Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Cross-tabbed poll data

Not a huge deal, but do we really need a full table of data on percentages of people who believed Pizzagate had merit cross-tabbed by preferred presidential candidate? That seems excessive to me and is only supported by the primary source. The two sentences immediately preceding that table are supported by independent secondary sources and summarize the poll results beautifully in my view. (Timothyjosephwood believes that I supported the inclusion of the table back in December 2016. That was a miscommunication on my part and I apologize. I intended to express support for the inclusion of poll results generally, but not the table of cross-tabbed data.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll also note that the table doesn't add much of note. Sure there are variations among Pizzagate support among the various presidential camps, but those variations aren't very big at all. E.g., 14% of Trump voters believed in Pizzagate, as opposed to 9% overall. No big deal, in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The difference in "yeses" is nearly double between Clinton and Trump voters, and the difference in "unsures" is more than five fold. Overall, the more neutral presentation is the full results, and not those cherry picked by Recode and Salon as being the most attention grabbing. It's not "a lot" or heaven forbid, an "astonishing number" as either of the titles for the other two sources would like to have put out. It's an actual number. We have those numbers, so we should record them. TimothyJosephWood 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with DrFleischman that prose is better than a table, but I agree with Tim that clearly showing the hard numbers is better than subjective comparisons. I'm not sure where I stand right now. You two should fight for my support. I can set up a jello ring and pass out speedos if you want to make it really uncomfortable for you, and really amusing for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sign me up! But seriously, I think Timothy's argument is a legitimate one and I don't really have much more to add. I guess I think that a table of this nature is rather attention-grabbing to a reader casually skimming the article, and I don't think it merits that kind of attention over other aspects of the article. I can see a compromise of removing the table but including the Trump and Clinton numbers in prose. I'm curious about how other contributors come down on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Trump and Clinton numbers are already included in the prose. I agree with your concerns about how attention grabbing the table is; that's why I prefer prose as a stylistic choice. I'm torn because, in the prose the numbers are just numbers. When arranged in a table, they have some meaning. I was actually thinking that changing the formatting on the table might be the best way forward. I made an edit to make it stand out less. Tell me what you think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't articulate why, but I think it looks a little strange now. And it's still pretty attention-grabbing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I can understand that. I think perhaps floating it to the left might help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman, if the same information is presented in prose and all are okay with the prose, no need for the table. I also agree with DrFleischman that the table is a bit off-putting and jarring while attempting to read the text. Sagecandor (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I've commented out the table because as I said, I'm not married to it and it seems like Tim is the only one who really wants it. I didn't erase it because it's a useful reference if we decide to reword the section in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not "pro-table" so much as I am pretty solidly "anti-the-Salon/Recode-obvious-sensationalism"... if that makes any sense. I wouldn't be opposed to a footnote, but I've got an unhealthy fetish for footnotes, so that pretty much always goes without saying. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I've got an unhealthy fetish for footnotes Bow chicka wow wow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

1st paragraph - 'populated'

i'm assuming that somebody meant 'promulgated', but was very tired, and typed 'populated' instead. fyi. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That sentence was removed, but a similar one was further down the page and I've changed the wording. APK whisper in my ear 05:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourced comparisons to Seth Rich conspiracy theories

Lead section

I agree with DrFleischman [1], the sources at that point in time were good, but did not yet fully demonstrate content sufficiently noteworthy.

I've therefore added more information and more sources to demonstrate content sufficiently noteworthy. [2]

After doing so, I've updated the lede to reflect the sources. [3]

Some of the comparisons by the sources:

1. Slate called the claims about Seth Rich: a "PizzaGate-like conspiracy theory surrounding Rich’s death",
2. The Huffington Post described it as "the 'alt-right' idiocy of Pizzagate all over again",
3. NPR's David Folkenflik said Fox News coverage of it "evokes the pizza-gate terrible allegations utterly unfounded", and
4. Margaret Sullivan wrote for The Washington Post: "The Seth Rich lie has become the new Comet Ping Pong ... Crazy, baseless and dangerous."

Thank you to DrFleischman for the helpful recommendation to demonstrate content sufficiently noteworthy. Sagecandor (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

I think the last one by Margaret Sullivan for The Washington Post is particularly descriptive: "The Seth Rich lie has become the new Comet Ping Pong ... Crazy, baseless and dangerous." Sagecandor (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

These sources might demonstrate noteworthiness of this connection in the context of Murder of Seth Rich or some other article like /r/The_Donald , but not in the context of our Pizzagate article. Notice that none of these sources are about Pizzagate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And Sagecandor, can we please agree to keep this content out of the lead section until there's consensus to include it? You have now added, re-added, and re-added this content over my repeated objection. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this wasn't edit warring since you were build out the sources, but still. Please build them out here on the talk page, and then the community can decide without the constant reverts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman gave a great suggestion to gather sourced material discussing the issue to demonstrate noteworthiness. These sources demonstrate noteworthiness of this connection in the context of Pizzagate. These sources are all about Pizzagate. Not sure what metric DrFleischman is using here. How many more sources would be required? These are now plenty of sources. It is noteworthy. It is significant. It deserves mention in the lede. Sagecandor (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you read my last comment? These sources aren't about Pizzagate, but regardless, can you please stop reinserting this content into the lead section until we have consensus to do so? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources are about the groups that push conspiracy theories Pizzagate and Seth Rich homicide and use the exact same methods for both. I'm not sure how much more clear that can be after the research to cite 15 references on this topic based on your very suggestion to do so. Sagecandor (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Are we discussing in good faith? I don't remember a suggestion to research anything, let alone a suggestion cite 15 references. But you still haven't answered my question: Can we please exclude this material while we discuss it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman gave a helpful suggestion in edit summary: sources look fine, but content not sufficiently noteworthy. Evidently, DrFleischman felt the sources look fine, but content not sufficiently noteworthy. Due to that helpful suggestion, I went and researched the matter further, and found more discussion. In more sources. I added those sources to the article. [4] Now the article demonstrates content is sufficiently noteworthy. I performed this research directly after the helpful recommendation by DrFleischman. Sagecandor (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in further discussions with Sagecandor while they continue to stonewall and ram their preferred version through, other editors' good faith concerns bedamned. The contention that these sources are about Pizzagate is more easily debunked than Pizzagate. I'm retracting my comment about giving Sagecondor the benefit of the doubt. And I'll also note that the at least two of the cited sources are unreliable. The PuzzFeed content hasn't been fact-checked (it's just an interview) and the WaPo source is opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:My edits were in direct response to your edit summary: sources look fine, but content not sufficiently noteworthy. My edits are in good faith. I was initially quite pleased you gave me the benefit of the doubt. You acknowledged, above, "since you were build out the sources". I did indeed build out the sources. The BuzzFeed source is an interview with a reputable journalist, and The Washington Post source is an opinion from a notable person. Sagecandor (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a relatively minor detail, and it's a comparison, not a connection. I'm okay with a brief mention in the body, but I agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What about a brief mention in the lede with a link ? Sagecandor (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No, not in the lede. It's not an important part of the subject. It's just a comparison some journalists have made. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

How many sources would discuss it before you can compromise to agree it can be a mention in the lede? 20 ? 50 ? 100 ? Sagecandor (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a comparison; a fragment of communication. It's a part of journalists writing about the murder of Seth Rich, not a part of Pizzagate or even the murder of Seth Rich itself. The only relationship between the two subjects is that they stem from the same political group. The heuristic that works best for ledes is to ask yourself "If someone asked me to explain this subject in 30 seconds or less, what would I say?" In such a case, no-one would mention Seth Rich, because it doesn't shed any light whatsoever on what Pizzagate is. Also, don't suggest that getting your way entirely is a "compromise" because we both know that's not even remotely what a compromise is. It's a rhetorical trick, and highly disingenuous, and only works to undermine my assumption of good faith on your part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

By compromise I meant from a detailed in-depth mention to a cursory mention in the lede. I'm sorry you feel a lack of good faith. That was not my intention. Sagecandor (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've struck that part of my comment. I assumed you meant the compromise to be mentioning it in the lede in addition to mentioning it in the body. I still don't believe it belongs in the lede, however. It's realtionship to other CSes just isn't that fundamental to what "Pizzagate" is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully there will not be yet another similar dangerous bullshit conspiracy theory pushed out by the same groups in the exact same manner and tactics. Sagecandor (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If there is, there might be a call for an Alt-right conspiracy theories article... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Great idea. Maybe you can start it ? I'm too busy right now, researching history of disinformation. So, sorta relevant topic. Sagecandor (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, the only notable entries would be this and the murder of Seth Rich. I don't think that's enough, though I also don't doubt that there will eventually be quite a few more. I think a lot of Frank Gaffney's claims might get some brief mention, so maybe there's enough for a stub right now... Honestly, it looks like a ton of research (for me, at least, maybe not for someone more focused on political CSes), and I don't know enough to start a credible article. I'll start a draft and post a link here if you think you'll be able to help, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Article body

The sourcing for the paragraph in the article body needs an overhaul. Some of the cited sources are fine, while others are unreliable (e.g. opinion sources, or statements that haven't been fact checked - doesn't matter if these are professional journalists), while still others don't quite verify the content. I'm having some technical difficulties and don't have time to comb through all of these sources at the moment. But for starters, the first three sources (NY Times, Christianity Today, and LA Times) say quite different things about the similarities of how Pizzagate and Seth Rich were promoted, and I don't think they can all be lumped together in citation of the "same venues" language. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

They all say the same online venues, same individuals, spread both conspiracy theories, using same methods and tactics. Sagecandor (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No, the NY Times source only says both were promoted on Twitter using hashtags. The CT source is unreliable opinion and says that "the same conservative Christians" tweeted about both conspiracy theories. The LA Times source says that both theories spread in "the same circles" but doesn't say anything about the same venues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay so we can use The New York Times to note they both spread on Twitter. And we can use Los Angeles Times to say they both spread "in the same circles". Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that both theories spread on Twitter provides any value to this article. Of course they both spread on Twitter, that's what memes do in the age of Twitter. The "same circles" content is a little weasely, but I'm okay with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

How this works for conspiracy theories is relatively straightforward. Outside of Twitter — in message boards or Facebook groups — a group will decide on a particular message to push. Then the deluge begins. Bots flood the network, tweeting and retweeting thousands or hundreds of thousands of messages in support of the story, often accompanied by a branding hashtag — #pizzagate, or, a few weeks ago, #sethrich. from The New York Times. Not just spread on Twitter. Spread on Twitter through covert operations by bots. Deliberately. As part of an intentional misinformation operation campaign. Sagecandor (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to draw from that source paragraph then I think we have to be very careful not to overstate it. It doesn't expressly say that Pizzagate was spread by Twitter bots. It's not exactly clear what it's saying about Pizzagate. It might be saying that if a group wants to promote Pizzagate, it could do so with bots, because that's "how this works." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the only conspiracy theory Pizzagate has been compared to. It's also been compared to 1980s ritual abuse hysteria and Gamergate. Previously, I would just put these articles in the "See also" section, though I guess they could go into the main body along with this, maybe as a "Background" or "Comparisons" section. ^Falling_Gravity 23:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1980s ritual abuse hysteria was before the Internet. Gamergate was not deliberately spread via automated bots in an organized campaign by covert intelligence operations. But the Seth Rich and Pizzagate conspiracy theories were. Sagecandor (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me that we had a very closely related discussion about how to describe the similarly reliably sourced connection to satanic ritual abuse and daycare sex hysteria. The discussion went on and on, and it looks like consensus ultimately formed around having some limited content in the body (3 sentences). I haven't tracked down why, but the consensus language doesn't appear in the article now; perhaps someone removed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't part of that discussion. But I would strongly support the idea by FallingGravity for a "Background" or "Comparisons" section. Probably "Background" is best. Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I was on the "include" side of the Satanism bit, but in retrospect, I don't see how it brings too much to the article. I can see this, Pizzagate and the Seth Rich CSes all being grouped together on another page, all added to the same category and I can see a "see also" link pointing to them from this page, but not writing too much about the other CSes here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the Rich material is only (being very generous) in directly and vaguely involved with this (and thus not for for inclusion) the Satanic stiff is not, Pizzagate is little more then a rehash of the same accusations applied to new people and places.

The satanism stuff is about historical context, about how this is part of a pattern of accusations and how material was recycled for political (rather then social scare) reasons. It has a place here.Slatersteven (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Satanism is much less relevant. We could have a new page on "Alt-right conspiracy theories". I imagine some would even contradict each other. Certainly the Alex Jones legal responses are quite interesting. Sagecandor (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

except for the fact this recycles the earlier canards. It fits into a pattern (and can be said to go back further with the 19thC tales of child abuse by whatever group you want to demonize).Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. It can be both. It also fits into a pattern of ridiculous and dangerous conspiracy theories pushed out by the alt-right and the likes of Alex Jones, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

tbh, it goes back as far as blood libel does (so about 400BC according to the article), because it's just another variation on that. As I said above, it makes perfect sense to include pizzagate in lists and categories pertaining to these types of CSes, but that doesn't necessarily mean we need to wax poetic about it on this page. I fully believe that "Pizzagate has been linked to other alt-right conspiracy theories, such as those surrounding the murder of Seth Rich^[1], as well as to earlier, similar claims such as the panic about satanic ritual abuse in the 1980's^[2]." and linking those two in the "see also" section is enough coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

They're pushed by the same alt-right groups, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, etc. Both are spammed out by automated bots on Twitter, after prior coordination on Facebook. Both were debunked as false by the same fact-checking groups. And the same police department. Both persisted by batshit crazy nutjobs on the Internet despite such fact-checking by the fact-checking groups and by the police. Both are pushed out for a specific political purpose. That is not the same as the satanic bullshit. This is a different contemporary bullshit. Sagecandor (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the proposed text should make this clear: there's a direct link between the groups who peddled these conspiracies, and a historical link to the 1980s hysteria. ^Falling_Gravity 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the text saying they're pushed by the same group, for the same political purpose. I just don't see how we could go into any detail on that without engaging in polemics. So keep it short and that will keep me happy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No issue with using a link with just a brief sentence or two about the Satanic hysteria of the 80's.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

I have reverted this edit by User:ViliamiT for obvious reasons — removing the description of InfoWars and other such sites as "fake news", describing factual conclusions of reliable sources as opinions, and removing the description of the theory as false, are all edits which have been consistently rejected by editorial consensus and which violate policies protecting living people from defamation. If the user in question has any defence of their edits, or wishes to present any reliable sources they believe support their edits, I invite them to engage in discussion here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Pizzagate Hoax

This incident is more commonly and correctly referred to as the "Pizzagate Hoax." It differs from typical conspiracy theories in that rather than providing an explanation for an event, it posits a fictitious event. If there are no objections, I will move the article. TFD (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

While hoax might seem a better fit, WaPo[5][6], Snopes[7], NYTimes[8], BBC[9], and CNN[10] call it a conspiracy theory. Objective3000 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

They more often call it "fake news," which is the same thing as a hoax. TFD (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Tell that to the legions of sources referring to Infowars as "fake news" (). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick. Every source I looked at used conspiracy theory. None used hoax. I stopped at five RS, maybe it would have changed if I looked at six more. Objective3000 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

TFD, I do object. I'm not at all convinced that Pizzagate is more often described as "fake news" or as a "hoax" than as a "conspiracy theory." You'll have to back that up. I'm also not convinced that "fake news" is synonymous with "hoax." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Then do some research and look at a dictionary. And get the Wikipedia article "Fake news" changed because it currently says, "Fake news is a type of yellow journalism that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes". Google searches: pizzagate hoax (1,560,000 results);[11] pizzagate "conspiracy theory" (212,000 results)[12] google news searches: pizzagate hoax (15,200 results);[13] pizzagate "conspiracy theory" (7.900 results)[14] To hoax means, "to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous." (Merriam-Webster) If you think that fake news are not hoaxes, please explain the difference. TFD (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Then do some research and look at a dictionary. Do you honestly believe that no-one pushing Pizzagate thinks it's real? Your google searches are meaningless: An internet full of political pundits who want to score political points by accusing their opponents of being malicious instead of just plain gullible doesn't evince a damn thing except an internet full of political pundits who want to score political points by accusing their opponents of being malicious instead of just plain gullible. You are the one drawing an artificial distinction here, and you're drawing it based entirely on OR (I'd love to see some evidence that there is no cross-section of conspiracy theories and hoaxes). Whatever you may believe about the motivations behind this crap, when noteworthy outlets such as Fox News present it with a straight face, we have to accept that the editors responsible for that segment honestly believe the crap they're espousing. Unless and until evidence of maliciousness (on the part of all those involved in pushing it, including noted conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones) exists and gets covered in third party RSes, we're not inserting our own twist on the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A Google search on pizzagate hoax will list all sites that contain the word hoax or synonyms of hoax that have nothing to do with pizzagate. It will also list sites having to do with pizzas having nothing to do with pizzagate. A search of pizzagate “conspiracy theory” will not, because of the quotes. Now, if you had put both in full quotes, Google would list twice as many refs for conspiracy theory – which is still meaningless. Objective3000 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"It differs from typical conspiracy theories in that rather than providing an explanation for an event, it posits a fictitious event." If I'm not mistaken, it started as an explanation for references to "pizza" found in the Podesta emails, and then ballooned into the much broader "Pedogate". ^Falling_Gravity 19:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Pizzagate was created before the leak of the Podesta emails.[15] And indeed few people believe Pizzagate since it has been exposed as a hoax. Compare with the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was a hoax and the Jewish conspiracy theory. The first was exposed as a hoax while a conspiracy theory by definition cannot be disproved. I am not saying there is a clear line between the two, but that reliable sources normally refer to Pizzagate as a hoax. TFD (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying RS mostly use hoax. The RS I’ve looked at say conspiracy theory. Objective3000 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you are cherry-picking. I just provided you with a link to a Google news search showing news media use the term hoax by 2:1. TFD (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not cherry-picking. I took the first five Google hits. I have explained why your Google search is invalid. Objective3000 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Pizzagate was created before the leak of the Podesta emails. What? Have you actually read any of the sources here? Pizzagate began almost four weeks after Wikileaks published the Podesta emails. Sure, the first reference to a pedophile ring was in the context of the Huma emails, but the Podesta emails got stuck on right at the beginning, fueling the connection to the pizza restaurant that gave the theory it's very name. Seriously man, you need to actually read the sources before you try to comment on what they say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

according to an article in BuzzFeed,[16] the pedophile conspiracy theory began first, later conspiracists decided that the word "pizza" in Podesta's emails meant "girl" and later still someone located the ring at an actual Pizza Restaurant. The pedophile stories date back years and were fueled by the Wiener probe. So it's not as if it all began when someone saw the word "pizza" in a Podesta email and wondered what that meant and created a conspiracy theory to explain it. TFD (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Objective3000. I have looked through many of Pizzagate sources, cited in our article and otherwise, and in my experience they by and large refer to the phenomenon as a conspiracy theory. I am all ears to being convinced otherwise, but no I am not going to do additional research, and no I am not going to consider your Google search results, for the reasons already explained by Objective3000. Personally I'm seeing 6,490 Google News hits for "pizzagate" "hoax" and 7,290 Google News hits for "pizzagate" "conspiracy theory". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Moreover I'm getting 1,210 Google News hits for "pizzagate conspiracy theory" versus 467 Google News hits for "pizzagate hoax". And 183 Google News hits for "conspiracy theory known as pizzagate" versus 6 Google News hits for "hoax known as pizzagate". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• • "Pizzagate" on its own gets 110, 000 Google hits.[17] Add: hoax (36,200),[18] "conspiracy theory" (36,900),[19] scandal (95,400).[20] That's because they normally refer to it as "Pizzagate," but if they describe it, they mostly call it a "hoax," rather than a "conspiracy theory." TFD (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that scandal gets so many hits proves the futility of Google search hits, since RSs do not use that term. It is used by conspiracy sites. Seriously, Google counts are meaningless. Objective3000 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's actually a Google news search, that is, it shows how often news media use the term scandal when discussing Pizzagate. Note that the suffix "-gate" means scandal - it derives from the Watergate Scandal, which was the largest political scandal in U.S. history.[21] Note the inclusion of Pizzagate in "List of scandals with "-gate" suffix." RS do in fact use the term scandal as in this ABC news report: "The "pizzagate" scandal spread by websites like "InfoWars" became a prime example of the potential dangers of spreading false information."[22] Note the reference to "false information," i.e., it was a hoax. TFD (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"False information" does not mean "hoax." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

References

I would tend to agree whilst this is a hoax (in the sense hat it appears even those who created it did not believe it) it is also clear that RS call it a conspiracy theory on the whole, and the people who believe it (rather then created it) think of it as a conspiracy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not neutral, pushes view of pizzagate being false and debunked

I've marked the page as non-neutral due to it being described as false and debunked. It's okay to say it's false when quoting other news outlets but don't prefix the theory with false and debunked within the unquoted wiki text as its unnecessary and biased.

E.g

— The false theory has been extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations, including the District of Columbia Police Department

— Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory

— The same venues that fomented the false conspiracy theory

The wikipedia page has an extremely one sided view, which is also part of the reason why I have marked it as non-neutral. There is yet to be a section on the suspicions that created the pizzagate theory, which should go alongside with the debunking section. Also debunking section comes off as having completely debunked the theory when it has only debunked minor points. E.g Their "debunking" that pizza was not used as a code word is that podesta was well-known for their pizza, which changes nothing because the emails still make no sense unless pizza, cheese, pasta and dominoes have a hidden meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViliamiT (talk • contribs) 08:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the tag, because you have not stated a credible, meaningful POV issue with this article. Wikipedia articles are based entirely upon reliable sources. Our NPOV policy does not mean that we treat all claims equally — as a new editor, I suggest that you carefully read and understand our policies before editing contentious, complex articles such as this one. We strive to fairly represent all points of view in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources, and reliable sources unanimously declare the Pizzagate conspiracy claims to be false and debunked. Thus, this article will present the claims to be false and debunked, because that is what reliable sources say they are. Unless you have a reliable source which states otherwise, this discussion is unproductive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The views should only be limited to the sources, not the page itself. "The same venues that fomented the false conspiracy theory " <-- This quote should be "The same venues that fomented the pizzagate theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViliamiT (talk • contribs) 08:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, that is not how Wikipedia works. Once again, you appear to be very new on this site, and I suggest that you carefully read and understand our foundational content policies along with the biographies of living persons policy, which strictly regulates how we treat claims about living people, particularly highly-defamatory ones such as those at issue here. Compliance with these policies is not optional. The claims are false and this article will not present them otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Notably, please read All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. We cite numerous reliable, authoritative sources for the undisputed fact that the Pizzagate claims are false and have been debunked. Until and unless you present reliable, authoritative sources which say otherwise, there is nothing to discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This topic is extremely controversial, this page has no mention of it, only one side, that it has been without debate debunked. Wikileaks and CBS have also talked about this issue in a way that incorporates the evidence from the "conspiracy theorists". Until this page is presented with the actual points from both sides, I will mark this page as "Not neutral" as it doesn't fit the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViliamiT (talk • contribs) 08:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" among reliable sources and there is no "evidence" deemed credible by any reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"controversial - giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement." Pizza gate fits that definition. There is no hard-evidence that it happened but there is certainly enough to open an investigation. I will add the suspecting evidence to the page after and then remove the non-neutral tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViliamiT (talk • contribs) 08:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you need to read and understand Wikipedia policies, because you have shown no evidence of your understanding of them, and compliance with those policies is not optional — all content on Wikipedia must be based upon reliable sources. There is no reliable source for any purported "evidence" of the theory's claims, because no reliable source has found any of the claims credible nor have they found any of the purported "evidence" to be meaningful or truthful. Your path on this article will only end in tears and a swift topic ban, if not an outright block, and I urge you to understand the gravity of what you're doing before you do it. Of course, if you don't care whether or not your edits comply with our policies, then the discussion can end here and I'll move straight to requesting administrative sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If you have nothing to contribute, don't waste your time here, you've stated multiple times that there's no evidence at all in the theory, but there is plenty, I will add that to the article soon, there are also parts of the article that are accepted as fact from useless sources, such as the "fact" that most twitter accounts retweeting pizzagate were bots.ViliamiT (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Describing The New York Times and the Washington Post as "useless sources" precisely confirms that you don't understand how Wikipedia works — they are more or less the definition of a reliable source. Anything you add that is not cited to a reliable source will be removed, and anything you add that misrepresents what reliable sources say will also be removed. I suggest that you pay close attention to the discretionary sanctions notices I left you, and that you read the policies and systems which are implicated by your edits here. Defaming living people is not tolerated on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Lets ask one question, what piece of verifiable and checked evidence has not be shown to be false? What evidence has been presented?08:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

where the hell are my comments?

Hatted per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. The OP's original concern about missing comments has been resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted a couple months ago about how this wiki was using completely bogus claims such as it was "started by a white supremacist", which was not at all backed up by the sources in the article. Someone trolled trolled my comments with some sort nonsense about jewish media control or something equally obnoxious and and i didn't post anything further. Now i don't see my original comments archived nor on this page. So WTF is going on here? Some encyclopedia.68.117.92.91 (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC) You have only been active for 24 hours, so it is hard to see what you posted some months ago.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC) I can search the archives and see that nothing is there related to my posts. this IP only being active for whatever arbitrary time is irrelevant68.117.92.91 (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC) It's not, as we cannot do a search, and an admin cannot check what may have happened without some kind of clue as the when it was posted and which account posted it. So can you tell us which account made the comments and when?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC) I don't have an account. It would have been an IP editor. It should clearly be in the archives, but it is not, the question being why.how does it vanish from the archives regardless of who made it? Why call it archives if that is an actual possibility? might as well call it memory hole.68.117.92.91 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC) You can take a look at this page history [23]. Any change to the page is tracked there. You should have no problem finding what happened to your comments there.--McSly (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC) I found it... Why the hell did i have to search the archives for "jew" instead of "white" for it to magically pop up on the archive list? WTF? My original post had nothing to do with jews, only the idiocy of a false claim about a supposed white supremacist origin, nothing about Jews. WTF is going on here, wikipedia? What's more, why the hell was my comment blackout out for point out the unvarnished truth of a fraudulent claim made bt a Wikipedia article? Completely suspicious behinvior by whomever decided that was warranted. I want explanations for both of these things, why it magically won't appear when I search the archive and when my original comment was blocked out. 68.117.92.91 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Could you provide a diff for your comment please? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Are you saying the comment was deleted?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC) It's this, presumably. It may be more helpful for you to dial back the anger if you're truly requesting assistance. Kuru (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC) it's strange to be concerned about tone when someone is pointing out utter falsities in a supposed encyclopedia ostenbily based on "fact". I guess its more alleged than ostensible at this juncture. there is no excuse for such a high traffic wiki article for it to have happened. And why do I have to search for "jew" in the archive to pull this up?68.117.92.91 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC) You don't, searching "completely bogus" (search link) also finds it -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC) I take it then it is the comment you were talking about. Reading the comment it was (as I think the closer said) insulting and confrontational and made no real suggestions about improving the article (as indeed this thread very much is doing). But I do not thi8nk you were alone in this (in that thread) or that you were being single out by it's being hidden (as was made clear it "May be restated in a productive manner). As to why it did not show up in a search, that is because it was hidden.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC) intentionally writing falsities in wiki articles is certainly not constructive. Being frustrated with their continued, inexcusable, inexplicable existences is quite a different matter. If people are only allowed to write various forms of puffery here, there is no point whatsoever. Perhaps there isn't.68.117.92.91 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Just looked at the site. Surely appears as though the White supremacy label fits. Objective3000 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC) "the site" is irrelevant. Feigning ignorance of the actual content of a source, a questionable source at that, is pretty low. is this just a CYA statement?16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC) And yes it does show up in a search for "white supremacist" [24], second one down.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC) You are apparently referring to a post seen by clicking "show" at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2017/March#completely bogus claims in this wiki). The page is the second result (after the current talk page) for me in an archive search of both white and supremacist. Talk page discussions are often collapsed with a "show" link when the discussion is considered closed. The collapsing probably had more to do with the replies than with your own posts. As an unintended side effect of collapsing, a browser search of the page with for example Ctrl+F may not find a string in the collapsed discussion. If your browser has not enabled JavaScript or you use the mobile version then discussions are not collapsed. Click "Mobile view" at the bottom of the desktop version to see the mobile version [25]. The search on white displayed the first occurrence of the word on the page. I suppose this could also be why you didn't discover the later occurrence. If you want to know something then please ask more clearly without making accusations. If you create an account then it will be easier to find your posts by searching for your username or using the Contributions link. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC) "white" shows a link to the same archive date/page, but not to my actual edit on that page. (links to the phrase "black & white", an unrelated edit). for whatever weird reason "white" doesn't pull it up work for searching for it. Whatever.I guess i don't really care at this point, for whatever strange database reasons. It exists but was "collapsed" without my consent due to what appear to be children who apparently shouldn't be editing wikipedia in the first place. it's wonderful to know whatever I write can be hidden away because of a handful of trolls are allowed to post responses to my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.92.91 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC) That is because the thread is hidden, thus it does not show up.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC) What part of "it shows up when I type 'jew' in" confused you?68.117.92.91 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Well it does not for me, that is the part that confuses me [26].Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC) You do not see this "Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2017/March and from the search "white supremacist "Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2017/March" the same hit 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.92.91 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[27]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Well that is constructive.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC) I didn't write that. that was one of the trolls responding to my original post. Should have been pretty obvious since there was a grand total of 1 hit on the search. A little due diligence goes a long way . Thanks.68.117.92.91 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC) That quote is from the section started by you but not a post by you. Collapsing is irrelevant to the display on the search page, and your post is displayed for "supremacist". But only one blurb from each page is displayed. That's also how Google and most other search engines work. The search feature is not psychic and doesn't know whether you want the section with "black & white" or "white supremacist" when you only search on "white". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Can we close this now, it is not a constructive debate (and adds nothing to this forum, or the article) and is just full of snipping and confusing indentation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Are you feeling a little guilty for calling my posts a "personal attack" for pointing out the childishness of the posters who injected the whole jews conspiracy nonsense into my previous edits?68.117.92.91 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC) No as it is a personal attack to call someone childish, I just do not see what this is adding to the article or this talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

article is still carrying a 100% lie, twice had my comments "blocked" from pointing it out is not acceptable

Where are the responsible admins here? Do i need to file something to have blatant lies removed from wiki pages? appeal to someone? The source does not say anywhere that the user was a white sumpremcist. in fact, the current version is even worse than the old, giving the false impression that the cops claimed this was the case, when only trash leftwing buzzfeed source said anything even remotely releated to "white sumprecist" sand even the partisan DNC hacks at buzzfeed didn't go so far as yo call the person a white sumprmecist, only that the image use on his twitter account was somehow linked to a white supremacist website. Which is to say if I post a picture on here of a democrat donkey icon, I'm clearly a democrat.68.117.92.91 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not going to get anywhere here unless you start acting in a civil manner. We are all volunteers and have better things to do than wade through insults. Objective3000 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

By all acounts, civil manner here seems to be nothing more than echoing the talking points of the far left/DNC. I'll pass.68.117.92.91 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:PA WP:CIV WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No it is being polite to other users.

Example A, I disagree with your assertion. Not impolite

Example B, You have all the grace and charm of a pubic louse, A PA.

The best way to describe it, talk to others with the same courtesy you would expect. All you are going to achieve here is a block.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For example, how you should phrase your point.

The claim that this was started by white supremacists is a false hood, can anyone provide an RS supporting the accusation?Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what you are actually asking? Even buzzfeed never said it was done by a white spuprmecist, like I already said. So what need would there be to correct something that was never said in the first place? Additionally, even if buzzfeed had said it, no reputable news source would waste their time with a well known trash/hack site to bother pointing out the well known fact they are a in fact partisan trash site, which every honest person already knows.68.117.92.91 (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It is an example of how to phrase a question without shouting ABUSE AT PEOPLE!.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You point out an error and then make a suggestion about improvements, you do not shout "OI NERKS NAFF OFF!".Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Cite Errors in the Lead Paragraph.

Cite 5: "Cite error: The named reference shalby was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." and cite 6: "Cite error: The named reference :7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Reverend Lee (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

De-link "Brittany Pettibone", please. Article was deleted, no need to keep a red link in the article body. TheValeyard (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Completely biased Page. Makes you think Wiki Has been payed off they are always asking for money

wp:notforum~etc
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So don't threaten to post block me cause I don't have evidence or something dumb, just listen to what I have to say. First things first New York Times and Snopes regardless of what you say aren't reliable sources for "investigation" so thats a major flaw Secondly you say numerous news sources claim it as conspiracy, remind me how they know? You won't post peoples changes for lack of evidence yet you blindly believe news sources of all places in a time when fake news is getting slammed left and right. CNN deserves what they're getting btw. There is also a major flaw in saying that this is debunked. For one Listing the little things individuals think of that are wrong doesn't prove anything about the actual event. Just that some wackjobs tried to make something up. You also don't link the emails, and go out of your way to make the references to food sound crazy. Put screenshots of the emails in there I know you've seen them, Put a column on the wiki leaks Why are they ordering pizza to be delivered to a pizza place? Whats up with obamas hotdogs? If you read the emails and pretend the food words mean what they are the messages don't make any sense. If you read these emails they make you cringe, and to think they'd be listed as a debunked conspiracy cause News sources known to biased in the face of politics say so? Because the police of D.C. (so closely related to the Whitehouse and politics say its false, No research just false) Like cmon You're really gonna just believe all of this. Your policy claims to upold truth, well the truth is wiki got paid to label this as they did, Say wheres my proof I don't care its above you. The truth is Its not debunked and theres not a single fact you have to prove that. So wait aren't you going against your own policy? Shouldn't you get blocked for no facts? Another truth Blindly judging news sources make you unreliable and an untrustworthy format for information. Another truth lying to the public about the events and keeping information from them is wrong. Post the wiki leaks that spawned this if you going to have it up Fake news is an abomination and we as a people are tired of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.114.213 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 73.96.114.213, believe it or not but "we" are not some monolithic paid-off entity like the Borg. There are some among us who are sympathetic to your concerns. Who are "your people," and where can I go to learn more about the truth? Feel free to write me back at User talk:DrFleischman. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, all of which describe pizzagate as a debunked conspiracy theory. --Opinionsarenotfacts124 (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed as a source

Should we be using Buzzfeed as a source as I seem to recall it is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Especially as it is being used to source what is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, a quick look at the site and WP article on it doesn’t give one a warm and fuzzy feeling. But, I haven’t seen any comments on the site before. Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed's reputation has improved as of late, and the issue has come up repeatedly at WP:RSN with a shifting consensus over time. See for example this discussion. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick search at RSN and came up with a lot of hits about unreliably. I would suggest (as at least one other source does mention the Buzzfeed accusation) we either re-word this to make it clear this is only Buzzfeeds opinion or remove the accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the Twitter account in question; I'd use the label in personal conversation. But, if we can't find another secondary; agree it should probably be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you're just scrolling through RSN search results you probably are getting a lot of hits throughout the entire life of the noticeboard. But you have to pay more attention to the time frame. A discussion from 2010 is probably not going to reach the same conclusion as a discussion from 2017, as in the discussion I linked to above. TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point. The term white supremacist bothers me. It most certainly appears to be a racist, hate site aimed at non-white minorities, and I have little doubt that the label fits. I’d just be more comfortable to see another source for supremacist; or in the alternative, some slight softening of the language. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

What site are you actually talking about? That image in question can be found all over the internet. iits as "white sumprecist" as the doge or twighlight sparkle.68.117.92.91 (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure, and if so, can you please provide links? I ran a reverse image search and found it in four places--all neo-nazi/white supremacist forums. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The image is certainly antisemitic, especially when paired with a clearly Jewish surname. Perhaps you aren't aware of the history of such imagery. While I think it is a safe assumption that the Twitter user in question is some kind of white supremacist, it is just an assumption. Perhaps "A Twitter account featuring white supremacist imagery" would be more accurate. SplatterProof (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Collapse non-useful rant. May be rephrased. Objective3000 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, just read the article and you know its bogus. Why did they start their whole story narrative on how this whole thing started by the david goldberg account instead of the 4 chan forum months earlier or the woman he was copying/pasting in this tweet, both of which preceding this david account chronologically and in the case of 4 chan far more importantly. instead they jump to this david guy, when they can't verify anything about him then they feel free to make up the rest of his existence. There is of course just no way a guy name david goldberg ever would quote something negative about HC. Why talk about a random WOMAN and 4chan(troll central) when you can talk about lefts favorite nonexistent bogeyman. More likely than not this guy was a 4 chan troll and had you been told from the outset 4 chan was involved you would have drawn that conclusion. As is there is no knowledge of who that david guy is/was or what his angle was. For all we know it's bernie sanders or one of his disgruntled bernie bros. But buzzfeed doesn't let facts or verifiability get the way of a good story, again starring their favorite bogeyman.68.117.92.91 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC) How is a paragraph almost entirely comprised of undeniable facts a "rant". An oh look it's the same guy who closed my other original comment even though I had done nothing wrong in it other than apparently point out an obvious falsity in the wikipage. 68.117.92.91 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this content. BuzzFeed has become a reliable news outlet. They very well could have done more research than simply finding the image on a white supremacist website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It may be wroth noting then only other source for this makes it clear this is Buzzfeeds opinion, I think (at least) we should attrribure this claim in text.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with the claim with attribution. Objective3000 (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. Whether a Twitter account is a white supremacist account or not is a fact, not an opinion, and we should not be making uncontested facts appear to be contested. PolitiFact, an extremely reliable outlet, did not say "In BuzzFeed's view,..." or otherwise cast doubt on the BuzzFeed source; they said, approvingly, "BuzzFeed reported...," reinforcing BuzzFeed's reliability for this purpose. The only change I would make is to precede "white supremacist" with "reputed," as PolitiFact did. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• The IP is a banned user and I have blocked him. See this block log from a previous IP for comparison. In the future, RBI applies so just swat him.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are taking PolitiFacts lead, now you need to state that the 'white supremicist' tag is Buzzfeeds opinion - their paragraph opens "Buzzfeed reported...". Wikipedia should probably do the same. Berrocca Addict (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We're not taking PolitiFact's lead. Many news sources (such as PolitiFact) give attribution to other outlets as a matter of professional courtesy. We don't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Fake news

I have a serious problem with using a CBS article as a source for declaring fake news sites. Especially when they stood behind a string of Washington Post articles that were obviously fictional. Their ability to declare what is and is not fake is definitely questionable!Lostinlodos (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

CBS passes WP:RS with flying colors. Suggestions to the contrary are non-starters. TheValeyard (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for the poor formatting here. I'm doing this on mobile. Let me further explain after showing up and reading the archives now. My issue here is calling any of the sources for or against legitimate or fake. Since October there has been what Wikipedia would call "patent nonsense" from both the left leaning and right leaning media. Some intentional fakes (e.g. Washington Post, The Red) some repeating fakes (NYT, CBS, Fox News, CNN). But we can't focus on a tiny percentage to call a whole site fake.

my point is if we use the same methodology to declare Inforwars et al as fake then we must by account declare that CBS, whose report is linked, is itself fake news for making mistakes. I believe the entire fake news rhetoric should be removed if any semblance of balance is to delivered here. I don't consider cbs or Washington Post calling infowars fake any more credible than infowars calling CNN or cbs fake. Jaded, one sided, even occasionally duped by their partisan counterparts; sure. But all are far from fake. Lostinlodos (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider cbs or Washington Post calling in infowara fake any more credible than infowars calling CNN or cbs fake I mean... that's nice an all, but one side of that is WP:RS, and the other isn't, so we really only care about half the equation there. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN (with apologies to RSN). It makes no sense to argue here about the reliability of sources like WaPo or CBS. Objective3000 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Lostinlodos, aside from WaPo's reliability, honestly I don't understand how that has anything to do with CBS's reliability. They are separate organizations, separate journalists, separate editorial staffs making separate judgments. Perhaps you see some sort of media war going on, Infowars versus the monolithic mainstream media, but that's not how the mainstream media operates and it has nothing to do with our verifiability policy. Moreover I question where you are getting your information that various mainstream media sources are publishing fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is an RSN issue, we all know the result but even so.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

CBS is a reliable source. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

edit request on 22 July 2017

74.135.2.21 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove unnecessary adjectives from X:

Pizzagate is a debunked[2][3][4] conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle. The theory, which went viral, claimed that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring.[5][6] The false theory has been extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations, including the District of Columbia Police Department.[3][4][7]

To Y:

Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle. The theory, which went viral, claimed that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a child-sex ring.[5][6] The theory has been extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations, including the District of Columbia Police Department.[3][4][7]

 Declined Not done. See talk archives, WP:YESPOV and other policy and guidelines making it clear that when a conspiracy theory has been debunked, we will say so. We're not leaving out important information just to appease some folks preconceived notions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

buzzfeed and politifact are totally reliable sources! Stop disagreeing with us!!! we don't actually serve your interests! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B101:9702:0:5F:E092:4601 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Shame they are not the only sources we used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, politifact is a totally reliable source. It's about as reliable as they get. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling correction request

In the section 'Comet Ping Pong shooting', fourth paragraph, second to last sentence, the name of the perpetrator is misspelled. The sentence reads 'Welsh also agreed to pay $5,744.33 for damages to the restaurant.' It should read 'Welch also agreed to pay $5,744.33 for damages to the restaurant.' The s should be changed to a c. Pfalmer (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the heads up. SkyWarrior 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

not debunked 24.57.204.221 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done - No rationale given for altering consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Introduction says "The theory ... claimed that John Podesta's emails ... contained coded messages ... connecting a number of restaurants ... with a fabricated child-sex ring." which is a double negative implying Podesta tried to false flag a child sex ring which obviously is wrong. Also "The false theory has been extensively discredited" is hyperbolic and repetitive as the same section of the intro already states the falsehood of the theory and verifies this fact in the same sentence where the unnecessary hyperbole is added. It's like writing "The evil man, who is very evil, is very evil." instead of "The man is very evil.". It's one thing to be clear and unbiased in stating the fact that the theory is debunked. It is another thing entirely to overtly pander and lower overall quality and structure as a form of (presumably pro-democrat) activism to reach out because the editor believes the conspiracy theorists can't read a properly formulated introduction. You're just making the article seem biased which in my opinion fuels the conspiracy theories by adding too much hyperbole and condescension. These are also not the edits that have been discussed. To be clear; I am not asking you to remove the fact the theory is debunked, I am asking you to not compromise article quality and use a language that seems biased which indirectly hurts the credibility of the legitimate debunking statement. 85.194.2.57 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue, I don't understand. I see no double negative in there and I don't understand where that implication comes from. Regarding the second issue, that has been extensively discussed, and while I personally agree we have a bit of overkill, the consensus is to make clear in every sentence that the theory is debunked/discredited/false in line with our very strict policy to protect biographies of living people, since the theory falsely accuses real, living people of having committed the most heinous of crimes. If there is any bias here, it's a bias against defamation, not a partisan bias as you presume. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have specific wording in mind that would add clarity to the sentence? Keep in mind that we need to state which parts of the conspiracy theory are false. If we were to remove "fabricated", we would be implying that there may have been a real child sex ring but Podesta and the restaurants had no connection to it. Dlthewave (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

First issue: the word 'fabricated' indicates a double negative. Simplified example: 'The theory claims there are multiple restaurants using a fabricated sex ring...' instead of: 'The theory claims there are multiple restaurants using a sex ring...'. The THEORY does not claim the sex ring is FABRICATED. It is, but the THEORY claims it is real. Most readers get the intended message but still it adds a less serious hyperbolic. But I might just be nitpicking here so feel free to dismiss. Regarding the second part, I do think that stating the theory is debunked/false two times in the same sentence is hyperbole regardless of reason, as I doubt even the pizzagaters are incapable of reading a single sentence to the point where it would be necessary for personal protection to make sure they get it even if they read 3 words instead of 7 words. Removing the "false" in "The false theory has been extensively discredited" would in my opinion make the statement more credible. Thus the edit would help discredit the theory and prevent a witch hunt (in accordance with guidelines). Keeping the "false" would make it easier for people to claim it seems biased. But if this is already discussed then feel free to dismiss this request as well - I agree all of us make a valid point here so either way it's fine. But yeah in short it is my opinion that too much hyperbole hurts the credibility of a statement.85.194.2.57 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

English allows for cycling levels of context with regards to adjectives. Indeed, context shouldn't really "nest" like you're suggesting at all, else one ends up writing about how false theories revolve around real alien abductions, which is nonsensical. It's perfectly fine to say that a (debunked) theory claims that certain restaurants are involved in a fabricated child sex ring. In fact, it's a more encyclopedic tone to frame all statements from a distance, like that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see what you're saying. I can also see Dlthewave's point that if we remove "fabricated," the sentence might be read as saying that there was a real child sex ring. I don't know how to address this concern; any suggestions? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

We could re-frame the whole sentence to make it explicit that it's describing the narrative of the theory. Here's the original, followed by a draft:

The theory, which went viral, claimed that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring.

vs.

The viral theory was based on claims that coded messages had been discovered in the emails of John Podesta, which had been leaked to Wikileaks. It purports to describe a child sex ring, operating out of a number of restaurants and featuring the involvement of members of the Democratic Party."

Thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think 85.194.2.57's concern might be address by replacing "fabricated" with "alleged." Going on MPants' theme of a larger re-write, however, I think we might want to separate what's fact from what's fiction. Namely, something like: "In the fall of 2016, the personal e-mail account of John Podesta was hacked in a spear-phishing attack. After the e-mails were made public by WikiLeaks, proponents of the Pizzagate theory, which went viral, claimed that the e-mails contained coded messages referring to human human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic party with an alleged child-sex ring." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that addressing the IP's concerns, but I do see that as flowing much (much) better than either the original or my version. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"proponents of the Pizzagate theory, which went viral, falsely claimed that the e-mails contained coded messages..." would be fine with me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with the point the IP is making. I don't even think it's a matter of partisan bias, but a matter of decent writing. Per suggestions above, I would support changing "fabricated" with "alleged" and removing the "false" in the final sentence, since it continues by stating it's a discredited theory. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I would be on board with using "alleged" or "purported" and removing the final "false". I also like the direction MPants is going, by making it more of a narrative instead of trying to explain the whole convoluted thing in a single sentence. Dlthewave (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is not ideal for all the reasons mentioned. I read everyone's suggestions and tried to incorporate them into a single rewritten paragraph:

'Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged and went viral during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle. In the fall of 2016, John Podesta’s personal email account was hacked, and copies of his emails were publically released by WikiLeaks. The Pizzagate theory alleged that the leaked emails contained coded messages revealing that a number of D.C.-area restaurants were being used by members of the Democratic Party to run a secret child-sex ring. The Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been thoroughly discredited by a wide range of organizations. Liberal organizations (such as The New York Times and The Huffington Post), conservative organizations (such as Fox News), and even non-partisan groups (such as Snopes.com and the Washington D.C. Police Department) have all debunked the Pizzagate theory.'

• I decluttered the second sentence by moving 'viral' into the first sentence
• In order to more clearly distinguish between fact and fiction I split the facts (about John Podesta's emails being hacked and released) into a separate sentence from the fictions alleged by the Pizzagate theory
• I reworded the allegations made by the theory so that they flowed better, and so that the I was able to remove the word 'fabricated' while still making it clear that both the child-sex ring wasn't real, and that the theory claimed it was. I wanted to avoid the possible misinterpretations that either 1)The child-sex ring was real, and that the fake part was just that the Democrats were involved; or 2)That the theory itself alleged that the child-sex ring was fabricated. Hopefully the new wording makes clear that both the existence of the child-sex ring, and the Democrats involvement with it, were both false claims made by the theory.
• I rewrote the final sentence about the theory being discredited and split it into two sentences.

-In the first sentence I removed the word 'false' to make the sentence less hyperbolic; and I changed a little bit of the wording so that the sentence flowed better with my new final sentence that followed.

-For the second (and final) sentence I provided examples of the 'wide range of organizations' that I mentioned in the previous sentence. I wanted to explicitly mention that the organizations debunking the theory include left, right, and non-partisan groups (so that readers don't have to take our word for it); and I provided examples of each type of organization (again, so that the readers can judge for themselves whether the organizations belong to the categories we claim)

Note: I didn't include links or references in my proposed wording. When a final decision on how to word the section is reached, the references and links will need to be added. Pfalmer (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been changed to match your proposal already. I'm cool with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The theory, which is false, has been extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations,

LOL, This sentence (in the lead) , which reads like it was written by a 6 year, has a very immature ring to it. As we have said it has been discredited it really seems redundant (and something of a double negative to also say it is false).Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Diaz beat us to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Or... Now... Hear me out now... We could take the twitter approach: The theory FALSE! VERY SAD! TimothyJosephWood 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to add "Fake News!!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)