Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Ben Swann short disappearance after reality check

Perhaps we can add a part about his short disappearance after the pizzagate item he did, the removal of his social media and conspiracy theories which arose around it? Source: http://www.inquisitr.com/3951116/ben-swann-erased-from-social-media-after-pizzagate-conspiracy-theory-fact-check/ UshilRasnal (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy site. Objective3000 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Inquisitr is NOT a conspiracy site. UshilRasnal (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ushil, could you please stop pushing these sorts of things, and instead focus on what reliable sources are covering? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is Inquisitr not a reliable source? UshilRasnal (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Inquisitr is an aggregator and will publish anything. The story after that one is: “Jesus Christ Had Bizarre Alien Shape-shifting Abilities: The Judas Iscariot Controversy.” Objective3000 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, and can we use the article written by Rodney Ho from AJC.com? https://archive.is/8oun6

And an article he wrote later about it: http://radiotvtalk.blog.ajc.com/2017/01/27/cbs46s-ben-swann-returning-monday-january-30-after-post-pizzagate-hiatus/ UshilRasnal (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is out of scope. It belongs at Ben Swann, not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is it out of scope? Isn't it directly related to pizzagate and everything around it? UshilRasnal (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No link to Pizzagate has been established. Objective3000 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's only in scope to the extent there has been a massive media coverup that has included CBS46. And the existence of such a coverup is not reliably sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he was embarrassed by his Pizzagate story and laid low. Maybe he had the flu. It is not for us to speculate. We include reliably sourced material. I have seen no reliable source that ties Pizzagate to this supposed "disappearance". Sounds like a conspiracy theory on top of a conspiracy theory. Objective3000 (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a hunch that his bosses said enough is enough and threatened to fire him for promoting harmful, widely-debunked conspiracy theories and alienating half of the station's viewer base, but that's pure speculation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Never heard of the guy. A cursory read looks like it's entirely possible someone said take a week and figure out what you want to be. But, as you say, entirely speculative. For all we know, he just wrote the great American novel. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we could have a wikilink to his page, and then a bit about this there. I am not sure (however) he is notable enough to really be mentioned here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we would want to add links related to every conspiracy theory site/promoter that talked about this. Objective3000 (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you guys seriously saying that you didn't know those little grey aliens set this up as a frame job because James and Hillary refused to introduce them to the Illuminati after they figured out it was actually the CIA who killed JFK? Seriously? Do your reasearch, sheeple. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's already a link to Ben Swann in the "Spread on social media" section. The criteria that I think we should hold to is notability. For example, Ben Swann and Andrew Bogut are both notable individuals. David Seaman is not notable as an individual, but he's become a major proponent of the theory and has gotten some notable coverage for it. ^Falling_Gravity 04:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about statement

Considering the nature of this article I don't understand why some statements like the following one exists:

"Other criticisms of the conspiracy theory came from the New York Observer,[55] The Washington Post,[56] The Independent in London,[57] The Huffington Post,[58] The Washington Times,[11] Los Angeles Times,[59] Fox News[60] and the Miami Herald.[61]"

• Fox link says: "Comet Ping Pong's owner and several employees were deluged by threats from social media users after several fake news stories claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief John Podesta ran a pedophilia ring out of the restaurant. The story was spread using the Twitter hashtag "Pizzagate.""
• Independent says: "was among those supporting the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory that led to a man opening fire in a Washington restaurant. [...] While working for his father, he shared a fake conspiracy that Ms Clinton’s allies had been running a paedophile ring in the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlour on social media."
• LA Times: "PizzaGate - A false story alleged that Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, were involved in a child sex ring based out of Comet Ping Pong, a pizza store owned by James Alefantis in Washington, D.C. [...] None of it was true, the New York Times noted in an article in November. That was not enough to stop a North Carolina man, Edgar Maddison Welch, from walking into the pizza store on Dec. 4 with an assault-style rifle to investigate the claim himself."

I don't understand how these 3 examples amount to anything more than "XY reported that theory was reported false by Z". I might be misreading the links, but where do these three "criticize the conspiracy theory". Considering the topic, I strongly encourage to have a wording that takes less liberties, and actually says what the provided links say. Otherwise it is feeding the conspiracy itself instead of reporting on it. Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Also why is there the following statement: "The Charlotte Observer noted the diverse group of sources that had debunked the conspiracy theory, pointing out this included the Fox News Channel in addition to The New York Times.[37]"? Why are we using a local news source reporting on a big news source, instead of directly providing the Fox News link instead? Nergaal (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Fox News source directly calls it "false", the Independent source directly calls it "debunked" and the LA Times source directly calls it "false". I don't see how any of those sources can be argued to have attributed the falseness of the CT to anyone else, and each of those quotes can fairly be described as "criticisms of the conspiracy theory".

And the reason we're citing the Charlotte observer is because if we were to put in wikivoice, sourced to the original sources (which are already used in the article, mind) that a "diverse group" have debunked it, that would be WP:SYNTH. Well, perhaps not, depending on your interpretation. But many editors would see it that way and cause a fuss, so we provide a source and put it in that source's voice to avoid drama. Either way, it's true, it's verifiable and it's due. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Other criticisms of the conspiracy theory came from" implies that they did a thorough discussion/analysis on the subject. To me, all that these 3 did was to rate it false, or report that others reported it false. The current statement is misleading at best. I don't understand your second point; you are saying that it is ok to use 3rd sources instead of primary sources? Essentially the introduction right now is quoting a source that essentially nobody heard of it. "Either way, it's true, it's verifiable" if it's true and verifiable, mind pointing me that actual source? Because I cannot find a link from Fox that "debunked" the theory. Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To me, all that these 3 did was to rate it false, or report that others reported it false. They all did the former, explicitly. Which is exactly what the claim says they did.

No, the text says the 3 "criticize" the theory, when in fact they simply state the theory is "false" without doing any sort of analysis/argumentation. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

you are saying that it is ok to use 3rd sources instead of primary sources? It's a secondary source, not a tertiary one for the claim. And yes, WP prefers reliable secondary sources over primary sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let me try to be more clear: give me the Fox link that says it. You say that the Charlotte Observer is reliable, and I dispute that in this case it is actually reliable for this statement. You can prove me wrong very easily by showing me the primary source of Fox stating what the Charlotte Observer is claiming Fox is saying. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC) @MjolnirPants:

You quoted the Fox source that said the theory is false. Clearly, you know where it is already. Why you're asking me for it is beyond me. And note that 1) if you have reason to argue that the Charlotte Observer is an unreliable source, you need to give them, not just say that you think so, and 2) it's not on us to analyze how Fox came to their conclusion that it's false and judge whether or not they're accurate based on that. It might be if there was some contention about the veracity of Pizzagate, but there isn't. So when Fox says "it's fake", that's good enough for us. If another RS says "Fox said it's fake", then that's plenty fine, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dude, text says Fox debunked it, when, all I could find by Fox is reporting it as false. You can understand very well what the difference between the two are. Nergaal (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fox came to the conclusion that it is false. In this sense, that's synonymous with saying Fox debunked it. Whether Fox elected to explain how they came to that conclusion or not is immaterial, unless we generally consider them an unreliable source (which we don't). You may have missed the nuance of my most recent comment, but it directly addresses your point, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The claims are false, full stop, and wording this article in any fashion which makes this less than clear is absolutely right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We are here to report not to express opinions. The sources I pointed out say the theory is false, NOT that they "criticize" the theory. Nergaal (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about whether criticism includes debunking, so if you want to change the text to say "Other outlets described the conspiracy theory as false, such as..." then I, for one, am not going to sweat it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nergaal that the use of the word "criticisms" is inappropriate here. It's too weak and treats these sources as opinion sources rather than factual sources. In general, news stories do not criticize. They report, and report criticisms by others. I haven't reviewed all of these sources, but if they're being cited for reporting that Pizzagate is false or debunked, then the article should say that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede to simply say that it's false, because that's an undisputed (among reliable sources) fact which we do not need to qualify or source in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the phrasing, "Other outlets described the conspiracy theory as false," per "Weasel words." It implies that the story could be true. TFD (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So you prefer a formulation that is wrong instead? How is "Other criticisms of the conspiracy theory came from" any better considering the actual 3 quotes I've listed above. Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two ways we can cover a fact on Wikipedia: When there are differing opinions, we attribute the opinions to the sides, per WP:ATT; When it's an unambiguous fact, we can state it as such in Wikipedia's voice. Which we choose depends on a number of factors, including but not limited to: how widespread and well-informed any dissent might be; the impact of the accuracy or otherwise of the fact; how fringe the dissent is; the consensus in reliable independent sources and how they represent it. The Pizzagate conspiracy is supported by no reliable sources. If it were true, it would imply serious criminal activity on the part of a number of people, and the police are clearly not buying that. It is a conspiracy theory, and as fringe as you can get. It was promulgated from fake news outlets and coverage in reliable sources is unanimous in calling bullshit, especially after Welch turned up to free the non-existent kids. This is a case where every single way of looking at it arrives at the same conclusion: we state, in Wikipedia's voice, that the claim is false. No weasel words, no he-said-she-said, no prevarication. It's unambiguously false. We can list some of the sources that debunk it, but we do not contextualise it as a possibly-true claim that some sources support and these other (named) sources debunk. It's a false story, as the lede says, and here is a list of some of the many sources that debunk it. That's how we represent it. Applicable policies: WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE); WP:BLP; WP:V. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think something useful can come out of this discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof's edits are an improvement, but the article still says that various news outlets have "criticized" the Pizzagate theory. This is non-neutral. The reliable sources did not criticize the theory. They have stated that the theory has been debunked (i.e. is false). The solution is to state simply and unequivocably that Pizzagate has been debunked / is false. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite right. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

email content regarding pizza

Neither this page, nor the Podesta e-mails page, deal with messages in the e-mails, such as "do you think I'll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pizza." Is mentioning the content too fact-specific for a Wikipedia article, or is the issue rather that no reliable source has mentioned such fact-specific details? Whwowowo (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't speak for others, but in my view those are both good reasons. In addition to the fact that it would fuel and implicitly promote a fringe theory. We have to be especially careful when we're talking about a fringe theory that falsely accuses a living person of a heinous crime. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In essence this. We cannot really include this as it would violate BLP. Especially as no one has produced one shred of evidence this interpretation of the e-mails is correct. Unlike anonymous posters on forums Wikipedia's owners can be sued for liable. We can say that people have claimed they are a code, we cannot say they are a code.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Using Washington Post as a source

We have a long list of sources stating that Pizzagate has been debunked, but should the Washington Post really be on the list if John Podesta, a main subject in Pizza Gate, is in fact employed by the Washington Post? Isn't that like citing Breitbart for an article about Steve Bannon? Whwowowo (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no indication that WaPo is doing anything other than reporting the facts here. Their coverage is in line with everyone else. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two things. First off, Podesta only started working for WaPo last week. The WaPo sources we cite are all from before then. Second, WaPo is nothing like Breitbart. WaPo has an excellent reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Breitbart doesn't. WaPo also has a stringent conflict of interest policy and I believe (though I could be mistaken) that it's been commended for its tough reporting on Jeff Bezos and Amazon since Bezos took over. So I have no issue with treating WaPo news reporting as reliable for this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2017

As much as people want to claim it is debunked, it isn't. Snopes is not the end all be all source for debunking. Remove debunked and add controversial. Stay apolitical please. 2601:643:4302:76F0:2C8A:92E1:6C46:7E0F (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. See the bajillion other comments on this. Reliable sources describe this as a debunked and false conspiracy theory. Neutrality^talk 03:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Alledging vs falsely claimed

This is now being edit warred by someone who should know better. We addressed this in Janurary. Has something happened since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by That man from Nantucket (talk • contribs) 06:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: apparently it got archived. If people want to change it, that's fine. But I don't appreciate unilateral decisions by NBSB, who keeps trying to slip his preferred version in over and over again.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first "alledging" isn't a word. Second, if you mean "alleging" then that violates WP:ALLEGED. Third, that short discussion mostly points out that it's not a double negative. I don't see a problem with readability as written.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(Multiple edit conflicts) - who's NBSB? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

NBSB = NorthBySouthBaranof. YOU may not see a problem with how it is written, but others have, which is why I linked to the archived discussion. Saying something is debunked, that something is "falsely" claiming, alledging, etc is not clear. Are they saying it's not not true? We are sacrificing clarity for no good reason whatsoever. Do you think anyone will think the theory has any merit if we don't add "falsely" to the sentence in question? Also, the current incarnation is not neutral. We say it's debunked. We dont need to point out it's false at every opportunity. It becomes pointy. I know this article is one of the ground zero articles for batshit people that want to use to "show the truth", but we don't need to sacrifice quality just because they have misguided views.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is whether the text should say, "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle and falsely claimed/alleging." "Alleging" is better because "falsely claimed" is redundant if it is a "debunked conspiracy theory." Ironically, saying "falsely claimed" gives it credence. Similarly, saying someone was an evil man is more persuave than saying he was a huge bad evil nasty man. TFD (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Other users, such as @DrFleischman:, @MjolnirPants:, @Objective3000: and @JzG:, have expressed that we need the word "false" in the lede, and I agree. The current incarnation is perfectly neutral - it reports the facts as reliable sources report them. If you think we should open a formal RfC on the matter, we could do that, I suppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Less is more. We can simply describe it as false, anything else might well weaken it, as TFD says. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Nuanced speech is required where nuance exists. When nuance does not exist, brevity is the soul of wit. There is nothing nuanced about this. Words that convey a clear meaning everyone can understand are the most useful when dealing with a black & white situation. 'False' fits the bill. Objective3000 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO "false" > "alleged" for our purposes. I know what I said in January, but I was literally just commenting on grammar, then. I'd rather see verbiage that states the theory is false, than verbiage which states that it is allegations (even if we then elsewhere state that those allegations have been debunked). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong opinion on this either way. I write only to note that Nantucket's four times-repeated assertion that there was consensus for using "alleging" rather than "falsely claimed" (here, here, here, here) is categorically false and not well taken. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

CryThat man from Nantucket (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The compromise enacted today by the gentleman from a coastal island is just fine by me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017

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.

---

cheese pizza is code for child porn. You see it used on deep web and social media sites all the time. 174.3.99.140 (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Social media and the deep web are not reliable sources. For more information on sourcing for Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 18:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm frankly a little shocked that anyone would admit to "see[ing] it used on deep web and social media sites all the time." Especially from an IP address that federal or local authorities could trace to an address. But then I ask myself if I should be shocked at seeing anything on the internet, a question to which the obvious and correct answer is a resounding "Hell naw." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

People film and post their own crimes on public sites. Objective3000 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

completely bogus claims in this wiki)

Not productive. May be restated in a productive manner. -- Objective3000 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
it says it was "started by a white supremacist" It's amazing how pathetic a reading of the buzzfeed article that actual is. It says the image associated with the account can be found on a white sumpracy forum. Did you get all that? The image, from an account. Next my little pony pictures will be white supremacist accounts too. So idiotic.So much is wrong with this its amazing that wikipedia would have even tried to put this completely bogus trash in the article.66.190.29.251 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC) I know right? Basically this entire site is fake news acting like a bogus encyclopedia. I'll bet it's because of the Jews. I mean, they control all the rest of the media right? TimothyJosephWood 01:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Don't blame me for being able to read English with comprehension and actually checking supposed "sources" cited. You should try doing something similar, not trolling.66.190.29.251 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Right, Timothyjosephwood should totally not get in on your monopoly. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC) It's actually the MSM and socialist left wing media conglomerates trying to tear America apart and pave the way for a new age of communism. But yeah, the Jews are usually behind it all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Even if it is meant sarcastically, it seems like this discussion is in violation of RD2 (Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value). I will let an editor, who has more exprienced in such matters, decide what needs to be done. Paul H. (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the opening paragraph

I tried to make these edits, but I guess I'll just leave it here for consideration:

Pizzagate was a viral meme which began in November 2016 with the claims that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connected a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with an alleged child-sex ring. Many organizations including the District of Columbia Police Department, Snopes[1]> and The New York Times[2] immediately called it a debunked conspiracy theory and the Reddit community, /r/Pizzagate, was shut down.[3]

Since the end of /r/Pizzagate many individuals have continued to attribute their research on child trafficking to the Pizzagate meme regardless of connections to John Podesta. Pizzagate, also known as Pedogate, has now become a general term used to describe worldwide citizen inquiries or investigations into the pervasiveness of child sex trafficking by government officials.[4]

RebelSkum (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the change you made because it completely changes the tone of the article. This article has been edited carefully by experienced editors, with every change made through consensus and discussion. You should be prepared to defend your proposed change (including the sourcing - see WP:RS) because Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy applies to this article, as well as the article being subject to Discretionary Sanctions. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a meme, it's a conspiracy theory, as mentioned in countless sources. Weakening the language by replacing "extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations" with "called it a debunked conspiracy theory" isn't going to fly. Using another wiki as a source fails WP:RS. APK whisper in my ear 01:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly prepared to defend my changes and ideas, but I'm just not seeing how that is less neutral than what's up there now. It's certainly true that Pizzagate as a term is used for much more than John Podesta. Also, it seems to contradict the "Neutral point of view" policy to generalize it as "debunked conspiracy", especially on a page which doesn't accurately describe the term's origins.

Wikipedia does have a page describing what a meme is: "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". This seems to more accurately describe Pizzagate's usage because "conspiracy theory" itself is even an admittedly flimsy label designed to discredit the idea it describes: http://www.globalresearch .ca/weaponizing-the-term-conspiracy-theory-disinformation-agents-and-the-cia/5524552

Feedback much appreciated though! I look forward to contributing what research I can.

RebelSkum (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Funny how my edit gets responded to in a matter of seconds, but yet my questions and valid points are just left there.

It's also strange that it's being argued this particular page is "expertly" crafted to be "neutral" when it's inherently biased in its very design and construction, title and all. Take for instance this "neutral" gem listed under "References" which isn't even a direct quote:

>Others have disagreed, for example US News, which labeled InfoWars a fake news website to avoid "at all cost"

As well as the interesting inclusion of the "Public Opinion" poll which asked, "Opinion of whether Hillary Clinton is connected to a child sex ring run from a Pizzeria in DC". The poll clearly asked largely pro-Hillary voters if you read it, and in and of itself is not a direct reference to Pizzagate. The inclusion of this section is just entirely misleading and presents an evident political bias: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_120916.pdf

RebelSkum (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable, especially in an article about accusations that living people have engaged in heinous crimes. The reliable sources, at least the ones we cite, say it's a debunked conspiracy theory, not an internet meme. If we're going to change our article in this way then at a minimum we need sources that say it's a meme. More importantly, I'm not aware of any reliable sources saying Pizzagate in now a general term used to describe worldwide citizen inquiries or investigations into the pervasiveness of child sex trafficking by government officials. In sum, I reject RebelSkum's proposed changes because they lack appropriate sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"yet my questions and valid points are just left there" - We responded, but it seems you don't like what was said. You may find things "funny", "strange", and "interesting", but everything you've brought up has been discussed ad nauseum on this talk page (look at the page archives). This site functions by using consensus and reliable sources. The current wording in the intro and the rest of the page has been approved by a majority of interested editors. Take some time to read through previous discussion in the archives. If you haven't found an answer to one of your questions, then come back and we will do our best to provide one. APK whisper in my ear 04:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I strongly urge you to read WP:RS before trying to add sources to this or other articles. Using a wiki devoted to pizzagate, 9/11 truther forums, and Lyndon LaRouche sites will be swiftly rejected. APK whisper in my ear 04:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• FYI, using "pizzagate.wiki" as a source says it all. No chance. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Another new editor crying "liberal bias" and providing low-quality sources as a reason to effect a huge POV shift in a political article? I'm not at all shocked.

RebelSkum, please understand that we have very high standards for sourcing, and that as a community, we don't buy into the narrative that mainstream media is untrustworthy, but for a variety of (very good) reasons, we instead hold that the mainstream media is more trustworthy than small, independent outlets. There are quite a few brand new editors who show up here making claims, offering sources and proposing re-writes similar to yours, and none of them get anymore. As well, NO experienced editors do this, no matter their political views, because they know that such sources aren't acceptable (and why), that such proposals don't make the article more neutral, but less neutral, and that such claims are very unlikely to have any truth to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the change you made because it completely changes the tone of the article. This article has been edited carefully by experienced editors, with every change made through consensus and discussion is a Wikipedia bullshit excuse. Shame on you.That man from Nantucket (talk)}

Umm, that quote means the editor in question reverted changes that violated long-standing consensus. How is that bullshit? And you should watch your tone with phrases like "shame on you". This is supposed to be a discussion, not a confrontation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, isn't that lovely. If I had reverted without explaining why, the editor (who's new) wouldn't have understood the reasoning. I've explained myself clearly. If you don't like my phrasing, well Wikipedia has thousands of pages that you can read instead. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Am I protesting right? TimothyJosephWood 17:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Nope. Better late than never... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Why you think [5] should not be in? I was under the impression that one was one of the biggest "non-underground"/public figure that has explicitly promoted the conspiracy. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence that Infowars was a bigger Pizzagate booster than anyone else. From NPR: "Jones was not the originator of "pizzagate," however, which has spread on social media and on sites like Reddit." From the NY Times: "The Pizzagate theory ... grew in online forums before making its way to more visible venues, including Mr. Jones’s show." And our own longstanding content (in the "Origins" section) suggests that Infowars was one of many. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's the citation was was thinking of... From WaPo: "InfoWars wasn’t the principal progenitor of the false story. The story spread primarily through such user-generated sites as Reddit and 4chan, as well as through fake-news websites and social media." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I must stand with the good Doctor on this one. (I'm just waiting for someone to ask; Doctor who?) The information is already included in the article, so WP:DUE is satisfied. But this primarily came from a reddit thread, and the apology, phrased as a stand alone really gives the impression that Jones is the most responsible party. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That is the question that must never be answered. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

“You want weapons? We’re in a library! Books! The best weapons in the world!” Season 2. Objective3000 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC))

Not neutral

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.

---

It says debunked. While one side believes it is untrue, the other does not. Until we can be sure it isn't true, it should be removed.184.91.99.69 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It's not about sides. The reliable sources unanimously say that it's debunked. This issue has already been discussed ad nauseum and decided. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This isn't how conspiracies are debunked. How can you honestly say it's not about sides, then cite 'reliable sources' by linking NYT and WaPo? This conspiracy surrounds member(s) of a party that these businesses have no problem showcasing their political lean on a daily basis. They are just as guilty of fake news being spread as any right-winged or conspiracy theory spreading news outlet. Wouldn't citing sources that have a history of misinformation help the argument that this has yet to be debunked with something more trustworthy? It's time to take off the partisan blinders to revisit from multiple perspectives and see why some of us here are still questioning how this is considered debunked. The bottom line is there are no -good- explanations, especially considering nobody is trying to delve more into this story that actually have big, mainstream audiences. Debunking this isn't the same as testing if gravity is merely a theory because it is also a political conundrum, which means loads of deception.

It just feels like there is more to this story to be unraveled and this is a quick resolution to keep it on a backburner. Why the 'Debunked' section reads like an excerpt from Politifact.com to the tune of the writing from the NYT is entirely a separate issue, but most of the substance seems to rely on 'source claims other source' information.

You can claim ad nauseum all you want, but it doesn't strengthen your position when the 'debunked' backbone is citing heavily-partisan sources to discredit other heavily-partisan rival news outlets. ItalicsLie (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to unravel stories. We are an Internet encyclopedia whose articles are, by foundational policy, based entirely on what is published in reliable sources, primarily secondary sources. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources, perhaps even every reliable secondary source, considers these claims false, debunked, malicious and pernicious nonsense — therefore, our article will reflect those realities. If you disagree with these policies, you are free to choose another Internet project to contribute to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The sort of "Fake news" spread by sources that label Pizzagate a debunked conspiracy theory: "here's an educated guess based on an incomplete picture. Oops, it was only half-right, sorry."

The sort of "Fake news" spread by sources 'investigating' Pizzagate: "alien abduction is a plot by Jewish-Masonic lizard people control the banks and Hollywood using chemtrails and vaccines because Satanism."

One of these things is not like the other / One of these things just doesn't belong / Can you tell which thing is not like the other, / since there's only two in this song? Ian.thomson (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the Illuminati/Bilderberg group. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

They're just a front for the Stonecutters anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Who are, in turn just a front for the lizard people so I withdraw my complaint. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Lets lay of the mockery, it adds nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Fake news"

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral, but it says in this article clear as day "The story was picked up by fake news[10] websites such as Infowars.com,[a] Planet Free Will[14] and the Vigilant Citizen." So everything you disagree with is automatically fake news? This should not be in a "neutral" article. Furthermore, I wouldn't exactly call CBS a reputable source for what is and isn't fake news considering they have a huge liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED02:A200:9130:702B:1B5B:9867 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you think that InfoWars is reliable but that CBS is unreliable, then you should not be editing here. Wikipedia accepts mainstream journalistic sources as reliable, it rejects tinfoil haberdashery and reality-phobia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News_controversies_and_criticism lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED02:A200:9130:702B:1B5B:9867 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

IP: Trol-lol-lol-lol-lol to you. We can list exceptions to CBS's reliability -- doing so for InfoWars would require summarizing almost all of their content. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor from Myrtle Beach area, it's clear you haven't read our verifiability policy. Please considering doing so before answering two questions: What kind of fact-checking do Infowars, Planet Free Will, and Vigilant Citizen do on themselves? What kind of fact-checking does CBS News do on itself? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Bias is not the issue, it is publishing "news" they know to be fake, look at that is being said at Jonses custody battle. He (though his lawyer) has admitted it is performance art, not news reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comparison between CBS and InfoWars. I’d hat this, but I’m biased as I have a brain. (Apologies, I’ll self-flagellate with a trout.) Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And no matter how dumb you think someone is (justified or otherwise) lay of the PA's, it helps no one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I regularly observe editors claiming that CNN, CBS and NPR have a "huge liberal bias". Clearly, the editors making these claims have never read the Huffington Post, ThinkProgress or Raw Story. That's what a liberal bias looks like. Compared to them, CBS, CNN and NPR are bastions of neutrality. They only appear to be left-wing because right-wing sources (even the most reliable ones, such as the WSJ and Fox News) are so full of vitriolic condemnations of any outlet that dares disregard their carefully crafted POV in favor of a POV based on facts. Reality has a well known liberal bias, is true, not due to any inherent immorality or inapplicability of conservative principles, but because the conservative political movement in the US has, in the past several decades, placed a much stronger emphasis on party unity than on adherence to facts, with the predictable results. There is a very legitimate case for a number of conservative principles (small government, free markets, expansive personal freedoms) to be made by those (increasingly rare, though still easy-to-find) conservatives who do care more about reality than ideology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well put. There are plenty of people who elevate ideology over truth on the other end of the spectrum; they just don't control the White House, the House of Representatives, or any cable news stations, nor have they been waging an all-out campaign to discredit democratic institutions like the lamestream media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And this talk page is not a street corner to fight US political battles.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I completely agree, though I don't contend for one second that the political left doesn't engage in the same denigration of reality when it suits their purpose (indeed, HuffPo is a notorious hotbed of pseudomedical woo, it's just that woo isn't fundamentally political), it's just that the association of progressivism and liberalism in the US has strongly curtailed the benefits of doing so. Anyways, I don't want to derail this talk page, so I think I'll stop now. Anyone who wants to agree with me, disagree with me, or call me horrible names and question my integrity/sanity/intelligence; feel free to do so at my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Spirit cooking and leaked FBI document

@Volunteer Marek:Re: [6] How can the article mention Satanic rituals and not mention why that connection was made? What's the objection to mentioning spirit cooking? It's noted in the source. And why revert the clarified rewording a "pizza-related" handkerchief > a handkerchief with a "pizza-related map" which is more accurate based on the leaked emails?Terrorist96 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:Re: [7] The logos were considered to resemble pedophile logos is based on the FBI leaked document. Why do you oppose including that fact in order to explain the connection? It's mentioned in the NYT source.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to create a false narrative here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

How is it a false narrative? It's stated in the NYT article.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

What VM said. The Inquisitr reference you tried to add has been rejected as far too credulous earlier, and the "leaked FBI document" has never been authenticated. The NYT article uses multiple qualifiers, which were left out. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Can you link me to the discussion that determined the inquisitor article should be excluded? I searched and didn't find consensus to not use that article (mostly about aceloewgold.com, whatever that is). And this is all I found searching WP:RSN about using it as an RS. And there are other sources that connect the Satanic ritual claim with the mention of "spirit cooking" in the leaked emails; see: Snopes. This isn't to claim that the spirit cooking is actually Satanic, but that that was why the connection was made. And if we're mentioning the theories, we should state the reason behind the theory. This is already done for the handkerchief code theory (explaining that it arose based on the email saying: "The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related."

Re: FBI document: We can put "unverified" prior to "F.B.I. document" if you like. However, again, the point is not whether it's been authenticated or not, but the fact the theory of the logos being connected to pedophile logos arose based on the FBI document. And I never got an explanation for "false narrative"; I was just explaining the reason behind the theories.Terrorist96 (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Inquisitr is not a reliable source, and moreover, the claim that they are "similar" is entirely-unsourced anonymous pareidolia; the phrasing you are choosing implies that somehow the purported "leaked FBI document" supports the idea that these purported similarities are in any way meaningful, which it does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You say Inquisitor isn't a reliable source, but you didn't provide a link to that consensus. The article already uses the word "similarities" for the Satanic and pedophilic symbols(Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong, through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia.). So should that be removed? Fair enough on the phrasing, can you help rephrase it? How about: "based on purported similarity to an unauthenticated leaked FBI document." Do you deny that the FBI documents were the reason the connection was made though?Terrorist96 (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the Inquisitor article?Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Link.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Having trouble finding the mention of the FBI leaked document mention.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's cuz it's mentioned in the NYT article: link. The Inquisitor link was for mentioning spirit cooking. Terrorist96 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The first sign that this is a terrible article is It has been widely claimed that Assange has either been assassinated or taken into custody, and many believe that Pizzagate is the reason behind his disappearance from the public eye. It has even been suggested that WikiLeaks has been taken over by government agents who are trying to hide Assange’s lack of visibility. The author of the article mostly writes about professional wrestling. Seriously, this is not close to a reliable source. Objective3000 (talk)

That's just a reported fact. At one point people did have theories of Julian Assange being assassinated because he hadn't made a public appearance for some time. Regardless, I'm not trying to add that to the article and the Snopes link also mentions spirit cooking. I just find it odd that the article mentions satanic ritual theories but doesn't explain the genesis of those theories being linked to the mention of spirit cooking in the leaked emails.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Err the NYT article does not say the FBI found the logos were similar to Pedophile ones, rather it says that third parties said the FBI listed logos looked like those from the pizza place. The FBI document did not make the comparison.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed that the FBI made the comparison. I simply said that the theorists came to their conclusion that the company logos were pedophilic based on the FBI document that purports to show "Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles to Identify Sexual Preferences".Terrorist96 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot find where you say anything more then the rather misleading "based upon an leaked FBI document". This maybe whyt it's inclusion is being opposed. Now if you wanted to say "non professional investigators took logos linked to pedophiles and claimed they looked like the ones used by..." that might just pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the claim that the logos are similar to pedophile logos is based upon the FBI document. I offered a revised version: based on purported similarity to an unauthenticated leaked FBI document above. Would you continue to object to this wording as well? There's nothing here saying that the FBI made the comparison. The comparison was made by the theorists.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Which is why the fact it is an FBI document is irrelevant. They could just have easily used a copy of the Beno or an episode of Black Adder. The fact that the document was produce by the FBI does not give the theorists analysis of it any validity. Hell even the document it's self is unverified.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So are we supposed to ignore the source just because it's a purported FBI document? I'm not trying to provide validity to the claims, just explain their genesis. When the article says the logos were claimed to look similar to pedophile logos, a reader may wonder what that claim is based on. What are pedophile logos? Why did they think the logos looked like pedophile logos? The NYT article mentions this, I don't see why we should omit it.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The reader has a link they can go to, that explains it more fully then we can. This is what the text would have to say

"On line investigators (with no connection to enforcement) looked at an alleged FBI document and concluded that the logos the document claimed were logos used by pedophiles as a kind of secret system of recognition looked similar to corporate logos used by some of the stores alleged to be part of pizzagate. It has been pointed out that many organisations use similar logos, and that no law enforcement agency (including the FBI) had made such a link".

So do we agree to this wording?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if that's what it takes to include that fact, then I'll agree to that wording.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don’t. Conspiracy theorists (what your suggestion refers to as on line investigators) base their conspiracies on nothing but their own biases. I don’t see adding this to an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So we can change it it conspiracy terrorists.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that meant to be some sort of personal attack? The NYT article says that the basis for the pedophile logos theory was based on the FBI document, not "their own biases". Please stick to the facts.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

How is this a personal attack, I did not say you believed it. As to what the source says "Conspiracy theorists claimed that other design elements used by businesses near the Comet Ping Pong restaurant also resembled pedophile symbols.", so calling them conspiracy theorists is conforming to what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You said "conspiracy terrorists", but that's besides the point. I have no issue with calling the people making the claim conspiracy theorists. The sentence itself already uses "Theorists" (Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong, through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia.)

That was a typo, sorry, which I thought would have been obvious.

"Conspiracy theorists looked at an alleged FBI document and concluded that the logos the document claimed were logos used by pedophiles as a kind of secret system of recognition looked similar to corporate logos used by some of the stores alleged to be part of pizzagate. It has been pointed out that many organisations use similar logos, and that no law enforcement agency (including the FBI) had made such a link"

How about that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That works for me.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it simply shouldn't be included. The section is fine as-is. We have no need of any additional ludicrous conspiracy-theorizing here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "additional ludicrous conspiracy-theorizing". It's explaining the theory that is already mentioned. Without explanation, you're deliberately leaving the article incomplete.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The current text is fine. It needs no additional conspiracy nonsense. Objective3000 (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to be unbiased and neutral here. By continuing to use terms like nonsense and ludicrous to oppose the additions doesn't further your argument. Cite a WP policy on which you are basing your rationale. By including things such as the theorists claiming satanic ritual and pedophile symbols without explaining why they made those claims is not explaining both sides in a neutral manner.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We are neutral and unbiased, here. The neutral, unbiased truth is that Pizzagate is bullshit and everyone who's 'investigated' it has actually just been naval-gazing and making shit up. Another thing we are here is a group of real human beings, which means we can actually do things like judging implications. The edits you propose imply legitimacy to this bullshit, so they're never going to get consensus unless they report on something which substantially changes the narrative and are covered by multiple reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You failed to include a link to any WP policy upon which you're basing your objection. Saying that the reasoning behind the pedophile logos theory was based on purported similarities to an unauthenticated leaked FBI document lends legitimacy to the claim? How? So far no one here has tried to deny the FBI document as being the reason for the connection, so the only reason left to exclude it now is because it lends legitimacy? By saying that, you are clearly showing yourself to be biased on the topic. I came here to improve the article. I take no position on the theory itself, but you clearly do.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The current text says what RS say. It does not attempt to delve into the minds of conspiracy theorists to determine their “reasoning”. Objective3000 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The RS mentions the FBI document. The Wikipedia article omits it entirely.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, @Eggishorn:, @NorthBySouthBaranof:, @Slatersteven:, @Objective3000:, @MjolnirPants: I have initiated a dispute resolution request here. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No validity at all to a dispute resolution when it is 1 editor with bad sourcing vs. many editors preferring reliable sourcing. TheValeyard (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

NYT is a bad source? Snopes is a bad source? We can debate The Inquisitor, but you can't seriously claim NYT and Snopes are bad sources.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You tried to use garbage like the Inquisitr to source your claim. TheValeyard (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, seems like there's this imaginary consensus that Inquisitor is forbidden from being used as a source. Please, I'm asking nicely, show me a link from RSN that declares Inquisitor as an unreliable source. And beyond that, do you claim that NYT and Snopes are also unreliable source? Because the FBI document is mentioned in NYT and the spirit cooking is mentioned in Snopes, in addition to Inquisitor.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I’m afraid you misunderstand RSN. RSN very rarely bans a source for absolutely all mentions. As Inquisitor is an aggregator, you generally need to look at the original source. When it is the original source, it’s rarely a good source. As for NYT and Snopes, they are RS. But, that does not mean that everything they print should be included in an encyclopedia. This article is covered by WP:BLP. Caution is needed in such articles. I would guess that the question in the minds of editors here is why you are trying to make a change. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok let's forget about Inquisitor then. The reason I want to make the change is because stating the conspiracy theory claims and not explaining their origin is only giving half the story. The same logic that was used to explain the handkerchief code claim should also apply to the satanic ritual claim and the pedophile symbols claim. It's not like people randomly claimed these things out of thin air. There were reasons (regardless of their validity), just like how the origin of the handkerchief claim was the mention of "a handkerchief with a pizza related map" so to the origin of the satanic ritual claim is from the mention of spirit cooking in the emails and the claim of pedophile symbols is based on the FBI document. We can exclude Abramovic's name of you are concerned about BLP. I just don't understand why the article mentions the origin of the handkerchief claim but not the other claims. I don't understand​ why it's so controversial.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

None of us has the faintest idea behind the ridiculous claims. We don’t know if the claimants were actually incapable of logical progression, or knew they were spewing nonsense, but did so to sway an election. Or, if they were simply careless “reporters”. Or, has been documented, people that purposely make up stories to make money on click-bait sites. We should not try to explain illogical inferences. Objective3000 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This, the problem is we are not explaining their origins, we are stating what sources they misrepresented or took out of context, not how they worked out their extraordinary claims. It does not (for example) gives us an incite into how they decoded this information, or why they picked on this one pizza parlor (it looks like they picked a target then fished for evidence, after all many companies that have not been linked have similar logos).Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So what now?

So what do we do now, are we going to accept the consensus for not including the above, or have an RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

An RfC will come to the same conclusion. The DRN filer said he would not pursue. Objective3000 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If there's any consensus for removing the bit about the handkerchief, consider me part of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Whilst In can see a difference (the E-mails were the start of this whole sordid exercise in character assassination) I would agree to the removal of the throw away line about the hankie.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent but won't debate either side. Objective3000 (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Since Terrorist96 based their proposal in part on the precedent of this being included, and since there was no disagreement in this thread, I removed mention of the handkerchief codes. Hopefully, this will be the end of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have rather waited until Terrorist96 had responded, but yes I think this really does address his concerns.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

They can revert me if necessary and begin a discussion. I won't edit war over this. But I've been seeing too many "We all agree to make this change" changes that never get made, or get made weeks or months later, so I figured I'd be bold. Fortune favors us, after all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I already noted that I supported its inclusion, but since I'm in the minority here I won't waste my time anymore. Continue neutering this article for all I care.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As your objection was it was a violation of neutrality to include one "fact" but not the other we have now removed the NPOV compliant material. This seems to meet your objection.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so now you must also believe in the theory if you deemed it a NPOV issue (see how that works?). My solution was to include more information to address NPOV, not suppress it. But sure, go the opposite way and assume that you're following my wishes. I'm done here.Terrorist96 (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for any explanation of how NPOV could be an problem if you don't take issue with the subject being presented as a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. That is, after all, the POV of the article. Your sarcasm (directed at the editor who has been most sympathetic to you no less) is really not helping at all, here. The concern you raised previously was one of due weight. While your concern there was perfectly understandable, none of us agreed with it. But this apparent shift to an unspecified NPOV concern is one that really strongly suggests that you are attempting to advocate for this CS. If that's not the case, I don't have the slightest bit of a problem being wrong. Believe it or not, I actually get that it's possible to say things which have implications that aren't valid. I also don't mind apologizing for my reference to ANI and CIR, as they were out of line and were intended more as hyperbole than as a literal suggestion. But your objections on NPOV ground are still a red flag for advocacy. Whether that flag is false or not is not something I can speak to. But if you do believe that this is a BS conspiracy theory like the rest of the rational world, then I suggest you not pursue this line of argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is getting really unproductive

Terrorist96 Has said he does not wish to continue this, I think we should now respect his wishes. He has said he accepts (but does not agree) with this edit, so the conversation really is over.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC) I've been around long enough that I don't take "I'm done here" at face value every time I see it. It's usually not true. Also, pinging them is probably not "respecting their wishes" if they don't wish to discuss here anymore. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC) That is cut and past for you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Yeah. Cut and future works better. Just Ctrl+C and all of a sudden whatever you wanted to say just appears... Cut and present doesn't seem to work at all... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC) About sarcasm not helping.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Did you click the link? Playfulness != sarcasm. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC) No, as I would no more consider mocking inability to spell as any more playful then mocking an inability to walk.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Disaffected editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not using Wikipedia ever again, neither will I ever again donate a cent to it. This is NOT debunked, not by a long shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaalayon (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the timing, this unhappiness is possibly related to the Voat article: "...I am probably naive to think we can pull this off, but I have just started the effort to remove 'debunked' from the PG Wikipedia article - please help keep it out of the article (en.wikipedia.org)" Paul H. (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question has a total of four previous edits, including this gem where they claim that, in reference to traces of cyanide found in Nazi gas chambers, "as a matter of fact the amounts found were consistent with delousing." Why am I not surprised that a Holocaust denier believes this Pizzagate nuttery? The encyclopedia will be improved by their absence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I just was pointing out possible soapboxing and conflict of interest. Paul H. (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Paul, have you read that thread? It's awesome! We're all part of a top-down, left-wing liberal conspiracy. And most of us work for the CIA. It's been "proven". I am so wearing a dark suit and sunglasses to work tomorrow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I felt that it is best that people read it themselves and draw their own conclusions. In my case, it was "proven" on a fringe archaeological messageboard that I am "paid" by Dr. Zahi Hawass to suppress information about the Hall of Records. I know the feeling. Paul H. (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but that is your choice.Slatersteven (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in here, I also agree with Disaffected Editor. How do you debunk something that has not been properly investigated? CBS did a report on the Pizzagate allegations and their reporters wondered why the police never followed up. Conveniently, none of what CBS found is in this article. This is garbage propaganda and whatever little circle of SJWs who wrote this article and locked it should be ashamed of themselves. Relevant CBS report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GZFHLAcG8A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.245.174 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the talk page (check the archives). Have a nice day. APK whisper in my ear 22:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queen

Please can you change queen of England to queen Elizabeth II. The queen of England does not exist, it's the wrong description to be using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.28.211 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested by an IP, placed in it's proper place my me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done APK whisper in my ear 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)