![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This Wired article ( [1]) notes the existence of a wiki devoted soley to covering Pizzagate. Might be worth mentioning. - Indy beetle ( talk) 23:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
as of 29Aug2017 the site is down - here is an archive of it from may2017 [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan592 ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
as of 29Aug2017 the Pizzagatewiki page is down - here is an archive from may2017 [3] note: the wiki page was started 18Dec2016 -29Aug2017 and had 15,953 URLs (wayback machine: [4]) New Topics
|
Enough fun. Hat before the humor police show up. Objective3000 ( talk) 00:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Pizza gate is proven fact and there has been arrests made period so how do you ( Personal attack removed) support false facts and covering up sick nasty shit that has taken place ? Like why is it not changed ? Cuz Alex pizza gate jones says it's not real well he would say that when he is part of it but anyway it's a fact that's it true and not a conspiracy theory so fix it like wake up Craiggod ( talk) 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
|
FYI, the OP is using User:Hpfan592 as a linkfarm for all this conspiracy nuttery. Not sure what can e done about that, nominate the userpage for deletion? TheValeyard ( talk) 00:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I've edited the FAQ with the intention of making it less personal by not addressing any specific person or group and writing it from wikipedia's voice Edaham ( talk) 17:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I realize that this discussion had been had, but the citation of the 3 sources, NYT, PolitiFact, and by all means SNOPES are not at all convincing. All 3 articles are clearly partisan/biased on the question. And all 3 present the matter from the beginning in a very distorted light and do not present any new knowledge or any evidence to the contrary. The correct phrasing might be "unproven" but not "debunked". There is no question that the original Comet Ping Pong accusation is not proven by any direct evidence. And by now the chances for such proof should be near nil. It is also possible that the online instagram postings of the Comet Ping Pong associates might have been intended to raise a false panic about something that never occurred at that place, yet, may very well occur at other places, as victim accounts make highly probable. So saying that this was "debunked" is clearly disingenuous. Gschadow ( talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Archive itIt has been suggested (to me) that we archive Gschadow's interactions in order to draw a line under this. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) The opening of this FAQ section is full of venom and assumption of bad faith on other WP editors. The attempt is to shut up dissenters by ridicule and censorship. Nothing has been debunked. Gschadow ( talk) 15:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
You can't seem to wait to hide the issueAs with the original pizza gate issue, you are treating my comments the same superficial way. You construct a strawman to be able to "debunk it" and hide information. Nowhere did I say that you are threatening to kill me. I am saying that you are threatening to block me based on an issue you are taking with material I wrote, which you hide from anyone's view. So you are accusing me of something I did not do, without showing the evidence. And you keep threatening me with blocking me if I do not shut up. That is the issue at play in your treatment of my contention. I did say that I run the risk of being killed if my points were becoming famous and a cause for more people to wake up to the seriousness of the issue. Nothing is settled about the original issue that I brought up ("unproven but not debunked"). Nothing of substance of the pizza gate issue has been debunked. What the entire pizza gate article here does is distort and hide the real substance in order to create an appearance of "debunked" which does not hold water to any closer inspection. I gave the concise list of substance of the pizza gate issue, 7 points, that are public verifiable information, and none of that has been debunked by anyone. You and your biased "reliable sources" (LOL) are doing nothing but spewing ridicule and fighting strawmen while hiding the real issues. Now you can come again and tell me that I am assuming bad faith, but look what you do? You cannot wait to hide the contention! And you mock me telling me that I have not brought any substantial verifiable issues, yet when I did, you falsely accused me of something I didn't do and hid my entire list of substance that has not been debunked. Once again, nothing has been debunked. Only straw men. Gschadow ( talk) 15:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Any interest in compiling a list of issues that keep cropping up? I know you get tired of hearing the same old conspiracy theory nonsense, but you only have two choices: Engage the mouth-breathers or walk away. Just because you've explained why InfoWars is not a reliable source 100 times doesn't mean you can ignore the next rube. Wouldn't having a FAQ take some of the sting away? That man from Nantucket ( talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
OK lets see some suggested text. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay then, how's this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
(I hope no one minds, I moved the draft FAQ to Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/FAQ.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I too have made an "improvement".
Slatersteven (
talk)
16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Following up on the conversation brewing above about the use of primary sources in this article. MjolnirPants asks the reasonable question: How about adding to the "what about the emails" question a line about exactly what we can use such primary sources for?
I do not think this would be appropriate since there is no clear consensus answer to this question. The purpose of the FAQ is to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines and any firmly-established consensus that has been repeatedly challenged (so that the consensus doesn't have to be explained over and over and over again). The purpose of the FAQ is not to cut off at the knees debates that have not been fully resolved. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
16:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we please not edit war over this material? I happen to think it's not sufficiently worthy of inclusion, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, since these sorts of statements are said at almost every sentencing hearing. Defense lawyers advise their clients to say this sort of thing to draw sympathy from the judge and reduce their sentences. The argument that it was picked up by the news, therefore we should include it is directly contravened by WP:NOTNEWS. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 04:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I have heard a lot about this but still have no idea what was actually said. How about quoting some of the emails that were apparently suspicious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.226.166.166 ( talk) 09:23, 28 September 2017
It's an amazing Ligurian dish made with crushed walnuts made into a paste. So stop being so California, then someone will say this is pointless without analysis. Then were going to see additions explaining how this means a political party is run by pedophiles headquartered in a basement that doesn't exist and a t-shirt that says J'♥ L'Enfant refers to pedophilia instead of a café named after an American colonist who served under George Washington. Slippery slope. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Really? Might be time to update this - an stay posted because this rabbit hole goes DEEP. I'll be mass posting this tomorrow with countless others.. . 2600:8800:9C80:2B90:2855:D353:DA20:1CE3 ( talk) 13:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Except it hasnt been debunked. It was never properly investigated and the news screamed out FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS before any kind of investigation came out when at the very least an investigation was warranted. Ive never seen the news act this way in wake of a conspiracy theory before. (Removed horrendous WP:BLP violation.) There is obviously nothing to see here, move along folks. I would suggest taking "debunked" out of the article if you really want to be taken seriously as an unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.229.194 ( talk) 03:30, November 30, 2017 (UTC)
|
I was looking to start a new category, Category:2016 hoaxes, containing this article, but it’s semi-protected. LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 21:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
BullRangifer, can you please lay out the basis of your belief that the Skeptical Inquirer has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is therefore a reliable source in this context? I reviewed the RSN archives and saw there if there was any consensus, it was against. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked - O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't see fluoride in the water being a gay frog generating mind control substance prefixed with 'debunked'? What's the point in adding 'debunked' (and a bunch of citations) in front of the words 'conspiracy theory' besides to dog whistle given that this is a pseudo-political that we're of the Approved Narrative (TM) and virtuous? Really detracts from the article and credibility of the project when we have to prefix conspiracy theories with 'debunked'. Agendabender ( talk) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
|
It seems that the main sources of information and facts for this article are news outlets, most of which have reputations for being either left or right wing when it comes to political issues. I realize that there isn't a ton of scholarly writing about Pizzagate at this point but using news articles as fact, especially during the time of the election, can be extremely problematic. Just by clicking through some of the sources, you can see that they come from news outlets, of varying reliably and professionalism, but their facts are all being used equally in this article. Rb1157a ( talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Any uninformed person that reads this article to know more about it would think that the authors have some vested interest in making sure that the reader does not believe the conspiracy theory. The article should just present it as a conspiracy theory and keep all the arguments that debunk it, rather than saying that it is debunked every paragraph. Most decent articles on Wikipedia maintain a neutral tone, and it should be the case here as well, even if there is no proof that it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.177.58 ( talk) 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
"Pizzagate, a debunked[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] conspiracy theory" makes me laugh every time I see it. Surely it doesn't help - if part of the fear is the allegations against living people, then surely this sort of tone does more to incense and provoke people prone to paranoid or conspiratorial thinking than to write more "impartially". Maskettaman ( talk) 09:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Snopes is not a reliable source. 24.113.77.55 ( talk) 11:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
A lot has changed since 2013, hasn't it? Any 'recent' or relevant discussion on 'reliable' sources? Anyone rational or with any concern for truth would be open to re-visiting this 'question.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 ( talk) 12:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
update: I would also note, that through both linked 'discussions' between these 'editors' I found ZERO (0) references to any qualifications, primary sources, review, or even anything remotely resembling a professional process demonstrating the 'reliability' of the 'source' (snopes blog) in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 ( talk) 12:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I found ZERO (0) references to any qualifications, primary sources, review, or even anything remotely resembling a professional process demonstrating the 'reliability' of the 'source' (snopes blog) in question.All it takes is about 30 seconds of googling. Also, Snopes is not a blog, but a privately run, topical research publication (the topic being "rumors, urban legends and public claims of fact") with a well-defined mission (the mission being "exposing the truth of rumors, urban legends and public claims of fact"). This is similar to publications like the Skeptical Inquirer, which are equally reputable. You should probably start giving more credit to reputable publishing organizations than to chain emails forwarded to you by your grandmother if you actually values concepts like "truth". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Re the James Alefantis statement from http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/04/from-scratch-james-alefantis/
Does anyone know if Alefantis later clarified which building's basement he was talking about in this interview with Doug Rule? Was it a farmhouse / fruit cellar / warehouse associated with Comic Ping Pong which then delivered to them? I've seen this linked up with the "We don't even have a basement" statement from 2016 as if to disprove it but he never actually specifies which building's basement so it seems plausible it could have simply been another location owned by CPP for storing its ingredients? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 03:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
|
They are not storing 10 tons of tomatoes. But cooked and jarred pizza sauce. However, many jars 10 tons would get you once it is cooked down. This storage space is the basement of Alefanti's other restaurant Buck's Hunting and Fishing.
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi.
I came to this page while trying to research who Brittany Pettibone is.
Under the sub-heading 'Spread on Social Media' this Wikipedia page currently states: '...and has been promoted by alt-right activists such as Mike Cernovich, Brittany Pettibone, and Jack Posobiec.[12][19]'
Only the BBC article [12] refers to the "alt-right", and a close reading of both articles makes it hard to justify that each of the three persons named promoted the conspiracy theory.
(i) Jack Posobiec is only said to have investigated the conspiracy theory after the 2016 election - and that he found nothing to support them.[19]
(ii) Brittany Pettibone is quoted in tweets referring specifically to Tony Podesta's personal art collection [19] (which is not referred to within this Wikipedia page), saying that the truth will be "brought to light" by "citizen investigation" [12] and praising Jack Posobiec for investigating the conspiracy theory - even though, according to the WashPo article cited, he found nothing.[19]
(iii) Mike Cernovich has a sole tweet quoted, stating that the "story will be huge!" and linking to reddit.[12]
Whilst I accept that it is possible that each of the three people named may have "promoted" the specific conspiracy theory detailed within this Wikipedia page, I would suggest that the only one against whom a case could be made from the two cited articles is Mike Cernovich, as he is shown to have linked to the relevant reddit. (Calling for an investigation and/or investigating are not of themselves the same as promoting - regardless of one's view of the politics of the individuals concerned.)
I would therefore suggest that the names of Brittany Pettibone and Jack Posobiec are either removed from that sentence, or that the allegations against them are supplemented by additional citations (if any are available) that specifically address the allegations made on this Wikipedia page. 51.6.176.173 ( talk) 13:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Nice job. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove incorrect reference to "SubjectPolitics."
In the "Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory" Wikipedia page, there is an incorrect reference to the political blog SubjectPolitics.com, that should be taken out.
Under the sub-heading "Genesis," this page currently states "Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, including SubjectPolitics, which falsely claimed the New York Police Department had raided Hillary Clinton's property.[8]"
The Buzzfeed article cited [12] doesn't say SubjectPolitics "elaborated on" Adl-Tabatabai's story. Buzzfeed explicitly states that SubjectPolitics made an unrelated claim.
Buzzfeed says SubjectPolitics ran a misleading headline about Hillary's "property" being "raided," but clarifies that the SubjectPolitics post [13] was referring to was Hillary's "Property" in the form of her emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop that was seized by the FBI.
Here is the Buzzfeed Excerpt:
'While many sites simply repeated the details from Adl-Tabatabai, others introduced new, baseless claims. SubjectPolitics.com ran a story with the headline "IT’S OVER: NYPD Just Raided Hillary’s Property! What They Found Will RUIN HER LIFE." Er no, the NYPD did *not* raid property belonging to Hillary Clinton.'
'...(The story itself goes on to say that the "property" in question was any emails to or from Clinton that were on Weiner's laptop.)'
So Buzzfeed makes no claim that SubjectPolitics "spread" or "elaborated on" the Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory or Adl-Tabatabai's story, as this wikipedia page claims.
Also, this Wikipedia page refers to SubjectPolitics as a "fake news website" when they're typically classified as a right-wing partisan (or hyper-partisan) blog.
Media Bias/Fact Check rates SubjectPolitics as an extremely biased, and questionable source, but does not consider the site a "fake news" site. [14]
Please change:
"The theory was then posted on the message board Godlike Productions. The following day, the story was repeated on YourNewsWire citing a 4chan post from earlier that year.[8] Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, including SubjectPolitics, which falsely claimed the New York Police Department had raided Hillary Clinton's property.[8] The website Conservative Daily Post ran a headline falsely stating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had confirmed that story.[11]"
to
"The theory was then posted on the message board Godlike Productions. The following day, the story was repeated on YourNewsWire citing a 4chan post from earlier that year.[8] The website Conservative Daily Post ran a headline falsely stating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had confirmed that story.[11]"
Gwilson20 (
talk)
06:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion is to remove this sentence and replace it a more authoritative source
Old Sentence For example, The New York Times reported that the phrase "cheese pizza" was thought by a poster to 4chan to be a code word for child pornography since they had the same initials.[2]
New Sentence
The term "CP" had long been in use on boards like 4chan to refer to Child Pornography. Users would request that other users "Post CP." Later users began to parody this, by posting pictures of other different CP's like Captain Picard or Cheese Pizza. [1] Note: the phrase "cheese pizza" is not used at all in the Podesta emails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7204:1e00:91b2:5971:b151:5820 ( talk) 14:00, 23 April 2018
Unrelated to improving the article. See WP:TPG. clpo13( talk) 23:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't think Pizzagate is a debunked theory. How can you cite a New York Times news to say it was debunked. Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKRevolution ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
181.115.10.63 ( talk) 23:23, 27 June 2018 (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.
Having read the Talk page, I understand the official rationale for adding the debunked tag, all the same it's wrong. This has not been debunked because those that have claimed to have debunked it lack the capacity to debunk it. How on Earth can a newspaper uncover the truth in this? Did those involve allow the New York Times in to see everything? Did the New York Times fly down to Panama and question the police re: the sketches of the Podesta brothers? No. The New York Times "debunked" this article from the comfort of their desk chair in New York City. That is not debunking, that is putting the official narrative spin on something, filling the first 3 pages of Google with "debunked" stories so this inconvenient truth will go away. Worse is that a lot of WikiEditors here are so sanctimoniously holier than thou that they're fully willing to make blatant appeals to authority and personal attacks. That just exposes them for the fakes they are. Wikipedia is going to do what it's going to do, but that doesn't mean that this theory has truly been debunked. The circumstantial evidence is too great. 108.2.69.17 ( talk) 23:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The New York Times "debunked" this article from the comfort of their desk chair in New York City.122 journalists have been killed in Syria alone. In some hotspots, more journalists are killed than soldiers. Please don’t post this forum stuff here. O3000 ( talk) 00:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this page was tagged for GAN by a user who has not been involved with editing the article, and has since retired. Should the nomination still be considered active? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CaptainEek ( talk · contribs) 05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Howdy! I'm CaptainEek and I saw this page in need of a GA review. I note that the nominator
User:Money_emoji has by their
own admission not been very active in this article, but would like to be involved. Money Emoji: glad to have your involvement and hope ya stick around here on WP. This is my second GA review, so if I make any mistakes let me know! On cursory examination this page seems like it should pass GA, and seems to be in a stable place. It'll take me a day or two to get familiar with the article, check sources, etc.
Captain Eek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Issues below fixed |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Per
MOS:FNNR, Notes should have its own section above references
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | As far as I could tell every source was a reliable secondary source, and no WikiLeaks emails (primary source and big no-no) were included in the sources or the article |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | CopyVio came back with two violations and it seems that both the first article and the second were in fact plagiarizing Wikipedia and not the other way around. If someone could put the appropriate template about that on talk page that would be great, I forgot what it was called :) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Debunking section may be a bit off topic/into the weeds, especially with NYTimes bullet list
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | As the FAQ's on the talk page say, this article is not intended (nor should it) to lend credence to fringe views. Luckily I agree with that assessment, and think that the article is presented very properly |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit wars seem to be ongoing, checked talk page archives going back a year and found fairly low traffic, the only discussions seemed to be unrelated to content. Overall the edit traffic is pretty low - just fixing typos, formatting, small things. Not much vandalism either, but probably because its protected. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All were either the Users original work or were licensed via CC 2.0 on flickr. Document from US v. Welch a federal gov't document which means it is not subject to copyright. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Now thats what I call a Good Article! |
"Stefanie MacWilliams, who wrote an article promoting the conspiracy on Planet Free Will, was subsequently reported by the Toronto Star as saying, "I really have no regrets and it's honestly really grown our audience."" 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I am still reviewing this article, but if you are a longtime/frequent editor of this page and are familiar with it you are welcome to respond to me or make the changes I've already outlined. I need to make a very careful read through for wording still, but also need my beauty sleep so I don't turn into Cranky Eek instead of Captain Eek :)
Captain Eek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
07:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you folks for cooperating and working on this GAR! I should be able to wrap up my review within a day or so, and will then put the review on hold status while we all work out any kinks in the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the intro statement on the tweet from the so called lawyer: I didnt realize it had been workshopped before, in that case it should certainly stay as is (even tho it does read a bit wierd). I will find that archived discussion, and after a final run through this should be ready to pass GA. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This last round of editing has taken care of all issues I raised during this GA review. Thanks a ton to all the editors who have worked on this page, and a big shout out to the nominator Money_emoji, as well as the editors who helped with this review: MPants_at_work and GreenMeansGo. You are all equally deserving of the credit for getting this to GA status, and are all entitled to add a green plus to your WikiResume.
Why do we have a footnote detailing Alex Jone's defending InfoWars as not being fake news in a way that lends equal credence to the accusation and his defense?
I'm removing this note. Please discuss here before restoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
References
I'm actually not seeing anything at all about where this guy was actually sentenced. He was supposed to be sentenced in April of last year, but it looks like he just fell out of the news cycle and no one bothered to keep up with the details. GMG talk 15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I recently edited the lede to explain that the conspiracy was largely spread by Trump supporters and other Clinton opponents, as described by the BBC. I also think a Good Article should use better sources than a CNN opinion piece arguing that " Fake news is domestic terrorism". The edit was incidentally marked as "minor" because I also used a script to harmonize reference whitespace and forgot to uncheck the box. Falling Gravity 15:58, 24 August 2018 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This Wired article ( [1]) notes the existence of a wiki devoted soley to covering Pizzagate. Might be worth mentioning. - Indy beetle ( talk) 23:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
as of 29Aug2017 the site is down - here is an archive of it from may2017 [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan592 ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
as of 29Aug2017 the Pizzagatewiki page is down - here is an archive from may2017 [3] note: the wiki page was started 18Dec2016 -29Aug2017 and had 15,953 URLs (wayback machine: [4]) New Topics
|
Enough fun. Hat before the humor police show up. Objective3000 ( talk) 00:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Pizza gate is proven fact and there has been arrests made period so how do you ( Personal attack removed) support false facts and covering up sick nasty shit that has taken place ? Like why is it not changed ? Cuz Alex pizza gate jones says it's not real well he would say that when he is part of it but anyway it's a fact that's it true and not a conspiracy theory so fix it like wake up Craiggod ( talk) 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
|
FYI, the OP is using User:Hpfan592 as a linkfarm for all this conspiracy nuttery. Not sure what can e done about that, nominate the userpage for deletion? TheValeyard ( talk) 00:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I've edited the FAQ with the intention of making it less personal by not addressing any specific person or group and writing it from wikipedia's voice Edaham ( talk) 17:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I realize that this discussion had been had, but the citation of the 3 sources, NYT, PolitiFact, and by all means SNOPES are not at all convincing. All 3 articles are clearly partisan/biased on the question. And all 3 present the matter from the beginning in a very distorted light and do not present any new knowledge or any evidence to the contrary. The correct phrasing might be "unproven" but not "debunked". There is no question that the original Comet Ping Pong accusation is not proven by any direct evidence. And by now the chances for such proof should be near nil. It is also possible that the online instagram postings of the Comet Ping Pong associates might have been intended to raise a false panic about something that never occurred at that place, yet, may very well occur at other places, as victim accounts make highly probable. So saying that this was "debunked" is clearly disingenuous. Gschadow ( talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Archive itIt has been suggested (to me) that we archive Gschadow's interactions in order to draw a line under this. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) The opening of this FAQ section is full of venom and assumption of bad faith on other WP editors. The attempt is to shut up dissenters by ridicule and censorship. Nothing has been debunked. Gschadow ( talk) 15:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
You can't seem to wait to hide the issueAs with the original pizza gate issue, you are treating my comments the same superficial way. You construct a strawman to be able to "debunk it" and hide information. Nowhere did I say that you are threatening to kill me. I am saying that you are threatening to block me based on an issue you are taking with material I wrote, which you hide from anyone's view. So you are accusing me of something I did not do, without showing the evidence. And you keep threatening me with blocking me if I do not shut up. That is the issue at play in your treatment of my contention. I did say that I run the risk of being killed if my points were becoming famous and a cause for more people to wake up to the seriousness of the issue. Nothing is settled about the original issue that I brought up ("unproven but not debunked"). Nothing of substance of the pizza gate issue has been debunked. What the entire pizza gate article here does is distort and hide the real substance in order to create an appearance of "debunked" which does not hold water to any closer inspection. I gave the concise list of substance of the pizza gate issue, 7 points, that are public verifiable information, and none of that has been debunked by anyone. You and your biased "reliable sources" (LOL) are doing nothing but spewing ridicule and fighting strawmen while hiding the real issues. Now you can come again and tell me that I am assuming bad faith, but look what you do? You cannot wait to hide the contention! And you mock me telling me that I have not brought any substantial verifiable issues, yet when I did, you falsely accused me of something I didn't do and hid my entire list of substance that has not been debunked. Once again, nothing has been debunked. Only straw men. Gschadow ( talk) 15:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Any interest in compiling a list of issues that keep cropping up? I know you get tired of hearing the same old conspiracy theory nonsense, but you only have two choices: Engage the mouth-breathers or walk away. Just because you've explained why InfoWars is not a reliable source 100 times doesn't mean you can ignore the next rube. Wouldn't having a FAQ take some of the sting away? That man from Nantucket ( talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
OK lets see some suggested text. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay then, how's this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
(I hope no one minds, I moved the draft FAQ to Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/FAQ.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I too have made an "improvement".
Slatersteven (
talk)
16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Following up on the conversation brewing above about the use of primary sources in this article. MjolnirPants asks the reasonable question: How about adding to the "what about the emails" question a line about exactly what we can use such primary sources for?
I do not think this would be appropriate since there is no clear consensus answer to this question. The purpose of the FAQ is to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines and any firmly-established consensus that has been repeatedly challenged (so that the consensus doesn't have to be explained over and over and over again). The purpose of the FAQ is not to cut off at the knees debates that have not been fully resolved. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk)
16:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we please not edit war over this material? I happen to think it's not sufficiently worthy of inclusion, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, since these sorts of statements are said at almost every sentencing hearing. Defense lawyers advise their clients to say this sort of thing to draw sympathy from the judge and reduce their sentences. The argument that it was picked up by the news, therefore we should include it is directly contravened by WP:NOTNEWS. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 04:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I have heard a lot about this but still have no idea what was actually said. How about quoting some of the emails that were apparently suspicious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.226.166.166 ( talk) 09:23, 28 September 2017
It's an amazing Ligurian dish made with crushed walnuts made into a paste. So stop being so California, then someone will say this is pointless without analysis. Then were going to see additions explaining how this means a political party is run by pedophiles headquartered in a basement that doesn't exist and a t-shirt that says J'♥ L'Enfant refers to pedophilia instead of a café named after an American colonist who served under George Washington. Slippery slope. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Really? Might be time to update this - an stay posted because this rabbit hole goes DEEP. I'll be mass posting this tomorrow with countless others.. . 2600:8800:9C80:2B90:2855:D353:DA20:1CE3 ( talk) 13:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Except it hasnt been debunked. It was never properly investigated and the news screamed out FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS before any kind of investigation came out when at the very least an investigation was warranted. Ive never seen the news act this way in wake of a conspiracy theory before. (Removed horrendous WP:BLP violation.) There is obviously nothing to see here, move along folks. I would suggest taking "debunked" out of the article if you really want to be taken seriously as an unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.229.194 ( talk) 03:30, November 30, 2017 (UTC)
|
I was looking to start a new category, Category:2016 hoaxes, containing this article, but it’s semi-protected. LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 21:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
BullRangifer, can you please lay out the basis of your belief that the Skeptical Inquirer has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is therefore a reliable source in this context? I reviewed the RSN archives and saw there if there was any consensus, it was against. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked - O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't see fluoride in the water being a gay frog generating mind control substance prefixed with 'debunked'? What's the point in adding 'debunked' (and a bunch of citations) in front of the words 'conspiracy theory' besides to dog whistle given that this is a pseudo-political that we're of the Approved Narrative (TM) and virtuous? Really detracts from the article and credibility of the project when we have to prefix conspiracy theories with 'debunked'. Agendabender ( talk) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
|
It seems that the main sources of information and facts for this article are news outlets, most of which have reputations for being either left or right wing when it comes to political issues. I realize that there isn't a ton of scholarly writing about Pizzagate at this point but using news articles as fact, especially during the time of the election, can be extremely problematic. Just by clicking through some of the sources, you can see that they come from news outlets, of varying reliably and professionalism, but their facts are all being used equally in this article. Rb1157a ( talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Any uninformed person that reads this article to know more about it would think that the authors have some vested interest in making sure that the reader does not believe the conspiracy theory. The article should just present it as a conspiracy theory and keep all the arguments that debunk it, rather than saying that it is debunked every paragraph. Most decent articles on Wikipedia maintain a neutral tone, and it should be the case here as well, even if there is no proof that it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.177.58 ( talk) 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
"Pizzagate, a debunked[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] conspiracy theory" makes me laugh every time I see it. Surely it doesn't help - if part of the fear is the allegations against living people, then surely this sort of tone does more to incense and provoke people prone to paranoid or conspiratorial thinking than to write more "impartially". Maskettaman ( talk) 09:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Snopes is not a reliable source. 24.113.77.55 ( talk) 11:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
A lot has changed since 2013, hasn't it? Any 'recent' or relevant discussion on 'reliable' sources? Anyone rational or with any concern for truth would be open to re-visiting this 'question.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 ( talk) 12:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
update: I would also note, that through both linked 'discussions' between these 'editors' I found ZERO (0) references to any qualifications, primary sources, review, or even anything remotely resembling a professional process demonstrating the 'reliability' of the 'source' (snopes blog) in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 ( talk) 12:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I found ZERO (0) references to any qualifications, primary sources, review, or even anything remotely resembling a professional process demonstrating the 'reliability' of the 'source' (snopes blog) in question.All it takes is about 30 seconds of googling. Also, Snopes is not a blog, but a privately run, topical research publication (the topic being "rumors, urban legends and public claims of fact") with a well-defined mission (the mission being "exposing the truth of rumors, urban legends and public claims of fact"). This is similar to publications like the Skeptical Inquirer, which are equally reputable. You should probably start giving more credit to reputable publishing organizations than to chain emails forwarded to you by your grandmother if you actually values concepts like "truth". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Re the James Alefantis statement from http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/04/from-scratch-james-alefantis/
Does anyone know if Alefantis later clarified which building's basement he was talking about in this interview with Doug Rule? Was it a farmhouse / fruit cellar / warehouse associated with Comic Ping Pong which then delivered to them? I've seen this linked up with the "We don't even have a basement" statement from 2016 as if to disprove it but he never actually specifies which building's basement so it seems plausible it could have simply been another location owned by CPP for storing its ingredients? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 03:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
|
They are not storing 10 tons of tomatoes. But cooked and jarred pizza sauce. However, many jars 10 tons would get you once it is cooked down. This storage space is the basement of Alefanti's other restaurant Buck's Hunting and Fishing.
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi.
I came to this page while trying to research who Brittany Pettibone is.
Under the sub-heading 'Spread on Social Media' this Wikipedia page currently states: '...and has been promoted by alt-right activists such as Mike Cernovich, Brittany Pettibone, and Jack Posobiec.[12][19]'
Only the BBC article [12] refers to the "alt-right", and a close reading of both articles makes it hard to justify that each of the three persons named promoted the conspiracy theory.
(i) Jack Posobiec is only said to have investigated the conspiracy theory after the 2016 election - and that he found nothing to support them.[19]
(ii) Brittany Pettibone is quoted in tweets referring specifically to Tony Podesta's personal art collection [19] (which is not referred to within this Wikipedia page), saying that the truth will be "brought to light" by "citizen investigation" [12] and praising Jack Posobiec for investigating the conspiracy theory - even though, according to the WashPo article cited, he found nothing.[19]
(iii) Mike Cernovich has a sole tweet quoted, stating that the "story will be huge!" and linking to reddit.[12]
Whilst I accept that it is possible that each of the three people named may have "promoted" the specific conspiracy theory detailed within this Wikipedia page, I would suggest that the only one against whom a case could be made from the two cited articles is Mike Cernovich, as he is shown to have linked to the relevant reddit. (Calling for an investigation and/or investigating are not of themselves the same as promoting - regardless of one's view of the politics of the individuals concerned.)
I would therefore suggest that the names of Brittany Pettibone and Jack Posobiec are either removed from that sentence, or that the allegations against them are supplemented by additional citations (if any are available) that specifically address the allegations made on this Wikipedia page. 51.6.176.173 ( talk) 13:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Nice job. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove incorrect reference to "SubjectPolitics."
In the "Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory" Wikipedia page, there is an incorrect reference to the political blog SubjectPolitics.com, that should be taken out.
Under the sub-heading "Genesis," this page currently states "Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, including SubjectPolitics, which falsely claimed the New York Police Department had raided Hillary Clinton's property.[8]"
The Buzzfeed article cited [12] doesn't say SubjectPolitics "elaborated on" Adl-Tabatabai's story. Buzzfeed explicitly states that SubjectPolitics made an unrelated claim.
Buzzfeed says SubjectPolitics ran a misleading headline about Hillary's "property" being "raided," but clarifies that the SubjectPolitics post [13] was referring to was Hillary's "Property" in the form of her emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop that was seized by the FBI.
Here is the Buzzfeed Excerpt:
'While many sites simply repeated the details from Adl-Tabatabai, others introduced new, baseless claims. SubjectPolitics.com ran a story with the headline "IT’S OVER: NYPD Just Raided Hillary’s Property! What They Found Will RUIN HER LIFE." Er no, the NYPD did *not* raid property belonging to Hillary Clinton.'
'...(The story itself goes on to say that the "property" in question was any emails to or from Clinton that were on Weiner's laptop.)'
So Buzzfeed makes no claim that SubjectPolitics "spread" or "elaborated on" the Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory or Adl-Tabatabai's story, as this wikipedia page claims.
Also, this Wikipedia page refers to SubjectPolitics as a "fake news website" when they're typically classified as a right-wing partisan (or hyper-partisan) blog.
Media Bias/Fact Check rates SubjectPolitics as an extremely biased, and questionable source, but does not consider the site a "fake news" site. [14]
Please change:
"The theory was then posted on the message board Godlike Productions. The following day, the story was repeated on YourNewsWire citing a 4chan post from earlier that year.[8] Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, including SubjectPolitics, which falsely claimed the New York Police Department had raided Hillary Clinton's property.[8] The website Conservative Daily Post ran a headline falsely stating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had confirmed that story.[11]"
to
"The theory was then posted on the message board Godlike Productions. The following day, the story was repeated on YourNewsWire citing a 4chan post from earlier that year.[8] The website Conservative Daily Post ran a headline falsely stating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had confirmed that story.[11]"
Gwilson20 (
talk)
06:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion is to remove this sentence and replace it a more authoritative source
Old Sentence For example, The New York Times reported that the phrase "cheese pizza" was thought by a poster to 4chan to be a code word for child pornography since they had the same initials.[2]
New Sentence
The term "CP" had long been in use on boards like 4chan to refer to Child Pornography. Users would request that other users "Post CP." Later users began to parody this, by posting pictures of other different CP's like Captain Picard or Cheese Pizza. [1] Note: the phrase "cheese pizza" is not used at all in the Podesta emails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7204:1e00:91b2:5971:b151:5820 ( talk) 14:00, 23 April 2018
Unrelated to improving the article. See WP:TPG. clpo13( talk) 23:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't think Pizzagate is a debunked theory. How can you cite a New York Times news to say it was debunked. Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKRevolution ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
181.115.10.63 ( talk) 23:23, 27 June 2018 (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.
Having read the Talk page, I understand the official rationale for adding the debunked tag, all the same it's wrong. This has not been debunked because those that have claimed to have debunked it lack the capacity to debunk it. How on Earth can a newspaper uncover the truth in this? Did those involve allow the New York Times in to see everything? Did the New York Times fly down to Panama and question the police re: the sketches of the Podesta brothers? No. The New York Times "debunked" this article from the comfort of their desk chair in New York City. That is not debunking, that is putting the official narrative spin on something, filling the first 3 pages of Google with "debunked" stories so this inconvenient truth will go away. Worse is that a lot of WikiEditors here are so sanctimoniously holier than thou that they're fully willing to make blatant appeals to authority and personal attacks. That just exposes them for the fakes they are. Wikipedia is going to do what it's going to do, but that doesn't mean that this theory has truly been debunked. The circumstantial evidence is too great. 108.2.69.17 ( talk) 23:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The New York Times "debunked" this article from the comfort of their desk chair in New York City.122 journalists have been killed in Syria alone. In some hotspots, more journalists are killed than soldiers. Please don’t post this forum stuff here. O3000 ( talk) 00:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this page was tagged for GAN by a user who has not been involved with editing the article, and has since retired. Should the nomination still be considered active? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CaptainEek ( talk · contribs) 05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Howdy! I'm CaptainEek and I saw this page in need of a GA review. I note that the nominator
User:Money_emoji has by their
own admission not been very active in this article, but would like to be involved. Money Emoji: glad to have your involvement and hope ya stick around here on WP. This is my second GA review, so if I make any mistakes let me know! On cursory examination this page seems like it should pass GA, and seems to be in a stable place. It'll take me a day or two to get familiar with the article, check sources, etc.
Captain Eek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Issues below fixed |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Per
MOS:FNNR, Notes should have its own section above references
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | As far as I could tell every source was a reliable secondary source, and no WikiLeaks emails (primary source and big no-no) were included in the sources or the article |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | CopyVio came back with two violations and it seems that both the first article and the second were in fact plagiarizing Wikipedia and not the other way around. If someone could put the appropriate template about that on talk page that would be great, I forgot what it was called :) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Debunking section may be a bit off topic/into the weeds, especially with NYTimes bullet list
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | As the FAQ's on the talk page say, this article is not intended (nor should it) to lend credence to fringe views. Luckily I agree with that assessment, and think that the article is presented very properly |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit wars seem to be ongoing, checked talk page archives going back a year and found fairly low traffic, the only discussions seemed to be unrelated to content. Overall the edit traffic is pretty low - just fixing typos, formatting, small things. Not much vandalism either, but probably because its protected. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All were either the Users original work or were licensed via CC 2.0 on flickr. Document from US v. Welch a federal gov't document which means it is not subject to copyright. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Now thats what I call a Good Article! |
"Stefanie MacWilliams, who wrote an article promoting the conspiracy on Planet Free Will, was subsequently reported by the Toronto Star as saying, "I really have no regrets and it's honestly really grown our audience."" 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I am still reviewing this article, but if you are a longtime/frequent editor of this page and are familiar with it you are welcome to respond to me or make the changes I've already outlined. I need to make a very careful read through for wording still, but also need my beauty sleep so I don't turn into Cranky Eek instead of Captain Eek :)
Captain Eek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
07:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you folks for cooperating and working on this GAR! I should be able to wrap up my review within a day or so, and will then put the review on hold status while we all work out any kinks in the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the intro statement on the tweet from the so called lawyer: I didnt realize it had been workshopped before, in that case it should certainly stay as is (even tho it does read a bit wierd). I will find that archived discussion, and after a final run through this should be ready to pass GA. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
This last round of editing has taken care of all issues I raised during this GA review. Thanks a ton to all the editors who have worked on this page, and a big shout out to the nominator Money_emoji, as well as the editors who helped with this review: MPants_at_work and GreenMeansGo. You are all equally deserving of the credit for getting this to GA status, and are all entitled to add a green plus to your WikiResume.
Why do we have a footnote detailing Alex Jone's defending InfoWars as not being fake news in a way that lends equal credence to the accusation and his defense?
I'm removing this note. Please discuss here before restoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
References
I'm actually not seeing anything at all about where this guy was actually sentenced. He was supposed to be sentenced in April of last year, but it looks like he just fell out of the news cycle and no one bothered to keep up with the details. GMG talk 15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I recently edited the lede to explain that the conspiracy was largely spread by Trump supporters and other Clinton opponents, as described by the BBC. I also think a Good Article should use better sources than a CNN opinion piece arguing that " Fake news is domestic terrorism". The edit was incidentally marked as "minor" because I also used a script to harmonize reference whitespace and forgot to uncheck the box. Falling Gravity 15:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)