![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I originally set out to just remove the BLP violations and revdel those, but in the process of doing so it became necessary to overhaul the article. I've removed material that I couldn't see a source for, and made it clear that (per sources) this is a conspiracy theory with no evidence coming from some doubtful sources. James spencer moulson ( talk · contribs)'s original version was topic-ban worthy, if not block worthy. Without combing through every single edit after his, I get the impression that most other users didn't exacerbate the BLP violations he posted, but still failed to address them. Had someone else fixed the draft before me (leaving me undeniably uninvolved), and had he been notified about discretionary sanctions relating to post-1932 American politics, I would have personally topic banned him.
I have not yet moved this into article space because of concerns over WP:EFFECT as well as waiting for more admin support. Ian.thomson ( talk) 10:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Adl-Tabatabai was not the conspiracy theory forum poster, he was the conspiracy theorist who cited the conspiracy theory forum post (in addition to the Tweet and the 4chan post). If we are going to simplify it, then:
Is slightly shorter than:
However, the tweet got the ball rolling and was the origin of the core of the conspiracy theory (which Adl-Tabatabai developed into its current form). Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
One might think that police calling the motive a 'fictitious conspiracy theory' would put an end to the claim that inspired a gunman from North Carolina to attack a family pizzeria in Washington over the weekend.
We now have an actual police statement, and reporting by secondary sources, using this wording. Note the word "fictitious" in front of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in its first appearance in the article by the Miami Herald.
We should take our cue from these secondary sources and use similar wording to the Miami Herald and to the police. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
2nd cite, 2nd quote for "debunked":
Though debunked by sources as diverse as The New York Times, Fox News Channel and the web hoax investigator Snopes, more than a million messages have traversed Twitter since November about #Pizzagate.
Sagecandor ( talk) 16:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
3rd cite, 3rd quote for "debunked":
the dangerous and damaging fake allegations against a businessman and his employees simply trying to make a living have been repeatedly debunked, disproved and dismissed.
Sagecandor ( talk) 16:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Personal opinion and
original research do not constitute
reliable sources.
TimothyJosephWood
18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
Bitsnake420 ( talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It was determined to be false by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia who called it a "fictitious conspiracy theory". [1] The conspiracy theory was investigated and discredited as fake by fact-checking website Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
hannahalam
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).snopes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).DCGunman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).douglaswashburn
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Please add above text as a 2nd paragraph for the intro.
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 19:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Could be added to this article. Sagecandor ( talk) 22:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
TIME and New York Daily News have more info. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder: the individual arrested for the shooting is not WP:WELLKNOWN and is covered under WP:BLPCRIME unless convicted. TimothyJosephWood 20:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Timothyjosephwood:Suspect has chosen to use his real name in a public interview with The New York Times to explain his action: "The Comet Ping Pong Gunman Answer's Our Reporter's Questions", also The Daily Beast reported on this development at "Pizzagate Gunman: 'I Regret How I Handled the Situation'". Sagecandor ( talk) 23:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section needs expanding (see Michael G. Flynn#Presidential transition of Donald Trump for comparison). In particular, I think the fact that Flynn had previously promoted the PizzaGate conspiracy and that his father published similar rumors on social media (spirit cooking, Wiener fake news) should be mentioned in the article. All of this is mentioned at the Michael G. Flynn page and is relevant here. HelgaStick ( talk) 00:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It also might be good to add "Jr." after Michael G. Flynn's name. Many people might be confused regarding which Michael Flynn was dismissed from the Trump team. The Armchair General ( talk) 22:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Suggested sources to add to update article.
New development. So now real world impact with violence and threats of violence in Washington, D.C., New York, and now Texas. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This is why I think we should have a section on harassment reports, much like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories#Harassment by conspiracy theorists. Falling Gravity 08:08, 8 December 2016 (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.
Pizzagate is a conspiracy started in Sept. 2016 that tied a number of pizzerias and members of the Democratic Party to a child-sex ring. The theory has been soundly debunked by news media (strongest source fist) and law enforcement (list) says the theory is without merit. The theory occured amongst the backdrop of the US election.
.We are currently missing the "when" and are missing context. I'm proposing a shortened description, including when it started, followed immediately by a description of of thoroughly and by whom the theory was discredited. And then finally provide some context, which is sorely missing in the lead. The idea that this is bit related to the election is nonsense, but we don't see it. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 08:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.It is an uncontested and uncontroversial fact among reliable sources that these claims are false, fabricated and malicious lies. Until and unless you or anyone else presents reliable sources which claim otherwise, this is not up for debate. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.That Wikipedia's coverage of this issue accurately reflects the fact that reliable sources publishing on this topic are effectively unanimous in declaring this to be a series of malicious lies is a feature, not a bug. Again, your disagreement is with the reliable sources, not Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Does it really add anything to the lead that we mention who started the conspiracy theory and how it spread in the lead? Perhaps, but this belongs AFTER we mention the concept of the theory.-- That man from Nantucket ( talk) 23:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipedia for years now, and I've never, EVER seen Buzzfeed listed as an acceptable source. So why is Buzzfeed, a content-rehosting blog, being given so much credibility here?
Solntsa90 ( talk) 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is the leading sentence, and is credited with 'debunking' the story--That alone leaves me suspect, as Buzzfeed is not a credible source for anything, even if Politifact re-hashes what they say (and Politifact is not entirely credible either). Solntsa90 ( talk) 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Participation also appreciated at /info/en/?search=Talk:Fake_news_website#BuzzFeed_News Sagecandor ( talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
In general Buzzfeed easily meets the criteria of our reliable sources guideline. It has a high reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, an established editorial team,
Is this a joke? Let me know, so I can respond accordingly. Solntsa90 ( talk) 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Omg. cOrneLlrOckEy ( talk) 22:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is most definitely NOT a reliable source. In fact, most of what is in that article was simply made up the the editor. Pizzagate actually was started by people who were reading Podesta's emails on Wikileaks, and the Buzzfeed article doesn't even mention that. All the Buzzfeed nonsense is unreliable, unverifiable, and needs to be immediately deleted. Ag97 ( talk) 14:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
"Why don't you stop pretending like Wikipedia is free and democratic". It is free and participation is voluntary. Nobody said that it is democratic. Quite the opposite. Per the policy statement: Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee). Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution." Dimadick ( talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The article has this referenced claim, but it is not explained in the article how this conspiracy theory is related to racial minorities. Can this be improved? -- Pudeo ( talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Sagecandor, the issue is not that the statement is unsourced. It is simply given without context, leaving its significance unclear. Dimadick ( talk) 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Although the media had debunked the conspiracy theories, I do not believe that the word should be a title of this section. The title "Responses" would be more accurate because the media had responded to the incident, debunking it. Also, I believe that the owner's response to the incident should also be included in that section, such as his interview with NPR on November 27, 2016 where he referred to the conspiracy theory as "an insanely complicated, made-up, fictional lie-based story" and a "coordinated political attack" Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 03:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We obviously have Pizzagate "truthers" commenting on this page. (I can provide diffs if necessary) I don't understand why the same arguments need to be rehashed and the same links provided that will be ignored since they're part of the "lamestream media". The reasons this libelous and ludicrous story is false have been provided. If the conspiracy theorists want to argue about it, I suggest they do it on another site; one that doesn't care about WP:BLP issues. I suggest closing discussions when people start repeating the same arguments. APK whisper in my ear 19:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
While I have noticed some rather peculiar comments myself, I hope this does not translate to shutting down all discussions before they can even begin. Dimadick ( talk) 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
According to this article by Toronto Star, the person who had started the Pizzagate theory was a woman from Belleville, Ontario who was a contributor of the conspiracy site "Planet Free Will". Should I include this information in the article? Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
See here. I'm not posting directly on talk because I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't constitute a BLP violation. I think it may be useful for the article as an example of the things that are being spread around, but...again...I'm not sure we even have the option of using it. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This sentence "Several sites noted that purported evidence cited by the conspiracy theory's proponents had been fabricated or taken from entirely different sources and photoshopped to appear as if they supported the conspiracy." appears to be original research and unverifiable. No reputable sources are given to back up the claims, so I propose the sentence should be deleted. Ag97 ( talk) 14:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The article briefly names a "Brittany Pettibone" and her role in the story. Who is she? We do not have other articles that mention her. A few online sources mention a "Brittany Pettibone" as co-author of a science fiction novel called "Hatred Day", but do not mention political activities. Dimadick ( talk) 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Days after the attack,
Hillary Clinton spoke out on the dangers of fake news in a tribute speech to retiring Senator
Harry Reid at the
United States Capitol.
[1]
[2] Clinton called the spread of fraudulent news and fabricated propaganda an
epidemic that flowed through social media.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
[2] She said it posed a danger to citizens of the U.S. and to the country's political process.
[1]
[2] The week of her speech, legislation on
The Pentagon policy which included a
bipartisan measure to found a new division within the
U.S. State Department to from an inter-agency effort to combat incoming
propaganda originating from foreign nations.
[1] Clinton said in her speech she supported bills before the U.S. Congress to deal with fake news.
[1]
References
Suggest some or any or all of this could be added to the article. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I've spent probably too much time trying to find a reliable source on social media trends in the hope of uploading a graph of popularity over time. Aaand...I've not really found anything. Anyone more social-media-savvy than me know of a good source? TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Now at AE. Neutrality talk 17:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am quite concerned by a number of recent edits by Ag97. This user has made a number of edits they describe as "minor" that are not at all minor. Here and here they significantly weaken the description of the hoax as false. Please do not describe significant changes as minor edits. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I stand behind all of my edits, and will defend every one of them. You have no right to ban me for making good faith edits. Ag97 ( talk) 16:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to discuss content, this is the place. If you want to discuss editors, go to ANI or AE, because this is not the place. TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Strongly recommend keeping citations in the intro from this version [16].
Makes it much harder for drive-by-cite-tagging and vandalism removal of content. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Now at WP:AE. TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am concerned by the number of recent edits by NorthBySouthBaranof. This user made a large amount of changes, without talk page consensus, that violate Wikipedia policy of neutrality. I, and many editors and readers of this article, disagree with these changes. This user is purposefully rewriting the article to remove neutral language and make it biased, reducing the overall quality of the article. In addition, he and his friend Neutrality have threatened to use their administrator rights to block me from Wikipedia in retaliation for voicing my opposition and concerns about their changes. It is very disturbing to see that these two administrators have teamed up to worsen the quality of an article and bully and threaten anyone who tries to stop them. Ag97 ( talk) 16:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to discuss content, this is the place. If you want to discuss editors, go to ANI or AE, because this is not the place. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
The Daily Dot is the only source for this story, BBC Online is copying their prose verbatim, as is was Wikipedia. Sloppy, guys.
SashiRolls (
talk)
19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
In the last week, all Turkish pro-government papers, including mainstream publications like Sabah, A Haber, Yeni Şafak, Akşam and Star, ran similar stories about the PizzaGate, using the very same images and claims from a (now banned) subreddit to convince their readers on how serious and deep-rooted the scandal was. Columnists penned articles that the PizzaGate is a part of the globalist conspiracy against Turkey, and one article even remarked that the "Teenage" in pizza-eating Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles now makes sense as a pedophilia reference after PizzaGate.
The fake story remained the preserve of 4chan and alt-right Reddit until mid-November, when Turkish pro-government media outlets suddenly took an intense interest. Their tweets were in Turkish, but they used the English hashtag: #Pizzagate.
Soon, dozens of fake news articles on sites such as Facebook, Planet Free Will and Living Resistance emerged. Readers shared the stories in Saudi Arabia and on Turkish and other foreign language sites.
In November, Turkish pro-government media suddenly started tweeting about the conspiracy theory using the hashtag #Pizzagate.
Also, the nation of Turkey is involved in the spread of Pizzagate. Around mid-November, the BBC explained, a pro-government media outlet in Turkey started tweeting the conspiracy theory using the hashtag #pizzagate. The reason, according to The Daily Dot, is that supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan were trying to accuse opponents of hypocrisy. An actual child-abuse scandal had rocked a foundation connected to the Turkish government, and Erdogan's supporters were asking why people weren't also outraged over Pizzagate. In other words, it was meant as a distraction.
It first appeared on the politics message board of 4chan, a hive of internet trolling, metastasized on the biggest pro-Donald Trump subreddit, served as a convenient distraction for institutions loyal to Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and is now percolating on forums across the internet, as self-identified "investigators" comb the web for further clues. In the process, the frenzied pedo-truthers have published the personal information of numerous private citizens and bombarded their social media accounts, homes, and places of business with graphic threats.
his Instagram account got clogged a week before the presidential election with violent messages like, 'I will kill you personally.' He wondered why until he found out that on social media sites like 4Chan and Reddit and Facebook, and in the Twitter feed of Breitbart News, and as far away as Saudi Arabia and Turkey
Please use some of the above sources to add info to the article on Turkey and Turkish media involvement in spreading Pizzagate. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:49, 9 December 2016 (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.
Not seeing any suggested WP:SECONDARY sources recommended on this talk page to add something missing.
Therefore, the NPOV tag should be removed from the top of the article. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not feel the NPOV Tag should have been added to this article. Experienced editors have gone to extensive pains to remove non-neutral language and revert non-neutral edits. The two posts referenced in the edit history when this NPOV tag was added were parts of discussions on the talk page that were both resolved. Maintaining a neutral point of view does not mean that every single point of view on a subject should be given equal weight. Wikipedia articles maintain a balance based on the significant, reliable, verifiable sources on a given subject. In this particular case, the Unanimous view of the press from all across the political spectrum means that to suggest there is a likelihood that this particular subject matter - Pizzagate - may actually have some truthful basis would be to give undue weight to something that has no reliable source to back it up.
I therefore see no point in adding the NPOV tag and I would be interested in hearing the motive behind its addition. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:NPOV states that articles should be written "without editorial bias." This article contains high amounts of editorial bias, directly violating WP:NPOV. Ag97 ( talk) 21:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This word is redundant, the words "conspiracy theory" alone mean it's false.
I counted 4 people supporting the change to merge the sections, and also 4 people opposed to the change, so I don't see any consensus there.
Whole section for one sentence seems WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.
Could just go up in general Responses section. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Could this be added into the "Responses" section? It's from Brian Stelter of CNN (Source: Schwartz, Ian (December 5, 2016) "Stelter: Trump A "Conspiracy Theorist," It's Up To "Us" To Call Out Nonsense". RealClearPolitics.):
"Following Michael Flynn Jr.'s comments on Pizzagate, CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter linked the conspiracy theory to the election of Donald Trump as President-elect of the United States, saying that Trump "is a conspiracy theorist" who "in a few different cases tweeted out links to clearly fake news stories". Steller commented that Trump promoted fake news about Muslims cheering in New Jersey on the day of the September 11 attacks and claimed that millions of illegal immigrants had voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election, which Trump won." HelgaStick ( talk) 15:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The article calls infowars a "fake news site" without any citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrimsorrywhat ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Borrowing from the main Comet Ping Pong Talk page, there is an apparent contradiction regarding the resturant's basement.
This Metro Weekly interview from 2015 where Alefantis claims Comet Ping Pong has a basement, used for storing canned vegetables and sauces:
Like our sauce — we harvest a whole crop of organic tomatoes — 10 tons of tomatoes every year. Can them all, store them in the basement, have like a harvest party when it gets loaded in.
And this one from the BBC from late 2016, where he emphatically denies having a basement:
"They ignore basic truths," Alefantis tells BBC Trending. For instance, the conspiracy supposedly is run out of the restaurant's basement. "We don't even have a basement."
The Metro interview as also mentioned in an recent article by Inquisitr. Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 15:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Which source does one use in ascertaining whether or not the property has a basement? Solntsa90 ( talk) 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The opening of this article said this took place during the election cycle, but it happened after. Any correction to relect this would be appreciated. Ahraaar ( talk) 04:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
In what way did the "pizzagate" conspiracy theory begin (as a theory) in early November? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahraaar ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: This information was added to the article as a response to a direct request on this talk page. It provides vital background context and the words were carefully chosen - "election cycle" does not necessarily just mean the days leading up to the day that voting takes place. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 08:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This story lists one of the weapons as a "Colt AR-15 type Assault rifle." While this has been misreported in the media, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are selective fire weapons, which the AR-15 is not.
The weapon in question was apparently a true AR-15 as listed in an "incident report." [1] It should probably be listed as "AR-15 rifle." "Semi-automatic AR-15" would be also technically correct, but unnecessary, since all AR-15's are semi-auto.
Note: there WERE a small number of select military AR-15 rifles produced, but the modern AR-15 is not select fire, and I believe the select fire models were only sold to the military and not resold to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangle0 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The source is already provided. It's a Colt AR-15. Calling it an "assault" rifle is sensationalism. Archangle0 ( talk) 05:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is missing any detailed information about the claims or allegations of this conspiracy theory. The other conspiracy theory articles on wikipedia focus on the conspiracy theory allegations rather than debunking them. This article does the opposite. In fact, it seems this article is only including information to disprove the conspiracy theory. That's fine, this is a crazy theory, but in the interest of being unbiased and created a complete article, we need to create a section with detailed allegations. I will gladly add the allegations if there is consensus to do so. Iksnyrk ( talk) 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
violate WP:BLP- Not necessarily. Have to remember, you can still say terrible awful things about someone on WP, it just has to be very well sourced. I'm not really seeing that much is needed to explain things other than pizza + sex ring. If there's a reliable source for this information, it can certainly be presented. Keeping in mind, that presenting content of a conspiracy theory as a fact that it is content of the theory is not the same as presenting the content of a conspiracy theory as fact. TimothyJosephWood 20:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
...authenticated by DKIM, a digital signature that undeniably proves the email has not been altered.This is false as they went through a third party. Objective3000 ( talk) 01:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The irony is respecting the security of e-mails in the same breath as one would talk about Wikileaks, which made its reputation on the insecurity of e-mails. Objective3000 ( talk) 03:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
DKIM verified email proving that Tony Podesta thinks I'm the greatest Wikipedian
|
---|
Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Received: by 10.25.88.78 with SMTP id m75csp149353lfb; |
References for this section
|
---|
I suspect, as a savvy but modest Wikipedian, that you may have an overwhelming but unconscious desire to put an archive bot on this talk page.
I've never actually done it myself without horribly screwing it up.
TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Drive-by original research tagging by Sangdeboeuf ( talk · contribs) is inappropriate and should be removed. [26]
There are multiple citations to reliable secondary sources before each tag.
This has been discussed on this talk page already above ad nauseam.
Already debunked as false and fake by Fox News "became a center of conspiracy theories driven by fake news stories" and The Wall Street Journal "widely debunked conspiracy theory, known as Pizzagate". Sagecandor ( talk) 05:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
§ Debunking, below. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry bros. But at some point we have to save us from ourselves.
TimothyJosephWood
00:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
“hotdog” = boy “pizza” = girl “cheese” = little girl “pasta” = little boy “ice cream” = male prostitute “walnut” = person of colour “map” = semen “sauce” = orgy
"stromboli" = clown, "teacup" = mud wrestling, "anal sex" = grilled cheese, "turkey baster" = turkey baster TimothyJosephWood 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) This is an imaginary code, thought up by... who knows? And it means... who cares? Until I see a confirmed, reliable, substantial source that definitely states this is a code that is used for the reasons that is claimed, this is irrelevant. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"Marinara" = Saturday morning cartoons, "penne alla vodka" = that weird twitch you get when someone tickles your stomach, "hamburger" = gym shorts, "french fries" = nose hair. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
And on that note, realizing my own penchant for nonsense, recommend closing and collapsing this. TimothyJosephWood 23:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Joking aside, the supposed "code words" have been mentioned in WP:RS related to PizzaGate. The New York Times mentioned "cheese pizza" (already mentioned in article w/ same citation), but has a 4chan screenshot about "hotdog", "pizza", "cheese", "pasta", "ice cream", "walnut", "map" and "sauce", as well as a WikiLeaks email about "Walnut sauce". The Washington City Paper notes that "To the alt right, though, "pizza" became a suspected code word for illegal sex trafficking", and TIME magazine notes "Users claimed some words in Alefantis’ emails (for example, “pizza” and “cheese”) were code words for criminal activity.". Shouldn't this be expanded upon somewhat? HelgaStick ( talk) 01:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Small typo in the "Debunking" section. :) HelgaStick ( talk) 14:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it is not debunked Habshockeylover97 ( talk) 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
sorry, sorry, I thought it was just semiprotected. I never even look at, let alone touch, "controversial" articles of this type these days. Still, I would argue my edit was a no-brainer based on policy alone. Won't edit this again, but since at the very least it is obvious there is nothing resembling "consensus" on the state of the article as it stands (I hope it is obvious I am editing in best faith), you should at least add an npov template. cheers, -- dab (𒁳) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I feel this sentence should be edited or removed for being inflammatory given that "cheese pizza" cannot be found in the emails. 17:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.141.171 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Stefanie Macwilliams, a contributor to Planet Free Will, wrote an article that took off on social media. In it, she recounted a man's claims about a politically connected pedophile ring housed at the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlour in the U.S. capital. ...
"I kind of wanted to put out the information that was there with the statement. I've not accusing anyone of anything, there's no concrete evidence of anything," Macwilliams said Wednesday. Planet Free Will was among the websites called out for sharing fake news." ( source)
Should any of this information be included? HelgaStick ( talk) 13:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I tagged a couple of statements here that looked like original research – is there a published source directly stating that "sources across the political spectrum" have debunked the rumor, or that it has been described as false by the sources named, "among others"? Often, when glib statements such as these are followed by multiple inline citations, it looks like a Wikipedia editor is trying to shore up their own personal interpretation with references that only indirectly support it – hence the need for several at once. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research". The tags look appropriate to me unless it's shown that a published source makes these statements explicitly. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should we include mention of this latest addition to the conspiracy?
(note there is not a lot of RS for this)???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven ( talk • contribs)
I don't care for the opening phrase "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory" as it implies that some conspiracy theories are true, which is ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, although some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true (e.g., the Watergate scandal; the Iran-Contra affair).... Book published by Cambridge University Press. Sagecandor ( talk) 22:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
4th point has been rebutted. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that have made claims just as bad as this one. 9/11 claimed that George Bush caused the deaths of thousands of people; those are worse claims than the ones here, and also slanderous to a living person. Sandy Hook suggested that Obama was involved in the shooting of kids in a school; those claims are also terrible and slanderous to a living person. Yet neither 9/11 nor Sandy hook are described as debunked, even though they both are. Ag97 ( talk) 22:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
"The circumstances surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[1] have been doubted or disputed by a number of people, leading to several conspiracy theories. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza fatally shot his mother, then 20 students and 6 staff members at the elementary school before committing suicide,[2] but conspiracy theorists question the circumstances of the shooting, whether Adam Lanza was the sole perpetrator, and are using early media reports that included inconsistencies about the identity of the shooter, wrong photos, incorrect location of victims,[3] and weapons used[4] as evidence for their claims. Others have suggested the shooting was orchestrated by government officials for political reasons,[5] similar to some 9/11 conspiracy theories, claiming that the shooting was deliberately set up to push stricter gun control laws. These conspiracy theories have been described by mainstream news sources as contradictory, implausible, without evidence, and offensive to those affected.[6][7][8][9] Several sources also published articles debunking various claims put forward by conspiracy theorists.[6][10][11][12]"
I suggest we do the same thing with this article and use this lead:
This lead resolves the legitimate issue raised by A Quest for Knowledge, but also makes clear that the media debunked the claim, satisfying those who want the word debunked to be in the lead. Ag97 ( talk) 23:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's just cut to the chase here, the "theory" is false. That it is false is verifiable, an overwhelmingly so. If you think it is not, then produce sources. If you cannot, then your opinion is not important. This is how Wikipedia works.
We are not going to guise arguments about the veracity of the theory in claims about neutrality, or specious arguments about what other articles do, because those articles are not precedent setting. They are not policy. They are not guidelines. They mean nothing.
If you contend that the theory is true, or may likely be true, then provide reliable sources that back up your claim. Otherwise, we are done here. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, conspiracy theories have sometimes turned out to be true.. This time published by Duke University Press. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It's completely ridiculous that people are attempting to shut down this discussion before it even began. If you don't like my lead, you should be able to explain why the current one is better. Saying "we are done here" before the debate even started is a very rude and arrogant thing to do. It seems to me like you're attempting to shut down discussion because you have no good reasons why the current lead is better than my lead. Ag97 ( talk) 23:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that revisiting this issue for the 4th or 5th time has achieved absolutely nothing. There are still no sources that say Pizzagate is true, and it's been days & days now. You'd think something would have emerged, but no - we're still bogged down in pointless semantics, the talk page is flooded with repetitive discussion and it's all added absolutely nothing of value to the article. Accurate summary? Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
TimothyJosephWood
01:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to make sense of why one editor is trying to change this from "debunked" to "debunked by the 'MSM'." The only conclusion I can imagine, and it's just my opinion, is that half the people in the country believe the "MSM", and the scare quotes are purposely included, shouldn't be trusted, to weaken the belief in the minds of half the readers that this conspiracy theory has in fact been debunked, and perhaps there are odd code words in some stolen e-mails indicating that this pizzeria is a Democratic pedophilia ring. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Otherwise, what's the point of the change? Objective3000 ( talk) 02:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this discussion has gone off topic. The issue isn't whether this conspiracy theory is true or false. Of course, it's nonsense. The issue, as I see it is that "debunked conspiracy theory" implies that some conspiracy theories aren't bunk. If you look at our other articles on conspiracy theories, such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, none of them have this language in the opening sentence. What I propose is that we remove the word "debunked" from the opening sentence. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: Not everybody edits Wikipedia on a daily basis. I've been busy this week and today was the first day I was able to comment on it. @MjolnirPants: OK, I'll create a new thread. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (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.
Like all too many articles on Wikipedia, this reads as though it was written by the DNC. Some liberal should rewrite this article to make it more neutral. Moderates and conservatives should not even bother trying to write or rewrite articles on Wikipedia because liberals will simply claim they are vandals and their efforts will be destroyed quickly. Sadly, Wikipedia has become Liberalpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 ( talk) 17:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Came here from AIV, with no prior involvement with the page. Just want to say that even though this is a conspiracy theory, the wording is a little over the top. "Conspiracy theory" already implies no basis in reality. Using language that sounds like "completely disproved and debunked conspiracy theory with no basis in reality that's been disproved and debunked" is actually counterproductive, because it stops sounding like a neutral presentation. Vanamonde ( talk) 04:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the most biased article I have ever seen. "(Conspiracy Theory)", "which falsely claims", and that's what I found in the first 5 seconds of reading it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.4.242.53 (
talk)
15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Debunked is not neutral at all. It's BS. There are sources that support it and sources that don't. It hasn't been proven or disproven. Remove the word debunked. 68.226.203.167 ( talk) 07:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
More importantly, the word "debunked" is not accurate, and no sources have been referenced that actually disprove (i.e., debunk) this THEORY - just more of the same articles that summarily label this as untrue. Rather, this is an UNSUBSTANTIATED theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.6.206 ( talk) 22:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one outraged by "debunked" when the citations are just other sites saying "it's a lie! Fake news!"
Prosecution has presented evidence. Defense just says "whatever. It's all a lie" FerroR ( talk) 16:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Outsider input - Hey, i checked the sources that "debunk" this thing trying to do outside research and i was perversely disappointed. Does anywhere exist on the internet where they debunk the Instagram posts and the code in the emails? They all seems to avoid theses subjects, and as they are the primary basis for the theroy it seems imporant to include a source that actually debunks them. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Basedbrawl (
talk •
contribs)
17:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
HERE IS A SOURCE THAT SHOWS HOW PIZZAGATE IS NOT DEBUNKED. SOMEONE FIGURE OUT HOW TO EDIT THIS BS WIKI PAGE. STOP SPREADING FAKE NEWS AND PROPAGANDA. PIZZAGATE IS NOT DEBUNKED. MY CAPS LOCK IS STUCK, SORRY.
https://aceloewgold.com/2016/11/26/the-new-york-times-snopes-was-pizzagate-debunked/
68.226.203.167 (
talk)
00:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to make it clear for anyone else who happens to read a blog, get enraged and then come here to claim Pizzagate is "not debunked": if you're not going to provide Reliable, Verifiable and Independent Sources then don't expect the word "debunked" to be removed from the article. I'd also like to caution against personal attacks on editors if you want to be taken seriously. Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. SST flyer 10:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
– Per WP:TWODABS, this is clearly the WP:PTOPIC due to the immense coverage this has received, compared to the much more obscure 2004 event. SST flyer 10:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, do we have an article about russian hackers scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.181.169 ( talk) 16:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The separate page regarding alleged Russian election interference should be similarly renamed to, for example, "2016 United States election interference by Russia (conspiracy theory)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.16.118 ( talk) 19:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Lack of intelligence is why the Pizzagate conspiracy theory started.Now. Some might construe that as a personal attack. FBDB TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: Another editor requested that I create a new thread.
I think the opening sentence should be changed slightly. The opening phrase "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory" implies that some conspiracy theories are true, which is ridiculous. If you look at our other articles on conspiracy theories]], such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, none of them have this language in the opening sentence. What I propose is that we remove the word "debunked" from the opening sentence. The sentence, "The theory has been discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum, described as a 'fictitious conspiracy theory' by the District of Columbia Police Department and determined to be false by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News." Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The suspect has been interviewed by The New York Times and is facing federal charges. I think his name has been disseminated enough to be included in the article. The relevant policy is WP:BLPNAME. Falling Gravity 04:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that this has been ruled fake news, and has already caused damage to the targeted business, I think images of the business should be removed from the article as to avoid any participation of WP in further damage. Objective3000 ( talk) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, for the sake of putting this on talk for discussion, the photo of the memorial is fairly evidently the most relevant photo currently on the article, and was requested by myself on WikiProject:DC, specifically so it could be used here. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Source can be used to update article. Sagecandor ( talk) 22:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Secondary source for above U.S. federal affidavit.
Also has more info on investigation and criminal proceedings. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
File could be added to this article.
Public domain as from United States District Court for the District of Columbia and federal employees. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm no fan of that site, but I'm concerned that this wording is potentially defamatory. As user NorthSouthBaranOf helpfully pointed out on my talk page, "Wikipedia has emplaced extremely strong policies regarding material about living people, particularly negative (defamatory) claims about living people." However, the edit that he made without consensus accusing infowars of being fake news could itself be a defamatory claim about a living person. Alex Jones denied that infowars is a fake news site and said that it is legitimate. [34]. He also expressed concern that labelling infowars "fake news" might result in his site being shut down, which would remove his primary source of income. BLP states that when an article says something defamatory about a person, and that person denies the claim, that should be mentioned in the article. Since Jones has denied the claim, and infowars being fake news isn't properly cited, right now the recent edit made about Inforwars violated BLP by adding poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Ag97 ( talk) 13:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This whole little discussion here gives undue weight to a minor part of the article. It doesn't deserve to be mentioned, even as a note, that Alex Jones says his site isn't fake news. Add it to the page for Infowars if you're really that concerned about it. WP:PROPORTION says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" - so basically, Infowars is called Fake News by a wide range of reliable sources. Why do we need to say that Alex Jones says it isn't? It's giving undue weight and false balance. Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The Vigilant Citizen publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.
'The Onion publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.
This is all just a red herring, a transparent attempt to discredit the article as a whole by chipping away at a tiny part of it. Why not just remove Infowars from this article completely and replace the specific site names with "Fake News Sites" and citations. Problem solved, no reason for tenuous "BLP" arguments. Exemplo347 ( talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No. In terms of a description for this Wikipedia page, Alex Jones should properly be termed a conspiracy theorist (as it says on his page), and Infowars a conspiracy theory site. Besides using a foundation of real information - things that internet searches show exist, such as, say, artist Marina Abramovic "spirit cooking" pictures - he attempts to logically explain the information he presents. People can disagree with his conclusions and/or the logic and assumptions he employs, but his show is clearly in the range of conspiracy theory - dealing with real information - not fake news.
Infowars is not in the least a "fake news" site, and it's a shoddy thing that this article describes it as such, and its description should be changed to something with more solid, objective evidence for it as soon as possible. The current description is indeed a BLP violation. It stretches the idea of what's "fake news" into any alternative source of information that some or many people don't like, and if this exaggerated standard for "fake news" was actually established throughout our nation, it would be the end of America as a free society. The Chinese government seems to consider real news on Tiananmen Square and its ongoing human rights violations to be "fake news." The "fake news" label could and surely would be applied to ANY reporting without the right backing from on high.
And for how long has "fake news" been a thing in the public discourse? And where are the scholars who define it, and the studies about it? Right now, "fake news" is a nebulous politicized buzzword and fad which just showed up months ago, and has been parroted and thrown around in the mainstream media with not a lot of care, and little evidence about what constitutes it. In its exaggerated form, it's really a loaded term. And if and when there are actually studies done of all the sites presently being labelled "fake news," even such studies would need to be referenced with care, to not overstate, expand or distort the findings.
THE FOLLOWING, however, IS fake news, and what the present understanding of it here needs to be limited to: ABCNews.com.co tries to pass itself off as ABC News, and as I saw some months back, posted made-up polls. And here's a current headline on their site: "Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring Investigation Into Election Results; Revote Planned For Dec. 19th." A story from another fake site, WTOENews.com (apparently passing as news from a t.v. station) about Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump is similarly made up out of whole cloth and untrue. And have people noticed the frequent ads on Facebook that say this or that famous person has suddenly and tragically died? Pure fiction since those people haven't died. The truth can be verified easily in seconds.
The bar should be set high and unequivocal for something to be described as a "fake news site," and that especially goes for an encyclopedia where iron-clad evidence is demanded. The matter of appropriate sourcing for such a label to be used applies. The news media are sufficient sources for labelling sites like ABCNews.com.co fake news, but that isn't good enough for sites that base their reports on verifiable information, as Infowars does. Actual scholarly study is needed. (I don't see the term "fake" used in the Wikipedia entries for old-media publications like the National Enquirer and the Globe.)
Mere description by some journalists isn't scholarly study Personal opinion, even by someone who *might* be some sort of an expert - which is another main "source" for the use of this label here - also isn't that. (Nor is something that claims to be a "study" of fake news good enough, either. BuzzFeed did that "study" on fake news which concluded that the top 20 fake news stories got more total Facebook attention than the top 20 "real" news stories - actually many were opinion pieces, published by mainstream outlets. And this "study" was used to bolster the claim that "fake news" influenced the election, even though many elements of the situation were left unstudied by the study, like the fact that most of the information in the "real" stories was also being covered in hundreds if not thousands of other print and television stories, attention the fake news didn't receive - and the fact that "the amount of Facebook attention a story receives" says nothing about how many people either didn't believe it or were told it wasn't true. And Infowars didn't even make it into that "study." Also, did Buzzfeed commission a poll to see how much penetration the information in the fake stories got versus the information in the stories from the mainstream media? No.)
As is often said here, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not news. When we're talking about using the phrase "fake news site (blank)," such sites have to be flat-out, incontrovertibly fake. And to make a statement that a site is believed to traffic in fake news, the results of real studies or opinions of scholars have to be cited *with care,* accurately explaining what the opinion or findings mean. Psalm84 ( talk) 01:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"But as the case moves forward, a website that amplified the conspiracy theory has removed content related to it, although archived versions are still accessible to authorities.
The website Infowars.com has removed a misleading page titled: "PIZZAGATE IS REAL: SOMETHING IS GOING ON, BUT WHAT?" as well as a YouTube video about the fictitious plot.
Another video on the same site, which matches a video described in the criminal complaint against Welch, is still active.
Another potential source of the type of misleading information cited by Welch was shut down not by the people posting the information but by the website on which it was hosted."
and also this bit of new info
"The tweet remained visible on Flynn's Twitter account until at least this Monday, according to an Internet archive that stores copies of webpages. More than 9,000 people shared it.
By early Tuesday morning, the tweet had been deleted. It no longer appears on Flynn's twitter profile. NPR reached out to the president-elect's transition team, but did not hear back."
Two pieces of important info to update this article and other relevant articles. Sagecandor ( talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful, in the long term, to go ahead and do an RfC on the "debunked" issue. It's already been raised several times, and while there is currently a moderate consensus for inclusion, it's nothing that wouldn't require another moderate consensus to override.
Actually doing an RfC would set a stronger local precedent, and likely save a good deal of time as something solid to point to when this issue inevitably comes up again. Basically, if you have a strong enough argument to open a new RfC, then go ahead, but otherwise this issue has been semi-officially settled.
Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The reference to Trump voters in relation to percentages who believe in this theory or those who do not should be removed. The two "references" are at best questionable, and go against Wiki's policy regarding acceptable reference materials. At the very least, if someone is going to report the supposed percentages related to one candidate, then shouldn't the same courtesy be given towards the other candidate in the election? If the two websites only reported on one candidate, then that in itself should lead one to question the validity of such a study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.108.253.2 ( talk) 19:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I’d remove it. It’s one poll, and pollsters haven’t been faring well lately. Also, the difference between Trump and non-Trump voters in this poll isn’t all that significant. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
pollsters haven’t been faring well latelyis not a terribly convincing argument. 2) Per the first source, 90% of HRC voters saw her as unconnected compared to 54% of DJT voters. So, that's a pretty big difference. I think the real question is why are we not simply providing the polling data and instead WP:CHERRYPICKING only the data about DJT voters? TimothyJosephWood 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Why do we not have a link to this, or indeed even mention of it as per.
http://www.snopes.com/the-pizzagate-survivor/
Slatersteven ( talk) 16:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The owner of Comet Ping Pong sat down for an interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News. Does anyone think this is worth including as an EL? APK whisper in my ear 10:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
External links
The result of the move request was: move to Pizzagate conspiracy theory. There is no consensus for a change to just Pizzagate, but there is consensus to at least remove the parentheses from the current title. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
– Suggest moving this over Pizzagate and including a hat note pointing to Battle of the Buffet#Pizzagate, since this seems to currently be fairly clearly the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, and more so, is a stand alone article, and not a section in an article, the main title of which, readers seem more likely to search for. TimothyJosephWood 01:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) – relisted by SST flyer 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.(emphasis mine). In this case there is no other existing article, but only a section, and therefore no reason to add qualifiers to the title. Furthermore, if we are to treat the section as an article for these purposes, the guideline continues:
If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A popular New York restaurant has become the latest victim of a fake-news conspiracy about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring out of a Washington, D.C., pizza joint.This is an extended descriptor, not a name. It is as supportive of "Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)" as it is of "Pizzagate (Hillary Clinton child sex ring conspiracy theory)".
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please use these sources to add to article to change wording from simply "debunked" to ---> "widely debunked" :
a widely debunked conspiracy theory, known as Pizzagate
have stood by the theory despite it being widely debunked
has already been widely debunked by news outlets and by the city's police
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that liberal leaning news sites, with no sources themselves, simply stating that it has been "debunked everywhere, god, just do a google search and you could find it," is not a credible source.Actually... It is. Wikipedia might document ideological trends like "ya jist can't trust tha lib'ral medier!" but we certainly don't follow them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Everyone lay of the PA's whether it be "liberal POV pushers" or "hysterical". Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just added a paragraph to the article in the "Responses" section detailing a spin-off conspiracy theory that was reported in The Washington Post. If anyone thinks it looks awful, dive right in and change it! Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Our lead section currently says that the conspiracy theory is about "a number of pizzerias in Washington D.C." without naming them. This doesn't seem to be borne out by the body of the article, which only mentions Comet Ping Pong. Which other pizzerias are implicated by the theory and can someone more familiar than the theory than I please add appropriate content with citations to the body of our article? Otherwise, the lead section should be changed to refer specifically to Comet Ping Pong. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
|
I think removing "and others" is not helpful. It would be burdensome to the page to put in all these cites.
"nutty" http://observer.com/2016/12/pizzagate-recalls-the-debunked-child-sex-rings-of-the-80s-and-90s/
"dangerous conspiracy theory" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security-monica-crowley_us_58542a74e4b08debb788afc4
"debunked" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist-appeals-trump-aid-o/
"A false story" http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fake-news-guide-2016-story.html
And this is not all of them
I think giving a couple of examples and then saying "as well as others" does rather cover the reality rather well. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The story has been widely discredited and debunked. Snopes.com and the Washington Post called it "False". The Observer referred to it as "nutty". The Huffington Post labelled it a "...dangerous conspiracy theory". The LA Times said it was "a false story".
Something like this:
Periodical | Description | Source |
---|---|---|
The Observer | "a nutty conspiracy theory about a child sex ring run from a Washington, D.C., pizzeria" | [1] |
The Washington Post | "“Pizzagate” has yet to produce any actual evidence for its extremely weighty and life-ruining accusations" | [2] |
TimothyJosephWood 18:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
References
I don't have time to do it right now, but we really should include the details from the NYT piece which addresses individual elements of the story. If we're going to tell that it was debunked, we should probably list what the bunk was, and why it was. TimothyJosephWood 21:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Not all credible sources say it is necesarily false, so maybe the first sentence should be changed per WP:NPOV: http://www.inquisitr.com/3766750/pizzagate-conspiracy-theory-or-something-more-sinister-gunman-arrested-at-comet-ping-pong-but-was-this-staged/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3754020/pizzagate-summary-what-is-spirit-cooking-who-is-marina-abramovic-news/ https://aceloewgold.com/2016/11/20/pizzagate-clinton-podesta-what-is-it-and-is-it-credible/
Due to these sources, I think the article should treat pizza gate as widely rejected or debated. I personally believe pizzagate is false by the way, I'm just trying to maintain NPOV on Wikipedia.
I also think the article should be careful in what it labels as fake news and real news. What is considered fake news and how do we objectively dismiss a news source as fake news? IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Please explain why each of these sources is unreliable. According to WP:NPOV viewpoints held by a significant minority should be represented. Personal opinions on the validity of these sources should not outweigh the fact that these beliefs do exist, and not everything has been debunked with high enough certainty for Wikipedia to take a side on this dispute.
You're calling the reliability of these sources laughable? How can you say that when currently Wikipedia cites The Seattle Times as evidence that Pizzagate has been debunked. Don't say Inquisitr is less reliable than The Seattle Times.
Also, none of the cited articles "debunk" pizzagate; they only provide evidence against it's validity. I personally believe the evidence is strong, but it's not Wikipedia's job to evaluate these arguments and take sides, especially when there are siginificant groups of people on both sides of the argument.
What's wrong with saying widely rejected (or even debated)? IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 03:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple simple typos in this article that I wanted to correct, but it's locked. Is it worth doing, and if so, what's the best way to go about it? Nosecohn ( talk) 21:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
"The word 'Debunked'. "
Check the article with Ctrl F and find one time 'pizzeria' spelled 'pizzaria' - maybe not completely wrong, but at least not consistent. Jürgen Eissink ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
...the actual fuck is going on in this edit? I'm not entirely sure what the intended purpose was. But there is certainly a better way to accomplish it than to revert an entire week's worth of discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Since a title change can only come about via a move, may I suggest moving this to "Pizzagate hoax" since this has been debunked. A theory can potentially be true, since this has been disproven, it then becomes a hoax. What do you think ? KoshVorlon 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
We've already had a discussion about this - there was no consensus. Let's just leave it there for now... Exemplo347 ( talk) 18:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages are meant for discussions about improvements to the article - they're not a forum for general debate about the content.
TimothyJosephWood
22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
It would be helpful to show us exactly how this Pizzagate theory was "debunked". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:90DF:1600:3CE4:11CF:7DB9:C0E5 ( talk) 16:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Slatersteven ( talk) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I originally set out to just remove the BLP violations and revdel those, but in the process of doing so it became necessary to overhaul the article. I've removed material that I couldn't see a source for, and made it clear that (per sources) this is a conspiracy theory with no evidence coming from some doubtful sources. James spencer moulson ( talk · contribs)'s original version was topic-ban worthy, if not block worthy. Without combing through every single edit after his, I get the impression that most other users didn't exacerbate the BLP violations he posted, but still failed to address them. Had someone else fixed the draft before me (leaving me undeniably uninvolved), and had he been notified about discretionary sanctions relating to post-1932 American politics, I would have personally topic banned him.
I have not yet moved this into article space because of concerns over WP:EFFECT as well as waiting for more admin support. Ian.thomson ( talk) 10:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Adl-Tabatabai was not the conspiracy theory forum poster, he was the conspiracy theorist who cited the conspiracy theory forum post (in addition to the Tweet and the 4chan post). If we are going to simplify it, then:
Is slightly shorter than:
However, the tweet got the ball rolling and was the origin of the core of the conspiracy theory (which Adl-Tabatabai developed into its current form). Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
One might think that police calling the motive a 'fictitious conspiracy theory' would put an end to the claim that inspired a gunman from North Carolina to attack a family pizzeria in Washington over the weekend.
We now have an actual police statement, and reporting by secondary sources, using this wording. Note the word "fictitious" in front of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in its first appearance in the article by the Miami Herald.
We should take our cue from these secondary sources and use similar wording to the Miami Herald and to the police. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
2nd cite, 2nd quote for "debunked":
Though debunked by sources as diverse as The New York Times, Fox News Channel and the web hoax investigator Snopes, more than a million messages have traversed Twitter since November about #Pizzagate.
Sagecandor ( talk) 16:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
3rd cite, 3rd quote for "debunked":
the dangerous and damaging fake allegations against a businessman and his employees simply trying to make a living have been repeatedly debunked, disproved and dismissed.
Sagecandor ( talk) 16:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Personal opinion and
original research do not constitute
reliable sources.
TimothyJosephWood
18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
Bitsnake420 ( talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It was determined to be false by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia who called it a "fictitious conspiracy theory". [1] The conspiracy theory was investigated and discredited as fake by fact-checking website Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
hannahalam
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).snopes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).DCGunman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).douglaswashburn
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Please add above text as a 2nd paragraph for the intro.
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 19:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Could be added to this article. Sagecandor ( talk) 22:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
TIME and New York Daily News have more info. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder: the individual arrested for the shooting is not WP:WELLKNOWN and is covered under WP:BLPCRIME unless convicted. TimothyJosephWood 20:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Timothyjosephwood:Suspect has chosen to use his real name in a public interview with The New York Times to explain his action: "The Comet Ping Pong Gunman Answer's Our Reporter's Questions", also The Daily Beast reported on this development at "Pizzagate Gunman: 'I Regret How I Handled the Situation'". Sagecandor ( talk) 23:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This section needs expanding (see Michael G. Flynn#Presidential transition of Donald Trump for comparison). In particular, I think the fact that Flynn had previously promoted the PizzaGate conspiracy and that his father published similar rumors on social media (spirit cooking, Wiener fake news) should be mentioned in the article. All of this is mentioned at the Michael G. Flynn page and is relevant here. HelgaStick ( talk) 00:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It also might be good to add "Jr." after Michael G. Flynn's name. Many people might be confused regarding which Michael Flynn was dismissed from the Trump team. The Armchair General ( talk) 22:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Suggested sources to add to update article.
New development. So now real world impact with violence and threats of violence in Washington, D.C., New York, and now Texas. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This is why I think we should have a section on harassment reports, much like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories#Harassment by conspiracy theorists. Falling Gravity 08:08, 8 December 2016 (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.
Pizzagate is a conspiracy started in Sept. 2016 that tied a number of pizzerias and members of the Democratic Party to a child-sex ring. The theory has been soundly debunked by news media (strongest source fist) and law enforcement (list) says the theory is without merit. The theory occured amongst the backdrop of the US election.
.We are currently missing the "when" and are missing context. I'm proposing a shortened description, including when it started, followed immediately by a description of of thoroughly and by whom the theory was discredited. And then finally provide some context, which is sorely missing in the lead. The idea that this is bit related to the election is nonsense, but we don't see it. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 08:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.It is an uncontested and uncontroversial fact among reliable sources that these claims are false, fabricated and malicious lies. Until and unless you or anyone else presents reliable sources which claim otherwise, this is not up for debate. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.That Wikipedia's coverage of this issue accurately reflects the fact that reliable sources publishing on this topic are effectively unanimous in declaring this to be a series of malicious lies is a feature, not a bug. Again, your disagreement is with the reliable sources, not Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Does it really add anything to the lead that we mention who started the conspiracy theory and how it spread in the lead? Perhaps, but this belongs AFTER we mention the concept of the theory.-- That man from Nantucket ( talk) 23:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipedia for years now, and I've never, EVER seen Buzzfeed listed as an acceptable source. So why is Buzzfeed, a content-rehosting blog, being given so much credibility here?
Solntsa90 ( talk) 19:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is the leading sentence, and is credited with 'debunking' the story--That alone leaves me suspect, as Buzzfeed is not a credible source for anything, even if Politifact re-hashes what they say (and Politifact is not entirely credible either). Solntsa90 ( talk) 19:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Participation also appreciated at /info/en/?search=Talk:Fake_news_website#BuzzFeed_News Sagecandor ( talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
In general Buzzfeed easily meets the criteria of our reliable sources guideline. It has a high reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, an established editorial team,
Is this a joke? Let me know, so I can respond accordingly. Solntsa90 ( talk) 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Omg. cOrneLlrOckEy ( talk) 22:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is most definitely NOT a reliable source. In fact, most of what is in that article was simply made up the the editor. Pizzagate actually was started by people who were reading Podesta's emails on Wikileaks, and the Buzzfeed article doesn't even mention that. All the Buzzfeed nonsense is unreliable, unverifiable, and needs to be immediately deleted. Ag97 ( talk) 14:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
"Why don't you stop pretending like Wikipedia is free and democratic". It is free and participation is voluntary. Nobody said that it is democratic. Quite the opposite. Per the policy statement: Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee). Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution." Dimadick ( talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The article has this referenced claim, but it is not explained in the article how this conspiracy theory is related to racial minorities. Can this be improved? -- Pudeo ( talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Sagecandor, the issue is not that the statement is unsourced. It is simply given without context, leaving its significance unclear. Dimadick ( talk) 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Although the media had debunked the conspiracy theories, I do not believe that the word should be a title of this section. The title "Responses" would be more accurate because the media had responded to the incident, debunking it. Also, I believe that the owner's response to the incident should also be included in that section, such as his interview with NPR on November 27, 2016 where he referred to the conspiracy theory as "an insanely complicated, made-up, fictional lie-based story" and a "coordinated political attack" Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 03:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
We obviously have Pizzagate "truthers" commenting on this page. (I can provide diffs if necessary) I don't understand why the same arguments need to be rehashed and the same links provided that will be ignored since they're part of the "lamestream media". The reasons this libelous and ludicrous story is false have been provided. If the conspiracy theorists want to argue about it, I suggest they do it on another site; one that doesn't care about WP:BLP issues. I suggest closing discussions when people start repeating the same arguments. APK whisper in my ear 19:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
While I have noticed some rather peculiar comments myself, I hope this does not translate to shutting down all discussions before they can even begin. Dimadick ( talk) 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
According to this article by Toronto Star, the person who had started the Pizzagate theory was a woman from Belleville, Ontario who was a contributor of the conspiracy site "Planet Free Will". Should I include this information in the article? Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
See here. I'm not posting directly on talk because I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't constitute a BLP violation. I think it may be useful for the article as an example of the things that are being spread around, but...again...I'm not sure we even have the option of using it. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This sentence "Several sites noted that purported evidence cited by the conspiracy theory's proponents had been fabricated or taken from entirely different sources and photoshopped to appear as if they supported the conspiracy." appears to be original research and unverifiable. No reputable sources are given to back up the claims, so I propose the sentence should be deleted. Ag97 ( talk) 14:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The article briefly names a "Brittany Pettibone" and her role in the story. Who is she? We do not have other articles that mention her. A few online sources mention a "Brittany Pettibone" as co-author of a science fiction novel called "Hatred Day", but do not mention political activities. Dimadick ( talk) 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Days after the attack,
Hillary Clinton spoke out on the dangers of fake news in a tribute speech to retiring Senator
Harry Reid at the
United States Capitol.
[1]
[2] Clinton called the spread of fraudulent news and fabricated propaganda an
epidemic that flowed through social media.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
[2] She said it posed a danger to citizens of the U.S. and to the country's political process.
[1]
[2] The week of her speech, legislation on
The Pentagon policy which included a
bipartisan measure to found a new division within the
U.S. State Department to from an inter-agency effort to combat incoming
propaganda originating from foreign nations.
[1] Clinton said in her speech she supported bills before the U.S. Congress to deal with fake news.
[1]
References
Suggest some or any or all of this could be added to the article. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I've spent probably too much time trying to find a reliable source on social media trends in the hope of uploading a graph of popularity over time. Aaand...I've not really found anything. Anyone more social-media-savvy than me know of a good source? TimothyJosephWood 16:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Now at AE. Neutrality talk 17:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am quite concerned by a number of recent edits by Ag97. This user has made a number of edits they describe as "minor" that are not at all minor. Here and here they significantly weaken the description of the hoax as false. Please do not describe significant changes as minor edits. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 16:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I stand behind all of my edits, and will defend every one of them. You have no right to ban me for making good faith edits. Ag97 ( talk) 16:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to discuss content, this is the place. If you want to discuss editors, go to ANI or AE, because this is not the place. TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Strongly recommend keeping citations in the intro from this version [16].
Makes it much harder for drive-by-cite-tagging and vandalism removal of content. Sagecandor ( talk) 16:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Now at WP:AE. TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am concerned by the number of recent edits by NorthBySouthBaranof. This user made a large amount of changes, without talk page consensus, that violate Wikipedia policy of neutrality. I, and many editors and readers of this article, disagree with these changes. This user is purposefully rewriting the article to remove neutral language and make it biased, reducing the overall quality of the article. In addition, he and his friend Neutrality have threatened to use their administrator rights to block me from Wikipedia in retaliation for voicing my opposition and concerns about their changes. It is very disturbing to see that these two administrators have teamed up to worsen the quality of an article and bully and threaten anyone who tries to stop them. Ag97 ( talk) 16:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to discuss content, this is the place. If you want to discuss editors, go to ANI or AE, because this is not the place. TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC) |
The Daily Dot is the only source for this story, BBC Online is copying their prose verbatim, as is was Wikipedia. Sloppy, guys.
SashiRolls (
talk)
19:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
In the last week, all Turkish pro-government papers, including mainstream publications like Sabah, A Haber, Yeni Şafak, Akşam and Star, ran similar stories about the PizzaGate, using the very same images and claims from a (now banned) subreddit to convince their readers on how serious and deep-rooted the scandal was. Columnists penned articles that the PizzaGate is a part of the globalist conspiracy against Turkey, and one article even remarked that the "Teenage" in pizza-eating Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles now makes sense as a pedophilia reference after PizzaGate.
The fake story remained the preserve of 4chan and alt-right Reddit until mid-November, when Turkish pro-government media outlets suddenly took an intense interest. Their tweets were in Turkish, but they used the English hashtag: #Pizzagate.
Soon, dozens of fake news articles on sites such as Facebook, Planet Free Will and Living Resistance emerged. Readers shared the stories in Saudi Arabia and on Turkish and other foreign language sites.
In November, Turkish pro-government media suddenly started tweeting about the conspiracy theory using the hashtag #Pizzagate.
Also, the nation of Turkey is involved in the spread of Pizzagate. Around mid-November, the BBC explained, a pro-government media outlet in Turkey started tweeting the conspiracy theory using the hashtag #pizzagate. The reason, according to The Daily Dot, is that supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan were trying to accuse opponents of hypocrisy. An actual child-abuse scandal had rocked a foundation connected to the Turkish government, and Erdogan's supporters were asking why people weren't also outraged over Pizzagate. In other words, it was meant as a distraction.
It first appeared on the politics message board of 4chan, a hive of internet trolling, metastasized on the biggest pro-Donald Trump subreddit, served as a convenient distraction for institutions loyal to Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and is now percolating on forums across the internet, as self-identified "investigators" comb the web for further clues. In the process, the frenzied pedo-truthers have published the personal information of numerous private citizens and bombarded their social media accounts, homes, and places of business with graphic threats.
his Instagram account got clogged a week before the presidential election with violent messages like, 'I will kill you personally.' He wondered why until he found out that on social media sites like 4Chan and Reddit and Facebook, and in the Twitter feed of Breitbart News, and as far away as Saudi Arabia and Turkey
Please use some of the above sources to add info to the article on Turkey and Turkish media involvement in spreading Pizzagate. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:49, 9 December 2016 (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.
Not seeing any suggested WP:SECONDARY sources recommended on this talk page to add something missing.
Therefore, the NPOV tag should be removed from the top of the article. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not feel the NPOV Tag should have been added to this article. Experienced editors have gone to extensive pains to remove non-neutral language and revert non-neutral edits. The two posts referenced in the edit history when this NPOV tag was added were parts of discussions on the talk page that were both resolved. Maintaining a neutral point of view does not mean that every single point of view on a subject should be given equal weight. Wikipedia articles maintain a balance based on the significant, reliable, verifiable sources on a given subject. In this particular case, the Unanimous view of the press from all across the political spectrum means that to suggest there is a likelihood that this particular subject matter - Pizzagate - may actually have some truthful basis would be to give undue weight to something that has no reliable source to back it up.
I therefore see no point in adding the NPOV tag and I would be interested in hearing the motive behind its addition. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:NPOV states that articles should be written "without editorial bias." This article contains high amounts of editorial bias, directly violating WP:NPOV. Ag97 ( talk) 21:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This word is redundant, the words "conspiracy theory" alone mean it's false.
I counted 4 people supporting the change to merge the sections, and also 4 people opposed to the change, so I don't see any consensus there.
Whole section for one sentence seems WP:UNDUE WEIGHT.
Could just go up in general Responses section. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Could this be added into the "Responses" section? It's from Brian Stelter of CNN (Source: Schwartz, Ian (December 5, 2016) "Stelter: Trump A "Conspiracy Theorist," It's Up To "Us" To Call Out Nonsense". RealClearPolitics.):
"Following Michael Flynn Jr.'s comments on Pizzagate, CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter linked the conspiracy theory to the election of Donald Trump as President-elect of the United States, saying that Trump "is a conspiracy theorist" who "in a few different cases tweeted out links to clearly fake news stories". Steller commented that Trump promoted fake news about Muslims cheering in New Jersey on the day of the September 11 attacks and claimed that millions of illegal immigrants had voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election, which Trump won." HelgaStick ( talk) 15:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The article calls infowars a "fake news site" without any citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrimsorrywhat ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Borrowing from the main Comet Ping Pong Talk page, there is an apparent contradiction regarding the resturant's basement.
This Metro Weekly interview from 2015 where Alefantis claims Comet Ping Pong has a basement, used for storing canned vegetables and sauces:
Like our sauce — we harvest a whole crop of organic tomatoes — 10 tons of tomatoes every year. Can them all, store them in the basement, have like a harvest party when it gets loaded in.
And this one from the BBC from late 2016, where he emphatically denies having a basement:
"They ignore basic truths," Alefantis tells BBC Trending. For instance, the conspiracy supposedly is run out of the restaurant's basement. "We don't even have a basement."
The Metro interview as also mentioned in an recent article by Inquisitr. Yoshiman6464 ( talk) 15:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Which source does one use in ascertaining whether or not the property has a basement? Solntsa90 ( talk) 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The opening of this article said this took place during the election cycle, but it happened after. Any correction to relect this would be appreciated. Ahraaar ( talk) 04:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
In what way did the "pizzagate" conspiracy theory begin (as a theory) in early November? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahraaar ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: This information was added to the article as a response to a direct request on this talk page. It provides vital background context and the words were carefully chosen - "election cycle" does not necessarily just mean the days leading up to the day that voting takes place. Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 08:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This story lists one of the weapons as a "Colt AR-15 type Assault rifle." While this has been misreported in the media, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are selective fire weapons, which the AR-15 is not.
The weapon in question was apparently a true AR-15 as listed in an "incident report." [1] It should probably be listed as "AR-15 rifle." "Semi-automatic AR-15" would be also technically correct, but unnecessary, since all AR-15's are semi-auto.
Note: there WERE a small number of select military AR-15 rifles produced, but the modern AR-15 is not select fire, and I believe the select fire models were only sold to the military and not resold to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangle0 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The source is already provided. It's a Colt AR-15. Calling it an "assault" rifle is sensationalism. Archangle0 ( talk) 05:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is missing any detailed information about the claims or allegations of this conspiracy theory. The other conspiracy theory articles on wikipedia focus on the conspiracy theory allegations rather than debunking them. This article does the opposite. In fact, it seems this article is only including information to disprove the conspiracy theory. That's fine, this is a crazy theory, but in the interest of being unbiased and created a complete article, we need to create a section with detailed allegations. I will gladly add the allegations if there is consensus to do so. Iksnyrk ( talk) 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
violate WP:BLP- Not necessarily. Have to remember, you can still say terrible awful things about someone on WP, it just has to be very well sourced. I'm not really seeing that much is needed to explain things other than pizza + sex ring. If there's a reliable source for this information, it can certainly be presented. Keeping in mind, that presenting content of a conspiracy theory as a fact that it is content of the theory is not the same as presenting the content of a conspiracy theory as fact. TimothyJosephWood 20:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
...authenticated by DKIM, a digital signature that undeniably proves the email has not been altered.This is false as they went through a third party. Objective3000 ( talk) 01:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The irony is respecting the security of e-mails in the same breath as one would talk about Wikileaks, which made its reputation on the insecurity of e-mails. Objective3000 ( talk) 03:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
DKIM verified email proving that Tony Podesta thinks I'm the greatest Wikipedian
|
---|
Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Received: by 10.25.88.78 with SMTP id m75csp149353lfb; |
References for this section
|
---|
I suspect, as a savvy but modest Wikipedian, that you may have an overwhelming but unconscious desire to put an archive bot on this talk page.
I've never actually done it myself without horribly screwing it up.
TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Drive-by original research tagging by Sangdeboeuf ( talk · contribs) is inappropriate and should be removed. [26]
There are multiple citations to reliable secondary sources before each tag.
This has been discussed on this talk page already above ad nauseam.
Already debunked as false and fake by Fox News "became a center of conspiracy theories driven by fake news stories" and The Wall Street Journal "widely debunked conspiracy theory, known as Pizzagate". Sagecandor ( talk) 05:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
§ Debunking, below. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry bros. But at some point we have to save us from ourselves.
TimothyJosephWood
00:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
“hotdog” = boy “pizza” = girl “cheese” = little girl “pasta” = little boy “ice cream” = male prostitute “walnut” = person of colour “map” = semen “sauce” = orgy
"stromboli" = clown, "teacup" = mud wrestling, "anal sex" = grilled cheese, "turkey baster" = turkey baster TimothyJosephWood 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC) This is an imaginary code, thought up by... who knows? And it means... who cares? Until I see a confirmed, reliable, substantial source that definitely states this is a code that is used for the reasons that is claimed, this is irrelevant. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"Marinara" = Saturday morning cartoons, "penne alla vodka" = that weird twitch you get when someone tickles your stomach, "hamburger" = gym shorts, "french fries" = nose hair. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
And on that note, realizing my own penchant for nonsense, recommend closing and collapsing this. TimothyJosephWood 23:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Joking aside, the supposed "code words" have been mentioned in WP:RS related to PizzaGate. The New York Times mentioned "cheese pizza" (already mentioned in article w/ same citation), but has a 4chan screenshot about "hotdog", "pizza", "cheese", "pasta", "ice cream", "walnut", "map" and "sauce", as well as a WikiLeaks email about "Walnut sauce". The Washington City Paper notes that "To the alt right, though, "pizza" became a suspected code word for illegal sex trafficking", and TIME magazine notes "Users claimed some words in Alefantis’ emails (for example, “pizza” and “cheese”) were code words for criminal activity.". Shouldn't this be expanded upon somewhat? HelgaStick ( talk) 01:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Small typo in the "Debunking" section. :) HelgaStick ( talk) 14:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
it is not debunked Habshockeylover97 ( talk) 15:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
sorry, sorry, I thought it was just semiprotected. I never even look at, let alone touch, "controversial" articles of this type these days. Still, I would argue my edit was a no-brainer based on policy alone. Won't edit this again, but since at the very least it is obvious there is nothing resembling "consensus" on the state of the article as it stands (I hope it is obvious I am editing in best faith), you should at least add an npov template. cheers, -- dab (𒁳) 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I feel this sentence should be edited or removed for being inflammatory given that "cheese pizza" cannot be found in the emails. 17:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.141.171 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Stefanie Macwilliams, a contributor to Planet Free Will, wrote an article that took off on social media. In it, she recounted a man's claims about a politically connected pedophile ring housed at the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlour in the U.S. capital. ...
"I kind of wanted to put out the information that was there with the statement. I've not accusing anyone of anything, there's no concrete evidence of anything," Macwilliams said Wednesday. Planet Free Will was among the websites called out for sharing fake news." ( source)
Should any of this information be included? HelgaStick ( talk) 13:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I tagged a couple of statements here that looked like original research – is there a published source directly stating that "sources across the political spectrum" have debunked the rumor, or that it has been described as false by the sources named, "among others"? Often, when glib statements such as these are followed by multiple inline citations, it looks like a Wikipedia editor is trying to shore up their own personal interpretation with references that only indirectly support it – hence the need for several at once. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research". The tags look appropriate to me unless it's shown that a published source makes these statements explicitly. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should we include mention of this latest addition to the conspiracy?
(note there is not a lot of RS for this)???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven ( talk • contribs)
I don't care for the opening phrase "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory" as it implies that some conspiracy theories are true, which is ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, although some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true (e.g., the Watergate scandal; the Iran-Contra affair).... Book published by Cambridge University Press. Sagecandor ( talk) 22:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
4th point has been rebutted. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that have made claims just as bad as this one. 9/11 claimed that George Bush caused the deaths of thousands of people; those are worse claims than the ones here, and also slanderous to a living person. Sandy Hook suggested that Obama was involved in the shooting of kids in a school; those claims are also terrible and slanderous to a living person. Yet neither 9/11 nor Sandy hook are described as debunked, even though they both are. Ag97 ( talk) 22:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
"The circumstances surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[1] have been doubted or disputed by a number of people, leading to several conspiracy theories. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza fatally shot his mother, then 20 students and 6 staff members at the elementary school before committing suicide,[2] but conspiracy theorists question the circumstances of the shooting, whether Adam Lanza was the sole perpetrator, and are using early media reports that included inconsistencies about the identity of the shooter, wrong photos, incorrect location of victims,[3] and weapons used[4] as evidence for their claims. Others have suggested the shooting was orchestrated by government officials for political reasons,[5] similar to some 9/11 conspiracy theories, claiming that the shooting was deliberately set up to push stricter gun control laws. These conspiracy theories have been described by mainstream news sources as contradictory, implausible, without evidence, and offensive to those affected.[6][7][8][9] Several sources also published articles debunking various claims put forward by conspiracy theorists.[6][10][11][12]"
I suggest we do the same thing with this article and use this lead:
This lead resolves the legitimate issue raised by A Quest for Knowledge, but also makes clear that the media debunked the claim, satisfying those who want the word debunked to be in the lead. Ag97 ( talk) 23:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's just cut to the chase here, the "theory" is false. That it is false is verifiable, an overwhelmingly so. If you think it is not, then produce sources. If you cannot, then your opinion is not important. This is how Wikipedia works.
We are not going to guise arguments about the veracity of the theory in claims about neutrality, or specious arguments about what other articles do, because those articles are not precedent setting. They are not policy. They are not guidelines. They mean nothing.
If you contend that the theory is true, or may likely be true, then provide reliable sources that back up your claim. Otherwise, we are done here. TimothyJosephWood 23:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, conspiracy theories have sometimes turned out to be true.. This time published by Duke University Press. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It's completely ridiculous that people are attempting to shut down this discussion before it even began. If you don't like my lead, you should be able to explain why the current one is better. Saying "we are done here" before the debate even started is a very rude and arrogant thing to do. It seems to me like you're attempting to shut down discussion because you have no good reasons why the current lead is better than my lead. Ag97 ( talk) 23:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that revisiting this issue for the 4th or 5th time has achieved absolutely nothing. There are still no sources that say Pizzagate is true, and it's been days & days now. You'd think something would have emerged, but no - we're still bogged down in pointless semantics, the talk page is flooded with repetitive discussion and it's all added absolutely nothing of value to the article. Accurate summary? Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
the only debunking that occurred is that several media sources published articles saying that the theory is false and has been debunked.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
TimothyJosephWood
01:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to make sense of why one editor is trying to change this from "debunked" to "debunked by the 'MSM'." The only conclusion I can imagine, and it's just my opinion, is that half the people in the country believe the "MSM", and the scare quotes are purposely included, shouldn't be trusted, to weaken the belief in the minds of half the readers that this conspiracy theory has in fact been debunked, and perhaps there are odd code words in some stolen e-mails indicating that this pizzeria is a Democratic pedophilia ring. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Otherwise, what's the point of the change? Objective3000 ( talk) 02:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this discussion has gone off topic. The issue isn't whether this conspiracy theory is true or false. Of course, it's nonsense. The issue, as I see it is that "debunked conspiracy theory" implies that some conspiracy theories aren't bunk. If you look at our other articles on conspiracy theories, such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, none of them have this language in the opening sentence. What I propose is that we remove the word "debunked" from the opening sentence. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: Not everybody edits Wikipedia on a daily basis. I've been busy this week and today was the first day I was able to comment on it. @MjolnirPants: OK, I'll create a new thread. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (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.
Like all too many articles on Wikipedia, this reads as though it was written by the DNC. Some liberal should rewrite this article to make it more neutral. Moderates and conservatives should not even bother trying to write or rewrite articles on Wikipedia because liberals will simply claim they are vandals and their efforts will be destroyed quickly. Sadly, Wikipedia has become Liberalpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 ( talk) 17:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Came here from AIV, with no prior involvement with the page. Just want to say that even though this is a conspiracy theory, the wording is a little over the top. "Conspiracy theory" already implies no basis in reality. Using language that sounds like "completely disproved and debunked conspiracy theory with no basis in reality that's been disproved and debunked" is actually counterproductive, because it stops sounding like a neutral presentation. Vanamonde ( talk) 04:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the most biased article I have ever seen. "(Conspiracy Theory)", "which falsely claims", and that's what I found in the first 5 seconds of reading it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
94.4.242.53 (
talk)
15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Debunked is not neutral at all. It's BS. There are sources that support it and sources that don't. It hasn't been proven or disproven. Remove the word debunked. 68.226.203.167 ( talk) 07:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
More importantly, the word "debunked" is not accurate, and no sources have been referenced that actually disprove (i.e., debunk) this THEORY - just more of the same articles that summarily label this as untrue. Rather, this is an UNSUBSTANTIATED theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.6.206 ( talk) 22:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one outraged by "debunked" when the citations are just other sites saying "it's a lie! Fake news!"
Prosecution has presented evidence. Defense just says "whatever. It's all a lie" FerroR ( talk) 16:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Outsider input - Hey, i checked the sources that "debunk" this thing trying to do outside research and i was perversely disappointed. Does anywhere exist on the internet where they debunk the Instagram posts and the code in the emails? They all seems to avoid theses subjects, and as they are the primary basis for the theroy it seems imporant to include a source that actually debunks them. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Basedbrawl (
talk •
contribs)
17:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
HERE IS A SOURCE THAT SHOWS HOW PIZZAGATE IS NOT DEBUNKED. SOMEONE FIGURE OUT HOW TO EDIT THIS BS WIKI PAGE. STOP SPREADING FAKE NEWS AND PROPAGANDA. PIZZAGATE IS NOT DEBUNKED. MY CAPS LOCK IS STUCK, SORRY.
https://aceloewgold.com/2016/11/26/the-new-york-times-snopes-was-pizzagate-debunked/
68.226.203.167 (
talk)
00:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to make it clear for anyone else who happens to read a blog, get enraged and then come here to claim Pizzagate is "not debunked": if you're not going to provide Reliable, Verifiable and Independent Sources then don't expect the word "debunked" to be removed from the article. I'd also like to caution against personal attacks on editors if you want to be taken seriously. Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. SST flyer 10:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
– Per WP:TWODABS, this is clearly the WP:PTOPIC due to the immense coverage this has received, compared to the much more obscure 2004 event. SST flyer 10:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, do we have an article about russian hackers scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.181.169 ( talk) 16:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The separate page regarding alleged Russian election interference should be similarly renamed to, for example, "2016 United States election interference by Russia (conspiracy theory)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.16.118 ( talk) 19:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Lack of intelligence is why the Pizzagate conspiracy theory started.Now. Some might construe that as a personal attack. FBDB TimothyJosephWood 19:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: Another editor requested that I create a new thread.
I think the opening sentence should be changed slightly. The opening phrase "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory" implies that some conspiracy theories are true, which is ridiculous. If you look at our other articles on conspiracy theories]], such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories and Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, none of them have this language in the opening sentence. What I propose is that we remove the word "debunked" from the opening sentence. The sentence, "The theory has been discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum, described as a 'fictitious conspiracy theory' by the District of Columbia Police Department and determined to be false by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News." Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The suspect has been interviewed by The New York Times and is facing federal charges. I think his name has been disseminated enough to be included in the article. The relevant policy is WP:BLPNAME. Falling Gravity 04:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that this has been ruled fake news, and has already caused damage to the targeted business, I think images of the business should be removed from the article as to avoid any participation of WP in further damage. Objective3000 ( talk) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, for the sake of putting this on talk for discussion, the photo of the memorial is fairly evidently the most relevant photo currently on the article, and was requested by myself on WikiProject:DC, specifically so it could be used here. TimothyJosephWood 23:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Source can be used to update article. Sagecandor ( talk) 22:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Secondary source for above U.S. federal affidavit.
Also has more info on investigation and criminal proceedings. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
File could be added to this article.
Public domain as from United States District Court for the District of Columbia and federal employees. Sagecandor ( talk) 07:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm no fan of that site, but I'm concerned that this wording is potentially defamatory. As user NorthSouthBaranOf helpfully pointed out on my talk page, "Wikipedia has emplaced extremely strong policies regarding material about living people, particularly negative (defamatory) claims about living people." However, the edit that he made without consensus accusing infowars of being fake news could itself be a defamatory claim about a living person. Alex Jones denied that infowars is a fake news site and said that it is legitimate. [34]. He also expressed concern that labelling infowars "fake news" might result in his site being shut down, which would remove his primary source of income. BLP states that when an article says something defamatory about a person, and that person denies the claim, that should be mentioned in the article. Since Jones has denied the claim, and infowars being fake news isn't properly cited, right now the recent edit made about Inforwars violated BLP by adding poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Ag97 ( talk) 13:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This whole little discussion here gives undue weight to a minor part of the article. It doesn't deserve to be mentioned, even as a note, that Alex Jones says his site isn't fake news. Add it to the page for Infowars if you're really that concerned about it. WP:PROPORTION says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" - so basically, Infowars is called Fake News by a wide range of reliable sources. Why do we need to say that Alex Jones says it isn't? It's giving undue weight and false balance. Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The Vigilant Citizen publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.
'The Onion publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.
This is all just a red herring, a transparent attempt to discredit the article as a whole by chipping away at a tiny part of it. Why not just remove Infowars from this article completely and replace the specific site names with "Fake News Sites" and citations. Problem solved, no reason for tenuous "BLP" arguments. Exemplo347 ( talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No. In terms of a description for this Wikipedia page, Alex Jones should properly be termed a conspiracy theorist (as it says on his page), and Infowars a conspiracy theory site. Besides using a foundation of real information - things that internet searches show exist, such as, say, artist Marina Abramovic "spirit cooking" pictures - he attempts to logically explain the information he presents. People can disagree with his conclusions and/or the logic and assumptions he employs, but his show is clearly in the range of conspiracy theory - dealing with real information - not fake news.
Infowars is not in the least a "fake news" site, and it's a shoddy thing that this article describes it as such, and its description should be changed to something with more solid, objective evidence for it as soon as possible. The current description is indeed a BLP violation. It stretches the idea of what's "fake news" into any alternative source of information that some or many people don't like, and if this exaggerated standard for "fake news" was actually established throughout our nation, it would be the end of America as a free society. The Chinese government seems to consider real news on Tiananmen Square and its ongoing human rights violations to be "fake news." The "fake news" label could and surely would be applied to ANY reporting without the right backing from on high.
And for how long has "fake news" been a thing in the public discourse? And where are the scholars who define it, and the studies about it? Right now, "fake news" is a nebulous politicized buzzword and fad which just showed up months ago, and has been parroted and thrown around in the mainstream media with not a lot of care, and little evidence about what constitutes it. In its exaggerated form, it's really a loaded term. And if and when there are actually studies done of all the sites presently being labelled "fake news," even such studies would need to be referenced with care, to not overstate, expand or distort the findings.
THE FOLLOWING, however, IS fake news, and what the present understanding of it here needs to be limited to: ABCNews.com.co tries to pass itself off as ABC News, and as I saw some months back, posted made-up polls. And here's a current headline on their site: "Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring Investigation Into Election Results; Revote Planned For Dec. 19th." A story from another fake site, WTOENews.com (apparently passing as news from a t.v. station) about Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump is similarly made up out of whole cloth and untrue. And have people noticed the frequent ads on Facebook that say this or that famous person has suddenly and tragically died? Pure fiction since those people haven't died. The truth can be verified easily in seconds.
The bar should be set high and unequivocal for something to be described as a "fake news site," and that especially goes for an encyclopedia where iron-clad evidence is demanded. The matter of appropriate sourcing for such a label to be used applies. The news media are sufficient sources for labelling sites like ABCNews.com.co fake news, but that isn't good enough for sites that base their reports on verifiable information, as Infowars does. Actual scholarly study is needed. (I don't see the term "fake" used in the Wikipedia entries for old-media publications like the National Enquirer and the Globe.)
Mere description by some journalists isn't scholarly study Personal opinion, even by someone who *might* be some sort of an expert - which is another main "source" for the use of this label here - also isn't that. (Nor is something that claims to be a "study" of fake news good enough, either. BuzzFeed did that "study" on fake news which concluded that the top 20 fake news stories got more total Facebook attention than the top 20 "real" news stories - actually many were opinion pieces, published by mainstream outlets. And this "study" was used to bolster the claim that "fake news" influenced the election, even though many elements of the situation were left unstudied by the study, like the fact that most of the information in the "real" stories was also being covered in hundreds if not thousands of other print and television stories, attention the fake news didn't receive - and the fact that "the amount of Facebook attention a story receives" says nothing about how many people either didn't believe it or were told it wasn't true. And Infowars didn't even make it into that "study." Also, did Buzzfeed commission a poll to see how much penetration the information in the fake stories got versus the information in the stories from the mainstream media? No.)
As is often said here, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not news. When we're talking about using the phrase "fake news site (blank)," such sites have to be flat-out, incontrovertibly fake. And to make a statement that a site is believed to traffic in fake news, the results of real studies or opinions of scholars have to be cited *with care,* accurately explaining what the opinion or findings mean. Psalm84 ( talk) 01:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"But as the case moves forward, a website that amplified the conspiracy theory has removed content related to it, although archived versions are still accessible to authorities.
The website Infowars.com has removed a misleading page titled: "PIZZAGATE IS REAL: SOMETHING IS GOING ON, BUT WHAT?" as well as a YouTube video about the fictitious plot.
Another video on the same site, which matches a video described in the criminal complaint against Welch, is still active.
Another potential source of the type of misleading information cited by Welch was shut down not by the people posting the information but by the website on which it was hosted."
and also this bit of new info
"The tweet remained visible on Flynn's Twitter account until at least this Monday, according to an Internet archive that stores copies of webpages. More than 9,000 people shared it.
By early Tuesday morning, the tweet had been deleted. It no longer appears on Flynn's twitter profile. NPR reached out to the president-elect's transition team, but did not hear back."
Two pieces of important info to update this article and other relevant articles. Sagecandor ( talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if it wouldn't be helpful, in the long term, to go ahead and do an RfC on the "debunked" issue. It's already been raised several times, and while there is currently a moderate consensus for inclusion, it's nothing that wouldn't require another moderate consensus to override.
Actually doing an RfC would set a stronger local precedent, and likely save a good deal of time as something solid to point to when this issue inevitably comes up again. Basically, if you have a strong enough argument to open a new RfC, then go ahead, but otherwise this issue has been semi-officially settled.
Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The reference to Trump voters in relation to percentages who believe in this theory or those who do not should be removed. The two "references" are at best questionable, and go against Wiki's policy regarding acceptable reference materials. At the very least, if someone is going to report the supposed percentages related to one candidate, then shouldn't the same courtesy be given towards the other candidate in the election? If the two websites only reported on one candidate, then that in itself should lead one to question the validity of such a study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.108.253.2 ( talk) 19:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I’d remove it. It’s one poll, and pollsters haven’t been faring well lately. Also, the difference between Trump and non-Trump voters in this poll isn’t all that significant. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
pollsters haven’t been faring well latelyis not a terribly convincing argument. 2) Per the first source, 90% of HRC voters saw her as unconnected compared to 54% of DJT voters. So, that's a pretty big difference. I think the real question is why are we not simply providing the polling data and instead WP:CHERRYPICKING only the data about DJT voters? TimothyJosephWood 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Why do we not have a link to this, or indeed even mention of it as per.
http://www.snopes.com/the-pizzagate-survivor/
Slatersteven ( talk) 16:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The owner of Comet Ping Pong sat down for an interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News. Does anyone think this is worth including as an EL? APK whisper in my ear 10:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
External links
The result of the move request was: move to Pizzagate conspiracy theory. There is no consensus for a change to just Pizzagate, but there is consensus to at least remove the parentheses from the current title. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
– Suggest moving this over Pizzagate and including a hat note pointing to Battle of the Buffet#Pizzagate, since this seems to currently be fairly clearly the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, and more so, is a stand alone article, and not a section in an article, the main title of which, readers seem more likely to search for. TimothyJosephWood 01:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) – relisted by SST flyer 10:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.(emphasis mine). In this case there is no other existing article, but only a section, and therefore no reason to add qualifiers to the title. Furthermore, if we are to treat the section as an article for these purposes, the guideline continues:
If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A popular New York restaurant has become the latest victim of a fake-news conspiracy about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring out of a Washington, D.C., pizza joint.This is an extended descriptor, not a name. It is as supportive of "Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)" as it is of "Pizzagate (Hillary Clinton child sex ring conspiracy theory)".
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please use these sources to add to article to change wording from simply "debunked" to ---> "widely debunked" :
a widely debunked conspiracy theory, known as Pizzagate
have stood by the theory despite it being widely debunked
has already been widely debunked by news outlets and by the city's police
Thank you ! Sagecandor ( talk) 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to point out that liberal leaning news sites, with no sources themselves, simply stating that it has been "debunked everywhere, god, just do a google search and you could find it," is not a credible source.Actually... It is. Wikipedia might document ideological trends like "ya jist can't trust tha lib'ral medier!" but we certainly don't follow them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Everyone lay of the PA's whether it be "liberal POV pushers" or "hysterical". Slatersteven ( talk) 18:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I've just added a paragraph to the article in the "Responses" section detailing a spin-off conspiracy theory that was reported in The Washington Post. If anyone thinks it looks awful, dive right in and change it! Regards Exemplo347 ( talk) 18:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Our lead section currently says that the conspiracy theory is about "a number of pizzerias in Washington D.C." without naming them. This doesn't seem to be borne out by the body of the article, which only mentions Comet Ping Pong. Which other pizzerias are implicated by the theory and can someone more familiar than the theory than I please add appropriate content with citations to the body of our article? Otherwise, the lead section should be changed to refer specifically to Comet Ping Pong. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
|
I think removing "and others" is not helpful. It would be burdensome to the page to put in all these cites.
"nutty" http://observer.com/2016/12/pizzagate-recalls-the-debunked-child-sex-rings-of-the-80s-and-90s/
"dangerous conspiracy theory" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security-monica-crowley_us_58542a74e4b08debb788afc4
"debunked" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist-appeals-trump-aid-o/
"A false story" http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fake-news-guide-2016-story.html
And this is not all of them
I think giving a couple of examples and then saying "as well as others" does rather cover the reality rather well. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The story has been widely discredited and debunked. Snopes.com and the Washington Post called it "False". The Observer referred to it as "nutty". The Huffington Post labelled it a "...dangerous conspiracy theory". The LA Times said it was "a false story".
Something like this:
Periodical | Description | Source |
---|---|---|
The Observer | "a nutty conspiracy theory about a child sex ring run from a Washington, D.C., pizzeria" | [1] |
The Washington Post | "“Pizzagate” has yet to produce any actual evidence for its extremely weighty and life-ruining accusations" | [2] |
TimothyJosephWood 18:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
References
I don't have time to do it right now, but we really should include the details from the NYT piece which addresses individual elements of the story. If we're going to tell that it was debunked, we should probably list what the bunk was, and why it was. TimothyJosephWood 21:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Not all credible sources say it is necesarily false, so maybe the first sentence should be changed per WP:NPOV: http://www.inquisitr.com/3766750/pizzagate-conspiracy-theory-or-something-more-sinister-gunman-arrested-at-comet-ping-pong-but-was-this-staged/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3754020/pizzagate-summary-what-is-spirit-cooking-who-is-marina-abramovic-news/ https://aceloewgold.com/2016/11/20/pizzagate-clinton-podesta-what-is-it-and-is-it-credible/
Due to these sources, I think the article should treat pizza gate as widely rejected or debated. I personally believe pizzagate is false by the way, I'm just trying to maintain NPOV on Wikipedia.
I also think the article should be careful in what it labels as fake news and real news. What is considered fake news and how do we objectively dismiss a news source as fake news? IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Please explain why each of these sources is unreliable. According to WP:NPOV viewpoints held by a significant minority should be represented. Personal opinions on the validity of these sources should not outweigh the fact that these beliefs do exist, and not everything has been debunked with high enough certainty for Wikipedia to take a side on this dispute.
You're calling the reliability of these sources laughable? How can you say that when currently Wikipedia cites The Seattle Times as evidence that Pizzagate has been debunked. Don't say Inquisitr is less reliable than The Seattle Times.
Also, none of the cited articles "debunk" pizzagate; they only provide evidence against it's validity. I personally believe the evidence is strong, but it's not Wikipedia's job to evaluate these arguments and take sides, especially when there are siginificant groups of people on both sides of the argument.
What's wrong with saying widely rejected (or even debated)? IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 03:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple simple typos in this article that I wanted to correct, but it's locked. Is it worth doing, and if so, what's the best way to go about it? Nosecohn ( talk) 21:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
"The word 'Debunked'. "
Check the article with Ctrl F and find one time 'pizzeria' spelled 'pizzaria' - maybe not completely wrong, but at least not consistent. Jürgen Eissink ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
...the actual fuck is going on in this edit? I'm not entirely sure what the intended purpose was. But there is certainly a better way to accomplish it than to revert an entire week's worth of discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Since a title change can only come about via a move, may I suggest moving this to "Pizzagate hoax" since this has been debunked. A theory can potentially be true, since this has been disproven, it then becomes a hoax. What do you think ? KoshVorlon 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
We've already had a discussion about this - there was no consensus. Let's just leave it there for now... Exemplo347 ( talk) 18:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages are meant for discussions about improvements to the article - they're not a forum for general debate about the content.
TimothyJosephWood
22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
It would be helpful to show us exactly how this Pizzagate theory was "debunked". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:90DF:1600:3CE4:11CF:7DB9:C0E5 ( talk) 16:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Slatersteven ( talk) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |