![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The result of the move request was: No consensus, therefore, not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Pizzagate conspiracy theory → Pizzagate – The last discussion, two years ago when this was still recent, concluded with no consensus to move to Pizzagate. Now that almost two years have passed, we can better look at any long-term significance this might have. In the previous discussion, there were mostly two concerns: recentism and not including the "conspiracy theory" label in the title. I don't think recentism still applies, as promoting Pizzagate has become a very significant and consistently applied label for plenty of people, and many conspiracy theories have been compared to Pizzagate by reliable sources. There has been a lot of coverage of Pizzagate since the last requested move: [1] [2] [3] [4] With regards to the second issue that was discussed, the "conspiracy theory" descriptor in the title, there was concerns that this was inconsistent with other (cherry-picked) articles and that it somehow implies that the theory is true. That's not really the case, since a very similar conspiracy theory, Qanon, also begins the article with "_____ is a conspiracy theory which ..." and also doesn't have "conspiracy theory" in its title. Unless "conspiracy theory" is somehow part of the name of the conspiracy theory, the current title fails the WP:ATDAB policy as it is not covered by any of the listed disambiguation types. wumbolo ^^^ 20:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic.. 14:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC) O3000 ( talk)
allowed to use the OEDYou still can't use RS to support something the RS doesn't say.
shared with William Safirecitation needed
More cites at.relevant? GMG talk 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
And the OED examination has no bearing or commentary on whether the suffix implies that the allegations are credible.And possibly
That doesn't really have anything to do with what part of "Pizzagate is the COMMONNAME for the subject" includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons.Since no one has actually addressed either of those points. GMG talk 16:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Since no one has actually addressed either of those points.We have, it's just not been made clear: Me and the others who've mentioned BLP are of the opinion that the BLP issues override the problem with COMMONNAME. You may disagree that the proposed name has BLP issues, but that is why we have these discussions; to arrive at a consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, they found that BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, 'Chelsea Manning'." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Evaluation of consensus) wumbolo ^^^ 16:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
your last question is answered by the nomination, if you've even read it.No, it isn't. Hence why a half dozen people have said the same exact thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
the article is not about "Pizzagate"what?! Of course it is; it isn't about North Atlantic Deep Water. We have plenty of articles on things that don't exist.
we continue to call this what this isthat's the worst non-argument I've seen in this discussion so far. So why don't we even more accurately call this what it is: "Created by conspiracy theorists for conspiracy theorists, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, originally spread in the U.S. but the Internet is a global phenomenon"? wumbolo ^^^ 13:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the thing we’re calling Pizzagate? Is it a scandal? A conspiracy theory? A made-up concept?
If Pizzagate is not the name of a scandal, how can calling it Pizzagate be calling it a scandal?
If Pizzagate must be the name of a scandal because it ends in “gate”, what then is “Pizzagate conspiracy theory”? A conspiracy theory surrounding the actual and real scandal known as Pizzagate?
If anything ending in “gate” must be a scandal, but this definitely is not a scandal, shouldn’t we avoid calling it a “gate” entirely?
— 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I poked holes in those arguments.LOL Good one. You can think you're doing whatever you want, but your whole argument was refuted before you even made it. The fact that you can't understand those refutations is really immaterial, though luckily for you, O3000 has the patience to at least try to explain them using small words. And Batman. Everybody loves Batman. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please either cite the BBC
INTEXT where
§ Spread on social media directly quotes their use of the mainstream internet
, or remove or rephrase the quote; the use of quotation marks without context makes it look like
scare quotes.
151.132.206.26 (
talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
in addition to an inline citation at the end of the sentence. Or do we need to have an RFC about rewriting that section of the guideline? — 151.132.206.26 ( talk) 21:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Everybody take a breath, please. Everyone's made their points pretty clearly a couple of times. Mocking and sarcasm (from everyone here) is not helpful. I'd like to try and zoom back in on the WP:MOLEHILL, if I may.
I agree with MPants and O3000 that it's not an unreasonable request. I also agree with them that it doesn't read as scare quotes - the "mainstream" internet
would be scare quotes, but as is I don't see it. Removing the quotation marks when we all agree that we're quoting the BBC article moves closer to plagiarism, which I'm not willing to do. As such, IMO we're either rewording it a bit or leaving it as is, and I'm fine with either of these options. @IP - this is your request, so I'd like to hear your
specific suggestion for rewording, and then go from there. ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?) 23:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@ MPants at work: I (the same anon editor) sincerely apologize for any offense. I meant none, and clearly failed to make my intended tone (or lack of one) clear. And you’re right—my read of the guideline was to take the one example that includes a direct, quotation-marked quote as the example of how to handle direct quotes. The other examples all use indirect quotes or paraphrasing, and some of those with no attribution, which I thought I initially suggested as an alternative here (apologies if I wsa unclear in that). I’m not trying to say this is why I’m right; I’m saying this is what I understand it to be. It could very well be I’m misreading the guideline, but I’m genuinely not sure how when we’re working with a sample size of 1 in those examples. Could you explain your take on it?
As for alternative phrasings: the internet at large? The rest of the internet? Spread across the internet? More well-known/popular websites [than 4chan]? Something along those lines, but hopefully better written. I also agree with those claiming the term is common enough to just use it. But if for some reason we’re intent on keeping the wording as is and as a quote, the most recent edit seems ideal. And this seems less than likely, but we could just gloss the term if we wanted to use it multiple times throughout, and there’d be no question who said it, it’s just a thing we’re defining. — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 03:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Some editors find Pizzagate problematic because (although in common use) the name could be seen to imply a legitimate scandal involving living persons. Some editors find Pizzagate conspiracy theory problematic because it looks like unnecessary and unconventional disambiguation. What say you to a completely descriptive title that avoids these issues by avoiding the name? Someone above suggested Comet Ping Pong child sex ring conspiracy theory, but I don’t know if we should tie the restaurant’s name to it. — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 03:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please un-bold "Pizzagate" in the lead per MOS:BEATLESINUS, or rewrite the sentence to include the full title. 151.132.206.26 ( talk) 23:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please un-bold "Pizzagate" in the lead per MOS:BEATLESINUS, or rewrite the sentence to include the full title. 151.132.206.26 ( talk) 23:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed that the emails contained coded messages" to "Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory claimed that the emails contained coded messages" Stalkad ( talk) 23:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia "summarizes reliable sources", but we should seek as much as possible to maintain high standards of academic discourse that keep with established standards and customs of journalism and academic writing. With this in mind, it's worth mentioning that it extremely extremely unusual to describe an opposing view or set of claims as being false - generally only when the opposing position has been logically or empirically proven to be false. In fact if you look at the Wikipedia pages for other conspiracy theories, the authors generally make no use of predicates like "false" or "wrong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4E00:55A0:F921:DB45:74B5:DB57 ( talk) 18:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Money emoji, I suggest you immediately self-revert your renewed deletion. You broke BRD. You may not have noticed the DS notice at the top of this page, but you just violated it and can be blocked without warning. An immediate self-revert will often head that off. We all make mistakes.
You must follow WP:BRD in a case like this. Instead of waiting for you to start the Discussion part of BRD, I have started it for you.
That content is indeed long-standing, even by your definition, and it's pretty fundamental to this article. This started with conspiracy theory mongering. You need a clear consensus to remove such content, so if it really means that much to you, you need to engage in a discussion and convince other editors who watch this page. If that doesn't work, only then should you start an RfC on the matter. BTW, we do not delete deadlinks here, and the reason that tweet is "dead" is because it was deleted, so it's not really dead in the traditional sense. That guy is still pumping out hateful conspiracy theories about Hillary and Podesta. Some people seem to thrive on deception. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Not relevant to this article O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can someone add something about Epstein? This is relevant and complicates the narrative. It should be at least noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.202.154 ( talk) 13:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
|
There's many pizza restaurants in DC. Why was this one targeted, specifically? 108.200.234.93 ( talk) 12:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the boldface from the opening sentence. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, the partial title “Pizzagate” should not be bolded in the lead. 96.8.24.95 ( talk) 23:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
RandyAndyPandy ( talk) 02:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Message decoding:
Keywords that are used for this type of talks, mail, etc.
Hotdog = Boy Pizza = Girl Cheese = Little girl Pasta = Little boy Ice cream = Male prostitute Walnut = Person of colour Map = Semen Sauce = Orgy Dominoes = Domination Pillows = Drugs Oysters = Sedatives Chicken = Young boy Siu Angel ( talk) 17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
when reading on the primary sources description, i suppose they are personal accounts of the situation, but the whole point of pizzagate was to analyze the entirety of the DNC and Podesta leaks for literally any corruption, and their main goal was to figure out what they called "the clinton money laundering machine". so, it's weird cause they're writing to and about themselves, so we can't link to direct evidence of a 'scandal' if its from the individual who committed it?
what concerns me about every discussion about pizzagate, is I never hear anyone talk about the Clinton Foundation General investigation (hereafter /CFG/). that was the backbone of pizzagate, and was the main loosely organized internet op that did all of pizzagate. if you couldn't sift through emails for relevant info or extrapolate further connection between individuals, event, and organizations, then you could make memes, if you couldn't make memes, you could share memes. and thus, there was an organized campaign to spread all the information they could find. and the comet ping pong caught on hardest because it was tabloid, strange, easily meme'd. i know google has done a lot of work to hide the documents, but i can usually find it again by following links through forums and archived pages. and this thing was like a thousand pages long. they would dump info as they found it, then others would go back over it, and connect any dots and place those snips of info under the relevant pages dedicated to that group or individual.
/CFG/ main doc. there should be other versions outside of scribd, but this will atleas show you what your looking for if you don't have an account. https://www.scribd.com/document/329527190/329473424-Clinton-Foundation-General-CFG-Google-Document-as-of-October-30-2016
one of their primary spreadsheets on the e-mails and the only things they found relevant or damming. https://drive.google.com/open?id=150761QowC0yKnjDQl-duanMVLUcQXihA
understand, being 4 years ago, and all the rampant internet cleanup has broken many links. i had save a couple links and docs i remember seeing when i find em, cause 4chan organizing their manpower is a really interesting thing to witness. and the internet isn't supposed to forget things ever occurred. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Squidfaic (
talk •
contribs) 05:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
seeing as its october 30th, i imagine that was probably the most up to date snapshot. but this [originally a google doc] IS pizzagate. this is the origin of pizzagate itself, even if you claim it was a social media phenomenon, it was an orchestrated phenomenon by these guys. and so i don't understand how people have completely blown over this in their investigating. it seems wrong to paint it as an absurd natural phenomenon when it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidfaic ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
New Jersey Corrections Officer Charged with Receipt of Child Pornography and admits "Cheese Pizza" is a reference to child pornography. 10/19/17 https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/press-release/file/1005496/download Maybe pizzagate is not a consipiracy theory. 2601:282:4003:ADB0:D90C:A22E:4C32:504 ( talk) 15:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will start with the very intro:
Right from the start with the phrase "debunked conspiracy theory", this article is clearly stating that a "conspiracy theory" might have some factual merit until it's proven otherwise. The tone of this article is so ironic it's painful when juxtaposed against the behaviours and attitudes of many Wikipedia editors who demand the "evidence" for even most innocuous edits (cue edit war).
Yet when it comes to applying the same sort of scepticism to the very articles that make up this site, that logic goes out the window, and suspension of belief is permitted. The whole article is back to front. First it outlined how it got started, spread, who was involved, etc. It's only when you read the bottom third does the actual rebuttals start. But then it goes up with the a section entitled entitled "Debunking" like any of this "Bullsh;t" needs any rebuttals! The claims and lies should be an addendum at the end of the article, this article should be about the harm this did very innocent people by sick individuals. It shouldn't be - well here are all the facts - but they're all false! 81.147.178.87 ( talk) 13:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That cause this: Debunking The conspiracy theory has been widely discredited and debunked. It has been judged to be false after detailed investigation by the fact-checking website Snopes.com and The New York Times.[47][61][62] Numerous news organizations have debunked it as a conspiracy theory, including: the New York Observer,[63] The Washington Post,[64] The Independent in London,[65] The Huffington Post,[66] The Washington Times,[67] the Los Angeles Times,[68] Fox News,[69] CNN,[70] and the Miami Herald.[5] The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia characterized the matter as "fictitious". So the theory was debunked by same people and organization who are all behind this? LOL! 95.103.233.36 ( talk) 13:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Bynk
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PIZZAGATE IS REAL 2600:1700:B6F0:1ED0:A1EA:B29D:CD62:E545 ( talk) 11:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The title of this article should be “pizzagate conspiracy hypothesis”, as this is not a proven event. Sajjad664 ( talk) 07:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please update this page with more current links and more content 99.35.61.207 ( talk) 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It's literally been debunked. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
It isn’t debunked, Hillary Clinton lost the appeal in court about the email now she has to testify stop trying to feed people false information so they believe whatever narrative you have goin on 24.74.58.170 ( talk) 04:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
|
It's literally been debunked. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
I'm the first sentence, ("Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle.) And the fifth, (Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed the emails contained coded messages that connected several high-ranking Democratic Party officials and U.S. restaurants with an alleged human trafficking and child sex ring.) The words "debunked" and "falsely" should be ommited. As this is a conspiracy theory, the accounts of higher powers shouldn't affect the credibility of this theory. And the reader should be able to decide for themselves. Pryerat ( talk) 19:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
|
It's literally been debunked. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
It’s not debunked. 2600:6C46:4B00:106B:1C63:F9E:6CE2:2C08 ( talk) 05:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Having looked through similar conspiracy theory wiki pages, e.g. just looking through List of conspiracy theories, it appears that Pizzagate is treated uniquely in being described as 'debunked'. It appears that similar pages refer to 'claims' being 'debunked' but not conspiracy theories as a whole. Seems tautological to describe it as a conspiracy theory but at the same time describe it as debunked. Also, have looked at the above discussion as was suggested and the citations for the first sentence of the article re why 'debunked' is deemed appropriate. On this I would say that none of these articles actually 'debunk' the theory, this appears to be opinion: NYT article describes the theory as false but provides a timeline and no actual 'debunking'; PolitiFact article again describes the theory as false on some occasions but this appears to be largely opinion as the article also presents a timeline and even debunks claims of debunking; Snopes (is this a reliable source?) although concludes that the theory is false also says "we are unable to locate any substantive aspect of the claims that could be fact-checked or otherwise held up to the light to determine their veracity" - this is not debunking. I suggest that 'debunked' as a description for this theory is removed as the evidence for its debunking in the 'debunking' section is sufficient. HEditsH ( talk) 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
|
The archives are a complete mess. Some pages only have one or two tiny threads. Unless there's any objections, I plan on spending a couple days consolidating the archives into fewer pages & following current naming conventions (ie. "Archive 1, Archive 2," etc.), then PRODing the old pages for deletion. Just wanted to drop a note here in case anyone objects. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 14:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It's literally been debunked. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am not very happy about the way this article is written. I would say that the Pizzagate theory (the name of the theory definitely should no way include the term 'conspiracy theory'!) is unproven but not debunked or proven false. Certain details may have been shown to be incorrect, but there may still be some core truth. It is not impossible that those people who may be implicated themselves added the false details to the theory in order to make it easier to discredit. This is a standard tactic. Some of the reasons against the theory given in the article are lame, specifically: (1) >Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia. However, The Times noted similarities were also found in the logos of a number of unrelated companies, such as AOL, Time Warner, and MSN.< So what? The logos aren't the only evidence for the theory. If the theory is true, then one would expect such logos, which would have to be relatively subtle. The place isn't gonna advertise its covert business in big neon signs! The unrelated companies might also have similar logos for similar reasons! (2) >Theorists claimed an underground network beneath Comet Ping Pong; the restaurant has no basement, however, and the picture used to support this claim was taken in another facility.< I have seen something credible on YouTube which suggests that although Comet Ping Pong does not technically have a basement (belonging to it), it does have a "permanently locked" door leading to old railway tunnels under the city. The fact that 'the picture used to support this claim was taken in another facility' is unfortunate, but inconclusive. ... Skepticemia ( talk) 10:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
theory /ˈθɪəri/ noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Note a theory is "intended to explain something", A theory is not a random and spurious accusation. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
|
It's literally been debunked. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Could we go ahead and get rid of the term “debunked” in this? It has not been debunked. Thanks! Gonk178 ( talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
|
This article should not exists because it will lead to a deadly with hunt in a few months from now. Corporatechildslave ( talk) 08:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
69.146.76.87 ( talk) 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
yall really want everyone to believe this is a conspiracy when its right in our faces lMAO
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/9/1870513/-Jeffrey-Epstein-is-Pizzagate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.58.155.14 ( talk) 11:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Are we sure this is not proven true? This article was just released a couple days ago: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/28/paedophiles-using-cheese-pizza-emojis-secret-code-social-media/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z-vap ( talk 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add third sentence to first paragraph under the heading "Criminal Responses": "Welch believe that there was a basement and/or tunnels under the pizzeria where children were being held, but no such tunnels or basement physically exist."
Also add a second sentence to the fourth paragraph under the heading "Debunking": "No tunnels or basement exist under the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria where children were claimed to be held." 2605:E000:1303:50C9:D55F:9E5A:140B:D6E9 ( talk) 18:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Not useful conspiracy theorizing. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Change 'debunked conspiracy theory' to 'conspiracy theory' as the Clintons have since been seen associated with well documented sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Change 'Extensively discredited' to 'denied' as an insufficient investigation was carried out to fully discredit the theory. DanielJosephMcG ( talk) 23:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the Clinton as her emails indicate her presence there. Why are you pretending not to know this common information that even mainstream sources reported? Clinton was on episteins plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 ( talk) 20:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
|
"YouTube bans QAnon, other conspiracy content that targets individuals"
Article explicitly calls out Pizzagate. It's rather narrowly worded though:
“On the one hand, it is certainly more aggressive than their current harassment or conspiracy theory policies,” Lewis said. “On the other hand, by only prohibiting conspiratorial content that specifically targets other individuals or groups, it may leave huge amounts of leeway for QAnon content to continue to thrive.”
Should fit somewhere into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
YouTube said Thursday that it would no longer allow content that targets individuals and groups with conspiracy theories, specifically QAnon and its antecedent, "pizzagate."
Hello! I am new to Wikipedia, and I am a little worried on how Wikipedia is viewed by each side of the political spectrum. Wikipedia seems to face more accusations about liberal bias than conservative. I notice the Donald Trump, Gamergate, and Pizzagate articles all seem to be biased. It calls Gamergate an "harassment campaign", despite being a clear opinion, and Pizzagate "debunked" despite several people holding the opinion that it is not debunked. These articles all contain clearly biased news sources. I feel we should make Wikipedia more right-wing friendly so Wikipedia doesn't seem so biased. Wikipedia should be a place where literally anyone can get information and not have a politically-motivated agenda shoved in their face. I'm a neither left nor right leaning individual who is into politics. I want to get points from each side, not just one. I am worried Wikipedia consists of mostly liberal biased editors. I would like a more centrist Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be for everyone. Like, how do you think a person who supports either Donald Trump, Gamergate, or Pizzagate would feel in reading these articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellindahouse ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Like, how do you think a person who supports either Donald Trump, Gamergate, or Pizzagate would feel in reading these articles?
While Pizzagate isn't true, I'm not sure that it's exactly "debunked". Really, Pizzagate (like a lot of other silly conspiracy theories) is unfalsifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
[6] "false theory" is more definitively false than "conspiracy theory" and hence preferable
For false ideas, we should not use wording that is "more definitively false", we should wordinng that is th most appropriate. Acousmana is right, it is not a "theory". False theories are epistemologically much better than conspiracy theories, and that wording gives the idea too much credit. -- Hob Gadling ( talk)
Ich agree that wr have to abandon the use of 'theory' for those dellusional fabrications. How about 'myths'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, February 3, 2021 (UTC)
How is this a sacred narrative? Dimadick ( talk) 09:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article doesn't address any of Pizzagate's evidentiary claims and so does a TERRIBLE job of debunking. "It's false because it's fake"-- just tautology. 172.113.33.43 ( talk) 07:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This is one of those "how is there not a Wikipedia article on this already???" topics for me, because over the last few years as I've perused conspiracy-related content on social media, I very commonly see believers urge each other "go read up on The Finders." So in the past when I heard about it I just did some cursory googling, it seemed to be a Satanic Panic incident in the 1980s that didn't amount to too much, but the fact that people are still talking about it 30+ years later, and that it's been covered in a few RS's, lead me to conclude there should be a Wikipedia article on the topic.
Long story short, in 1987 two guys got arrested in Florida with six scruffy kids in their van, got accused of child abuse, turned out they were part of some weird absurdist commune, issue got resolved with no criminal charges, but some concerned citizen somehow got Congress and the DOJ involved, word got out that somehow the CIA had commented on the issue to DC Police, and so for decades now a portion of people are convinced these folks were a child-abusing cult protected by the government
In any case, I think it's a topic of relevance to anyone interested in Pizzagate and related issues, as part of the longer backstory, so I invite your participation to improve the brief article I've begun. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion started by a now-blocked sockpuppet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've added some excerpts in the emails that were covered in RS secondary coverage. We need some examples of what the core theory actually is (basically allegations of coded language in emails + allegations that social media postings by associates of Comet Ping Pong are suggestive of child abuse/trafficking), there's virtually none of that in the article. An editor has claimed that a 'handkerchief with a map on it that seems pizza-related' and 'playing dominos better on cheese than on pasta' does not suggest code; obviously it does. The one correspondent even wraps waitresses in quotes, confirming it is code. Code for what, I'm not making any claims. There is no claim in the paragraph that the theorists are correct, or that the RSs say so. JWilliams835 ( talk) 15:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Also a discussion with a sockpuppet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_7#Unproven_but_not_debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_7#Debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#"unproven"_but_not_"debunked", Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Debunked_conspiracy_theory, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Refuting_the_Conspiracy_Theory_many_times_throughout_the_article, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_5#Not_neutral,_pushes_view_of_pizzagate_being_false_and_debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4#Question_about_statement, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4#Changes_to_the_opening_paragraph, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#"Debunked_conspiracy_theory", Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#TAKE_"DEBUNKED"_OUT_OF_THE_FIRST_LINE!, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#Is_it_really_debunked?_(weasel_words), Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2#debunked? and Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2#Request_for_comment. Note that last one was an RfC with a WP:SNOW close. Also see the FAQing FAQ at the top of this FAQing page, first FAQing question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please remove the Category:Pizzerias in the United States?
A conspiracy theory isn't a pizzeria. The Comet Ping Pong article already, and rightly, has that category.
188.151.17.188 ( talk) 18:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems a valid objection, why is this here? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The result of the move request was: No consensus, therefore, not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Pizzagate conspiracy theory → Pizzagate – The last discussion, two years ago when this was still recent, concluded with no consensus to move to Pizzagate. Now that almost two years have passed, we can better look at any long-term significance this might have. In the previous discussion, there were mostly two concerns: recentism and not including the "conspiracy theory" label in the title. I don't think recentism still applies, as promoting Pizzagate has become a very significant and consistently applied label for plenty of people, and many conspiracy theories have been compared to Pizzagate by reliable sources. There has been a lot of coverage of Pizzagate since the last requested move: [1] [2] [3] [4] With regards to the second issue that was discussed, the "conspiracy theory" descriptor in the title, there was concerns that this was inconsistent with other (cherry-picked) articles and that it somehow implies that the theory is true. That's not really the case, since a very similar conspiracy theory, Qanon, also begins the article with "_____ is a conspiracy theory which ..." and also doesn't have "conspiracy theory" in its title. Unless "conspiracy theory" is somehow part of the name of the conspiracy theory, the current title fails the WP:ATDAB policy as it is not covered by any of the listed disambiguation types. wumbolo ^^^ 20:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic.. 14:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC) O3000 ( talk)
allowed to use the OEDYou still can't use RS to support something the RS doesn't say.
shared with William Safirecitation needed
More cites at.relevant? GMG talk 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
And the OED examination has no bearing or commentary on whether the suffix implies that the allegations are credible.And possibly
That doesn't really have anything to do with what part of "Pizzagate is the COMMONNAME for the subject" includes unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons.Since no one has actually addressed either of those points. GMG talk 16:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Since no one has actually addressed either of those points.We have, it's just not been made clear: Me and the others who've mentioned BLP are of the opinion that the BLP issues override the problem with COMMONNAME. You may disagree that the proposed name has BLP issues, but that is why we have these discussions; to arrive at a consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, they found that BLP is not a basis to move the article in the clear absence of a consensus in favor of titling the article, 'Chelsea Manning'." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Evaluation of consensus) wumbolo ^^^ 16:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
your last question is answered by the nomination, if you've even read it.No, it isn't. Hence why a half dozen people have said the same exact thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
the article is not about "Pizzagate"what?! Of course it is; it isn't about North Atlantic Deep Water. We have plenty of articles on things that don't exist.
we continue to call this what this isthat's the worst non-argument I've seen in this discussion so far. So why don't we even more accurately call this what it is: "Created by conspiracy theorists for conspiracy theorists, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, originally spread in the U.S. but the Internet is a global phenomenon"? wumbolo ^^^ 13:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the thing we’re calling Pizzagate? Is it a scandal? A conspiracy theory? A made-up concept?
If Pizzagate is not the name of a scandal, how can calling it Pizzagate be calling it a scandal?
If Pizzagate must be the name of a scandal because it ends in “gate”, what then is “Pizzagate conspiracy theory”? A conspiracy theory surrounding the actual and real scandal known as Pizzagate?
If anything ending in “gate” must be a scandal, but this definitely is not a scandal, shouldn’t we avoid calling it a “gate” entirely?
— 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I poked holes in those arguments.LOL Good one. You can think you're doing whatever you want, but your whole argument was refuted before you even made it. The fact that you can't understand those refutations is really immaterial, though luckily for you, O3000 has the patience to at least try to explain them using small words. And Batman. Everybody loves Batman. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please either cite the BBC
INTEXT where
§ Spread on social media directly quotes their use of the mainstream internet
, or remove or rephrase the quote; the use of quotation marks without context makes it look like
scare quotes.
151.132.206.26 (
talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
in addition to an inline citation at the end of the sentence. Or do we need to have an RFC about rewriting that section of the guideline? — 151.132.206.26 ( talk) 21:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Everybody take a breath, please. Everyone's made their points pretty clearly a couple of times. Mocking and sarcasm (from everyone here) is not helpful. I'd like to try and zoom back in on the WP:MOLEHILL, if I may.
I agree with MPants and O3000 that it's not an unreasonable request. I also agree with them that it doesn't read as scare quotes - the "mainstream" internet
would be scare quotes, but as is I don't see it. Removing the quotation marks when we all agree that we're quoting the BBC article moves closer to plagiarism, which I'm not willing to do. As such, IMO we're either rewording it a bit or leaving it as is, and I'm fine with either of these options. @IP - this is your request, so I'd like to hear your
specific suggestion for rewording, and then go from there. ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?) 23:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@ MPants at work: I (the same anon editor) sincerely apologize for any offense. I meant none, and clearly failed to make my intended tone (or lack of one) clear. And you’re right—my read of the guideline was to take the one example that includes a direct, quotation-marked quote as the example of how to handle direct quotes. The other examples all use indirect quotes or paraphrasing, and some of those with no attribution, which I thought I initially suggested as an alternative here (apologies if I wsa unclear in that). I’m not trying to say this is why I’m right; I’m saying this is what I understand it to be. It could very well be I’m misreading the guideline, but I’m genuinely not sure how when we’re working with a sample size of 1 in those examples. Could you explain your take on it?
As for alternative phrasings: the internet at large? The rest of the internet? Spread across the internet? More well-known/popular websites [than 4chan]? Something along those lines, but hopefully better written. I also agree with those claiming the term is common enough to just use it. But if for some reason we’re intent on keeping the wording as is and as a quote, the most recent edit seems ideal. And this seems less than likely, but we could just gloss the term if we wanted to use it multiple times throughout, and there’d be no question who said it, it’s just a thing we’re defining. — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 03:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Some editors find Pizzagate problematic because (although in common use) the name could be seen to imply a legitimate scandal involving living persons. Some editors find Pizzagate conspiracy theory problematic because it looks like unnecessary and unconventional disambiguation. What say you to a completely descriptive title that avoids these issues by avoiding the name? Someone above suggested Comet Ping Pong child sex ring conspiracy theory, but I don’t know if we should tie the restaurant’s name to it. — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 03:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please un-bold "Pizzagate" in the lead per MOS:BEATLESINUS, or rewrite the sentence to include the full title. 151.132.206.26 ( talk) 23:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please un-bold "Pizzagate" in the lead per MOS:BEATLESINUS, or rewrite the sentence to include the full title. 151.132.206.26 ( talk) 23:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed that the emails contained coded messages" to "Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory claimed that the emails contained coded messages" Stalkad ( talk) 23:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia "summarizes reliable sources", but we should seek as much as possible to maintain high standards of academic discourse that keep with established standards and customs of journalism and academic writing. With this in mind, it's worth mentioning that it extremely extremely unusual to describe an opposing view or set of claims as being false - generally only when the opposing position has been logically or empirically proven to be false. In fact if you look at the Wikipedia pages for other conspiracy theories, the authors generally make no use of predicates like "false" or "wrong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4E00:55A0:F921:DB45:74B5:DB57 ( talk) 18:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Money emoji, I suggest you immediately self-revert your renewed deletion. You broke BRD. You may not have noticed the DS notice at the top of this page, but you just violated it and can be blocked without warning. An immediate self-revert will often head that off. We all make mistakes.
You must follow WP:BRD in a case like this. Instead of waiting for you to start the Discussion part of BRD, I have started it for you.
That content is indeed long-standing, even by your definition, and it's pretty fundamental to this article. This started with conspiracy theory mongering. You need a clear consensus to remove such content, so if it really means that much to you, you need to engage in a discussion and convince other editors who watch this page. If that doesn't work, only then should you start an RfC on the matter. BTW, we do not delete deadlinks here, and the reason that tweet is "dead" is because it was deleted, so it's not really dead in the traditional sense. That guy is still pumping out hateful conspiracy theories about Hillary and Podesta. Some people seem to thrive on deception. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Not relevant to this article O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can someone add something about Epstein? This is relevant and complicates the narrative. It should be at least noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.202.154 ( talk) 13:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
|
There's many pizza restaurants in DC. Why was this one targeted, specifically? 108.200.234.93 ( talk) 12:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the boldface from the opening sentence. Per MOS:AVOIDBOLD, the partial title “Pizzagate” should not be bolded in the lead. 96.8.24.95 ( talk) 23:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
RandyAndyPandy ( talk) 02:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Message decoding:
Keywords that are used for this type of talks, mail, etc.
Hotdog = Boy Pizza = Girl Cheese = Little girl Pasta = Little boy Ice cream = Male prostitute Walnut = Person of colour Map = Semen Sauce = Orgy Dominoes = Domination Pillows = Drugs Oysters = Sedatives Chicken = Young boy Siu Angel ( talk) 17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
when reading on the primary sources description, i suppose they are personal accounts of the situation, but the whole point of pizzagate was to analyze the entirety of the DNC and Podesta leaks for literally any corruption, and their main goal was to figure out what they called "the clinton money laundering machine". so, it's weird cause they're writing to and about themselves, so we can't link to direct evidence of a 'scandal' if its from the individual who committed it?
what concerns me about every discussion about pizzagate, is I never hear anyone talk about the Clinton Foundation General investigation (hereafter /CFG/). that was the backbone of pizzagate, and was the main loosely organized internet op that did all of pizzagate. if you couldn't sift through emails for relevant info or extrapolate further connection between individuals, event, and organizations, then you could make memes, if you couldn't make memes, you could share memes. and thus, there was an organized campaign to spread all the information they could find. and the comet ping pong caught on hardest because it was tabloid, strange, easily meme'd. i know google has done a lot of work to hide the documents, but i can usually find it again by following links through forums and archived pages. and this thing was like a thousand pages long. they would dump info as they found it, then others would go back over it, and connect any dots and place those snips of info under the relevant pages dedicated to that group or individual.
/CFG/ main doc. there should be other versions outside of scribd, but this will atleas show you what your looking for if you don't have an account. https://www.scribd.com/document/329527190/329473424-Clinton-Foundation-General-CFG-Google-Document-as-of-October-30-2016
one of their primary spreadsheets on the e-mails and the only things they found relevant or damming. https://drive.google.com/open?id=150761QowC0yKnjDQl-duanMVLUcQXihA
understand, being 4 years ago, and all the rampant internet cleanup has broken many links. i had save a couple links and docs i remember seeing when i find em, cause 4chan organizing their manpower is a really interesting thing to witness. and the internet isn't supposed to forget things ever occurred. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Squidfaic (
talk •
contribs) 05:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
seeing as its october 30th, i imagine that was probably the most up to date snapshot. but this [originally a google doc] IS pizzagate. this is the origin of pizzagate itself, even if you claim it was a social media phenomenon, it was an orchestrated phenomenon by these guys. and so i don't understand how people have completely blown over this in their investigating. it seems wrong to paint it as an absurd natural phenomenon when it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidfaic ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
New Jersey Corrections Officer Charged with Receipt of Child Pornography and admits "Cheese Pizza" is a reference to child pornography. 10/19/17 https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/press-release/file/1005496/download Maybe pizzagate is not a consipiracy theory. 2601:282:4003:ADB0:D90C:A22E:4C32:504 ( talk) 15:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will start with the very intro:
Right from the start with the phrase "debunked conspiracy theory", this article is clearly stating that a "conspiracy theory" might have some factual merit until it's proven otherwise. The tone of this article is so ironic it's painful when juxtaposed against the behaviours and attitudes of many Wikipedia editors who demand the "evidence" for even most innocuous edits (cue edit war).
Yet when it comes to applying the same sort of scepticism to the very articles that make up this site, that logic goes out the window, and suspension of belief is permitted. The whole article is back to front. First it outlined how it got started, spread, who was involved, etc. It's only when you read the bottom third does the actual rebuttals start. But then it goes up with the a section entitled entitled "Debunking" like any of this "Bullsh;t" needs any rebuttals! The claims and lies should be an addendum at the end of the article, this article should be about the harm this did very innocent people by sick individuals. It shouldn't be - well here are all the facts - but they're all false! 81.147.178.87 ( talk) 13:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That cause this: Debunking The conspiracy theory has been widely discredited and debunked. It has been judged to be false after detailed investigation by the fact-checking website Snopes.com and The New York Times.[47][61][62] Numerous news organizations have debunked it as a conspiracy theory, including: the New York Observer,[63] The Washington Post,[64] The Independent in London,[65] The Huffington Post,[66] The Washington Times,[67] the Los Angeles Times,[68] Fox News,[69] CNN,[70] and the Miami Herald.[5] The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia characterized the matter as "fictitious". So the theory was debunked by same people and organization who are all behind this? LOL! 95.103.233.36 ( talk) 13:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Bynk
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
PIZZAGATE IS REAL 2600:1700:B6F0:1ED0:A1EA:B29D:CD62:E545 ( talk) 11:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The title of this article should be “pizzagate conspiracy hypothesis”, as this is not a proven event. Sajjad664 ( talk) 07:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please update this page with more current links and more content 99.35.61.207 ( talk) 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It's literally been debunked. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
It isn’t debunked, Hillary Clinton lost the appeal in court about the email now she has to testify stop trying to feed people false information so they believe whatever narrative you have goin on 24.74.58.170 ( talk) 04:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
|
It's literally been debunked. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
I'm the first sentence, ("Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle.) And the fifth, (Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed the emails contained coded messages that connected several high-ranking Democratic Party officials and U.S. restaurants with an alleged human trafficking and child sex ring.) The words "debunked" and "falsely" should be ommited. As this is a conspiracy theory, the accounts of higher powers shouldn't affect the credibility of this theory. And the reader should be able to decide for themselves. Pryerat ( talk) 19:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
|
It's literally been debunked. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
It’s not debunked. 2600:6C46:4B00:106B:1C63:F9E:6CE2:2C08 ( talk) 05:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Having looked through similar conspiracy theory wiki pages, e.g. just looking through List of conspiracy theories, it appears that Pizzagate is treated uniquely in being described as 'debunked'. It appears that similar pages refer to 'claims' being 'debunked' but not conspiracy theories as a whole. Seems tautological to describe it as a conspiracy theory but at the same time describe it as debunked. Also, have looked at the above discussion as was suggested and the citations for the first sentence of the article re why 'debunked' is deemed appropriate. On this I would say that none of these articles actually 'debunk' the theory, this appears to be opinion: NYT article describes the theory as false but provides a timeline and no actual 'debunking'; PolitiFact article again describes the theory as false on some occasions but this appears to be largely opinion as the article also presents a timeline and even debunks claims of debunking; Snopes (is this a reliable source?) although concludes that the theory is false also says "we are unable to locate any substantive aspect of the claims that could be fact-checked or otherwise held up to the light to determine their veracity" - this is not debunking. I suggest that 'debunked' as a description for this theory is removed as the evidence for its debunking in the 'debunking' section is sufficient. HEditsH ( talk) 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
|
The archives are a complete mess. Some pages only have one or two tiny threads. Unless there's any objections, I plan on spending a couple days consolidating the archives into fewer pages & following current naming conventions (ie. "Archive 1, Archive 2," etc.), then PRODing the old pages for deletion. Just wanted to drop a note here in case anyone objects. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 14:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It's literally been debunked. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am not very happy about the way this article is written. I would say that the Pizzagate theory (the name of the theory definitely should no way include the term 'conspiracy theory'!) is unproven but not debunked or proven false. Certain details may have been shown to be incorrect, but there may still be some core truth. It is not impossible that those people who may be implicated themselves added the false details to the theory in order to make it easier to discredit. This is a standard tactic. Some of the reasons against the theory given in the article are lame, specifically: (1) >Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia. However, The Times noted similarities were also found in the logos of a number of unrelated companies, such as AOL, Time Warner, and MSN.< So what? The logos aren't the only evidence for the theory. If the theory is true, then one would expect such logos, which would have to be relatively subtle. The place isn't gonna advertise its covert business in big neon signs! The unrelated companies might also have similar logos for similar reasons! (2) >Theorists claimed an underground network beneath Comet Ping Pong; the restaurant has no basement, however, and the picture used to support this claim was taken in another facility.< I have seen something credible on YouTube which suggests that although Comet Ping Pong does not technically have a basement (belonging to it), it does have a "permanently locked" door leading to old railway tunnels under the city. The fact that 'the picture used to support this claim was taken in another facility' is unfortunate, but inconclusive. ... Skepticemia ( talk) 10:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
theory /ˈθɪəri/ noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Note a theory is "intended to explain something", A theory is not a random and spurious accusation. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
|
It's literally been debunked. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Could we go ahead and get rid of the term “debunked” in this? It has not been debunked. Thanks! Gonk178 ( talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
|
This article should not exists because it will lead to a deadly with hunt in a few months from now. Corporatechildslave ( talk) 08:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
69.146.76.87 ( talk) 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
yall really want everyone to believe this is a conspiracy when its right in our faces lMAO
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/9/1870513/-Jeffrey-Epstein-is-Pizzagate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.58.155.14 ( talk) 11:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Are we sure this is not proven true? This article was just released a couple days ago: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/28/paedophiles-using-cheese-pizza-emojis-secret-code-social-media/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z-vap ( talk 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add third sentence to first paragraph under the heading "Criminal Responses": "Welch believe that there was a basement and/or tunnels under the pizzeria where children were being held, but no such tunnels or basement physically exist."
Also add a second sentence to the fourth paragraph under the heading "Debunking": "No tunnels or basement exist under the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria where children were claimed to be held." 2605:E000:1303:50C9:D55F:9E5A:140B:D6E9 ( talk) 18:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Not useful conspiracy theorizing. | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Change 'debunked conspiracy theory' to 'conspiracy theory' as the Clintons have since been seen associated with well documented sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Change 'Extensively discredited' to 'denied' as an insufficient investigation was carried out to fully discredit the theory. DanielJosephMcG ( talk) 23:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the Clinton as her emails indicate her presence there. Why are you pretending not to know this common information that even mainstream sources reported? Clinton was on episteins plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 ( talk) 20:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
|
"YouTube bans QAnon, other conspiracy content that targets individuals"
Article explicitly calls out Pizzagate. It's rather narrowly worded though:
“On the one hand, it is certainly more aggressive than their current harassment or conspiracy theory policies,” Lewis said. “On the other hand, by only prohibiting conspiratorial content that specifically targets other individuals or groups, it may leave huge amounts of leeway for QAnon content to continue to thrive.”
Should fit somewhere into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
YouTube said Thursday that it would no longer allow content that targets individuals and groups with conspiracy theories, specifically QAnon and its antecedent, "pizzagate."
Hello! I am new to Wikipedia, and I am a little worried on how Wikipedia is viewed by each side of the political spectrum. Wikipedia seems to face more accusations about liberal bias than conservative. I notice the Donald Trump, Gamergate, and Pizzagate articles all seem to be biased. It calls Gamergate an "harassment campaign", despite being a clear opinion, and Pizzagate "debunked" despite several people holding the opinion that it is not debunked. These articles all contain clearly biased news sources. I feel we should make Wikipedia more right-wing friendly so Wikipedia doesn't seem so biased. Wikipedia should be a place where literally anyone can get information and not have a politically-motivated agenda shoved in their face. I'm a neither left nor right leaning individual who is into politics. I want to get points from each side, not just one. I am worried Wikipedia consists of mostly liberal biased editors. I would like a more centrist Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be for everyone. Like, how do you think a person who supports either Donald Trump, Gamergate, or Pizzagate would feel in reading these articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellindahouse ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Like, how do you think a person who supports either Donald Trump, Gamergate, or Pizzagate would feel in reading these articles?
While Pizzagate isn't true, I'm not sure that it's exactly "debunked". Really, Pizzagate (like a lot of other silly conspiracy theories) is unfalsifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
[6] "false theory" is more definitively false than "conspiracy theory" and hence preferable
For false ideas, we should not use wording that is "more definitively false", we should wordinng that is th most appropriate. Acousmana is right, it is not a "theory". False theories are epistemologically much better than conspiracy theories, and that wording gives the idea too much credit. -- Hob Gadling ( talk)
Ich agree that wr have to abandon the use of 'theory' for those dellusional fabrications. How about 'myths'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, February 3, 2021 (UTC)
How is this a sacred narrative? Dimadick ( talk) 09:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article doesn't address any of Pizzagate's evidentiary claims and so does a TERRIBLE job of debunking. "It's false because it's fake"-- just tautology. 172.113.33.43 ( talk) 07:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This is one of those "how is there not a Wikipedia article on this already???" topics for me, because over the last few years as I've perused conspiracy-related content on social media, I very commonly see believers urge each other "go read up on The Finders." So in the past when I heard about it I just did some cursory googling, it seemed to be a Satanic Panic incident in the 1980s that didn't amount to too much, but the fact that people are still talking about it 30+ years later, and that it's been covered in a few RS's, lead me to conclude there should be a Wikipedia article on the topic.
Long story short, in 1987 two guys got arrested in Florida with six scruffy kids in their van, got accused of child abuse, turned out they were part of some weird absurdist commune, issue got resolved with no criminal charges, but some concerned citizen somehow got Congress and the DOJ involved, word got out that somehow the CIA had commented on the issue to DC Police, and so for decades now a portion of people are convinced these folks were a child-abusing cult protected by the government
In any case, I think it's a topic of relevance to anyone interested in Pizzagate and related issues, as part of the longer backstory, so I invite your participation to improve the brief article I've begun. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion started by a now-blocked sockpuppet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've added some excerpts in the emails that were covered in RS secondary coverage. We need some examples of what the core theory actually is (basically allegations of coded language in emails + allegations that social media postings by associates of Comet Ping Pong are suggestive of child abuse/trafficking), there's virtually none of that in the article. An editor has claimed that a 'handkerchief with a map on it that seems pizza-related' and 'playing dominos better on cheese than on pasta' does not suggest code; obviously it does. The one correspondent even wraps waitresses in quotes, confirming it is code. Code for what, I'm not making any claims. There is no claim in the paragraph that the theorists are correct, or that the RSs say so. JWilliams835 ( talk) 15:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Also a discussion with a sockpuppet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_7#Unproven_but_not_debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_7#Debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#"unproven"_but_not_"debunked", Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Debunked_conspiracy_theory, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Refuting_the_Conspiracy_Theory_many_times_throughout_the_article, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_6#Debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_5#Not_neutral,_pushes_view_of_pizzagate_being_false_and_debunked, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4#Question_about_statement, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4#Changes_to_the_opening_paragraph, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#"Debunked_conspiracy_theory", Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#TAKE_"DEBUNKED"_OUT_OF_THE_FIRST_LINE!, Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#Is_it_really_debunked?_(weasel_words), Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2#debunked? and Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2#Request_for_comment. Note that last one was an RfC with a WP:SNOW close. Also see the FAQing FAQ at the top of this FAQing page, first FAQing question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please remove the Category:Pizzerias in the United States?
A conspiracy theory isn't a pizzeria. The Comet Ping Pong article already, and rightly, has that category.
188.151.17.188 ( talk) 18:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems a valid objection, why is this here? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)