain about this article's sources being "opinion" just before you cite (hypothetical) opinion polls.
not knowing that InfoWars is fake news
in light of you not knowing that InfoWars is fake news, rather clearly marks you as yet another conspiracy theorist who's only pretending to not be here to POV-push.
There is nothing plausible about Pizzagate except to conspiracy theorists who confuse fantasy with plausibility.
Well try looking at the section we have on what has been debunked (pretty much everything). If I go to the police and say "I know that X does Y because he once said "I do Z" and Z means X" they are not going to investigate. Thus we are left with using the (limited) investigations of the media (such as looking at where a photograph was taken) and using their analysis. Now until someone offers an explanation as to why every piece of "evidence" that has been checked has been shown to be false or misrepresented we do not need to challenge (or have any reason to) those conclusions. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
Benn Swann's Reality Check on pizzagate should be included as it is the most balanced "mainstream" reporting on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 15:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Why Ben Swann was removed after his reporting on pizzagate is irrelevant. Not asking to offer conspiracy theories as to why he was sidelined for a week or why all of his social media was pulled. His report got mass circulation, even in the mainstream media who attacked him and posted images of him wearing a tinfoil hat. He took the issue seriously and that is all pizzagate researchers ask, but people seem to have a problem with that. To exclude it and make up excuses to do so just goes to show how biased you are being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 16:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Back to the point, Swann also got coverage in The Daily Beast and Salon in addition to the Inquisitr article above. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's an "attack" to make an obvious observation. Ben Swann and his Reality Check segments are recognized on a national level, not just his local area. You are intentionally minimalizing his credibility when this "local news anchor" gets exclusive interviews with President Obama where he asked him about ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 17:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It does change the narrative, because the narrative is to not take pizzagate seriously and treat it like ludicrous fake news. Ben Swann treated the issue seriously and that doesn't fit said narrative. TimothyJospehWood is at least being reasonably fair. Other editor's biases are clearly showing. That is not an attack, it is just being alleged as thus to get a dissenter banned for breaking the rules. It does add to the article, it gives a bigger picture on the issue and shows why some take the issue seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 17:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
So answer me this then. Why is Alex Jones included and not Ben Swann? Surely the information provided about Alex Jones belongs on the Alex Jones page by using this rationale about Swann, and not here on the pizzagate page. This is the evidence I present as bias, as asked for by Obecjtive3000. Clearly the Alex Jones section is included because it fits the narrative that pizzagate has been debunked. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, Ben Swann at least has journalistic credentials, not matter how much those credentials are downplayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 17:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A question about "reality check", what time is it aired on the CBS national network (or even the local affiliate)? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Then Ben Swann also "helped propagate it" by treating it seriously. It did get national coverage as his segments get uploaded to YouTube, with hundreds of thousands of views, unlike other local news anchors. Alex jones is conspiracy, Swann is a journalist, so him giving it serious attention "gives it legitimacy", even if your argument is that it "propagates". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.140.72.18 ( talk) 17:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
After a exhausting lengthy discussion at
WT:RS, I've been thinking about this quite a bit, and I think there may actually be a legitimate issue here to address, so I'm going to argue against myself. When we first put the "fake news" description in the article, it was on the eve, and the immediate wake of the election, when sources seemed to pretty much agree what it meant, and who it described. After events in the White House over the past few days, and the apparent willingness of POTUS to liberally use the term as, what can only be described as a pejorative, combined with the gargantuan news coverage that these events have received, I'm starting to reconsider the usefulness of the term.
I'll admit that I initially balked at User:Masem's suggestion that the term lacked a clear meaning, but after the last WH press conference, I wonder if we are not getting to a place where we are running afoul of WP:EUPHEMISM, WP:TERRORIST or both. As example, and since fake news has essentially become a synonym for tabloid, I think it would be a much clearer choice in an article where we were considering calling an outlet a "tabloid" with no further comment, or actually describing what was meant by tabloid according to more elucidating descriptions in RS. For example, saying something along the lines of:
Infowars, an outlet with a reputation for publishing unreliable stories and political propaganda, described by X, Y and Z as fake news...
I'm not arguing that the nature of Infowars has changed, or that our description wasn't accurate at the time we introduced it, but rather than the term fake news itself has become a moving target. When probably the most covered person in the world (maybe second to what...the Pope?) uses the term pejoratively, it begins to change the actual meaning of the word. In an age where Bruce Willis was fighting Alan Rickman, terrorist may have had a fairly objective meaning, but in the age of 9/11 that's changed, and I think we may be in a situation where the actual meaning conveyed by the label is becoming shallower every time it hits the airwaves. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
to mean what they literally meanI think that's really the problem, because there seems to quickly be two different definitions of the term, one which is synonymous with tabloid, and one which means broadly news I disagree with. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that's really the problem, because there seems to quickly be two different definitions of the term,Well there are more than two definitions of the term, but only one literal meaning of the term. This is what I was referring to. For instance, imagine talking about fake subway tokens. There would be no debate over what is meant, because there's no idiomatic meaning associated with "fake subway tokens". However, there has been, since near the end of the current election cycle, an idiomatic meaning associated with "fake news" because the reliable news media started using the term, and lots of different people began to weigh in, each with their own thoughts. After a few weeks, that boiled down to a handful of idiomatic meanings, such as "news outlets which aren't trustworthy," "any media outlet which looks like news but isn't" and "media outlets that publish false stories as real news for the purpose of political propaganda or to generate ad revenue." But none of those change the original, non-idiomatic meaning of "stuff that looks like news but isn't" which, perhaps also comes with the caveat "and is treated like news" to distinguish it from pseudo-news.
Oh boy. That article is some grade-A pristine original research right there...Ahh, yes. I didn't look at it before I linked it. Well, I'm taking the link out of my comment and adding it to my to-do list, then.
But more on topic, regardless of the what the literal dictionary definition of the term is, that doesn't mean that the word, as used, in practice, which is exactly the way it will be read, isn't important.Of course not. The idiomatic meaning is just as important as the literal one. Especially for article titles. The article Fake news should be about the phenomenon being reported on, which uses all those idiomatic definitions. I'm just saying that when we use the term in the body of an article, we should give serious thought to sticking to the literal definition whenever possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)