| Revision as of 16:10, 31 December 2016 editMjolnirPants (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,676 edits →Does this article deny the antecedent?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:34, 23 January 2025 edit undoHandThatFeeds (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,565 edits →Protected edit request 10 January 2025: addendumTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=no}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp|style=brief}} |
|
|
{{Warning|heading=WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES|1= |
|
|
This page is subject to ]; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Enforcement should be requested at ]. Note that the ] applies to all areas of Misplaced Pages, including this talkpage.}} |
|
|
{{warning RS and OR}} |
|
|
{{Censor}} |
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{Warning|heading=WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES|1= |
|
|
This page is subject to ]; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Enforcement should be requested at ]. <p>Note: The article has been protected so that only users with ] rights can make edits. See ]. Note that the ] applies to all areas of Misplaced Pages, including this talkpage.}} |
|
|
{{BLP other}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Old MfD | date = November 30, 2016 | result =Keep | votepage = Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) }} |
|
|
|
|action1 = MFD |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
|
|action1date = 2016-11-30 |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|action1link = Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=low|DC=yes|DC-importance=}} |
|
|
|
|action1result = kept |
|
{{WikiProject Turkey|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid = 753394483 |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|action2 = GAN |
|
{{WikiProject Food and drink|class=|importance=|foodservice=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action2date = 2018-08-24 |
|
|
|action2link = Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/GA1 |
|
|
|action2result = listed |
|
|
|action2oldid = 856297302 |
|
|
|action3 = PR |
|
|
|action3date = 2019-12-26 |
|
|
|action3link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Pizzagate conspiracy theory/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result = Not reviewed |
|
|
|action3oldid = |
|
|
|action4 = FAC |
|
|
|action4date = 2019-05-17 |
|
|
|action4link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pizzagate conspiracy theory/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result = failed |
|
|
|action4oldid = 897013970 |
|
|
|currentstatus = GA |
|
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old moves|date=22 July 2023|destination=Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1167685440#Requested move 22 July 2023}} |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=GA|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)/Archives/ |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Twofingered Typist|date=July 25, 2019}} |
|
|format=Y/F |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Mid}} |
|
|age=72 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}} |
|
|minkeepthreads=5 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=Low}} |
|
|index=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=Mid|importance=Mid|DC=yes|DC-importance=low}} |
|
|archivebox=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
|box-advert=yes |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied|from1=Pizzagate conspiracy theory|from_oldid1=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory&action=history|to_diff1=1001554130|to1=List of "-gate" scandals}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Jun 7 2020|Jul 5 2020|Jul 12 2020|Jul 19 2020|Aug 2 2020|Aug 9 2020}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|days=730}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo=old(90d) |
|
|
| archive=Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter=8 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize=150K |
|
|
| archiveheader={{tan}} |
|
|
| minthreadsleft=3 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
== Request for comment == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=3DDA3C1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Q:''' Should the article refer to Pizzagate as "debunked" in the lead? |
|
|
|
|
|
In this article's short life this issue has already come up multiple times. So in the interest of avoiding even more repeated discussions of the same question in the future, I'm opening this RfC in order to hopefully establish a firm consensus one way or the other. ] 18:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Support''' Is anyone seriously disputing this? There was an editor who seemed to be advocating this, but he's been topic-banned. ] (]) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' - Yes. The word "debunked" is well cited and it is referenced from multiple reliable sources. There have been suggestions that it should be removed because other articles do not include the word "debunked" but I consider that to be a Red Herring - problems with other articles should not affect this one. ] (]) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Wording could be different, but the gist needs to remain''' - I think it's a little awkward to have the word "debunked" right there, and so I would suggest an alternative formulation: "Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory which emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle, '''falsely claiming''' that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking, and connecting a number of pizzerias in Washington, D.C. and members of the Democratic Party to a '''fabricated''' child-sex ring." This improves the flow, while still clearly and directly factually stating that the claims it makes about people are factually false. I would '''oppose''' any change which removes from the lede entirely this sort of direct factual statement, because of the still-ongoing nature of the spread of these fictitious, libelous lies. ] (]) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
**I think that would be an improvement over the current wording. ] (]) 18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Wording could be different, but the gist needs to remain''' "unproven and widely debunked"] (]) 18:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support current wording but...''' I support NorthBySouthBaranof's suggestion more. I've quoted it below to highlight it. |
|
|
:{{talkquote|Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory which emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle, '''falsely claiming''' that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking, and connecting a number of pizzerias in Washington, D.C. and members of the Democratic Party to a '''fabricated''' child-sex ring.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Edit: I made a change to the language to better reflect my preferences. I don't think the word 'imaginary' in this context is very encyclopedic. </small> <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed, "fabricated" sounds better and I've made the change in my suggestion. ] (]) 19:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' saying "debunked", and also support "falsely claiming" and "fabricated". The sourcing is abundant, and we need to be accurate. I've read the argument above, about the risk of sounding like there are conspiracy theories that are not debunked, and it strikes me as a non-issue. --] (]) 19:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support word(s) along these lines. ''' - Not fussy about debunked vs. fabricated vs. falsely claiming and the like. As long as it agrees with the RSs. ] (]) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Change Wording''' per ]. Pretty much all lead paragraphs of Misplaced Pages articles regarding conspiracy theories do not say that word such as the debunked series of ]. ] (]) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' "debunked" in first sentence, and "discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum" in 2nd sentence, and fictitious conspiracy theory" in 2nd sentence, and "determined to be false by multiple organizations" in 2nd sentence. This ] issue has led to actual violence with an actual gun, as described by an ] at ]. ] (]) 19:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I doubt that adding or removing "debunked" in the first sentence would change anything. The people who believe this theory tend to ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs. There are people who still believe that the Sandy Newton victims are actors, such as who was arrested for giving death threats to the parents. ] (]) 20:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Holy ever loving crap... I knew that woman. Like, in real life. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::How long has she been believing these theories for? ] (]) 20:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I dunno. I last spoke to her before Sandy Hook happened. But she was always a Conspiracy Theorist. I met her in an AOL Local chat room about the X-Files in the late 90's. To be fair, I was a CT, too at the time. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' NorthBySouthBaranof and MjolnirPants' wording as presented here, which I guess is to say oppose using "debunked" but their wording accomplishes the same meaning. Good job. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 21:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - Obvious, and factual, as cited. ] (]) 01:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' per sourcing. -- ] (]) 20:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Change Wording''' - since it has been reportedly an ongoing issue, plus the word seems part of a redundancy/overload/conflict conflusion. The article is using the suffix "-gate", then 'conspiracy theory', 'discredited', 'fictitious conspiracy theory' and 'determined to be false'. This seems too much and also like different things so the article direction is muddled there. The 'gate' reads like an actual conspiracy existed, 'conspiracy theory' like it talking about the fringe nature of held by few, 'fictitious conspiracy theory' sounds like it's not a conspiracy theory and it is competing with 'debunked conspiracy theory' and 'debunked' as in some actual providing of evidence was the prominent event. I think just going with 'discredited' would be easier. ] (]) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support in some form''' per ], though some other wording could be used, e.g. "disproved", "false", "... falsely claiming that ...", etc., if people object to "debunked" in particular. I agree that the exact word "debunked" isn't usually used here, but it is not at ] and I don't see it as automatically problematic, though it is perhaps more of a Snopes than WP approach. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse top|reason=Perhaps somewhat less than serious things, that may be BLP problems...followed by an echo chamber. ] 01:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)}} |
|
|
*'''Dissent''' Whilst I have no doubt that much of the published gossip is wild exaggeration, and speculation. Am I alone in finding archived instagram pictures from the staff of the shop and the lurid comments of its followers extremely disturbing? . Here is one source which alludes to the pictures, and properly retains Alefantis' comments in quotes only. . ] (]) 21:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yet another "It '''might''' be true, look at this random blog!" comment. Thanks. We were running low on those. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::These are archived pages from source, not 'a random blog' and the ] is reasonably RS, despite its Moonie roots and continuing links. ] (]) 22:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I guess you don't know how pastebin works, then. Nor do you seem to grasp that the fact that you find the purported comments on a purported instagram account 'extremely disturbing' doesn't do anything to evince the truth of this bullshit conspiracy theory. The fact that a reporter from a notoriously conservative news outlet seems to have some sympathy for the conspiracy theorists while reporting on a NYT story as if it were breaking news doesn't change that, either. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 22:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Methinks you do protest too much. The Pastebin page just lists archived links (which are widely reproduced in other archives like ) this one for example gives the date and the original site the photo is linked to , now removed from public view. In his public appearances Alefantis has never disputed the genuineness of the images archived from his site. WT <i>is</i> conservative, but not notorious for Washington news. ] (]) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::To be fair, I did find which says it's absolutely true. ] 22:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Honestly though, these "sources" are complete garbage and every bit as reliable as what I linked to. <small>''{{tq|ITS A PICTURE OF A BABY I BET IT GOT RAPED}}''.</small> So yes, you are alone, and I say this with absolute confidence that if it came out tomorrow morning that Podesta was indicted for this, there would be a nerd-fight cage-match to see who would be the first to put it in the article, and what the wording would be. But if this is all you have I believe this conversation is over. ] 22:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Weird shit on Instagram? Why I never. Those pictures don't prove a damn thing about this theory. You can find secret symbols and suggestive imagery anywhere if you look hard enough for it. ]<sub>(])</sub> 22:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::It's like talking to a brick wall... What part of "your emotional reaction to a bunch of instagram photos is not a reliable source" is confusing? Seriously! I mean, if we're going to add content based on our personal feelings, then I have quite a lot to say about people willing to believe this kind of ridiculous bullshit. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 01:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Note''' This article has been here for a while now, and not once in that time has a single person come here with a reliable source that states "Pizzagate is true." That should be a red flag to everyone. If there was any reliable evidence, it would be public by now & there's no way every single reliable source in the world would be involved in a global conspiracy to keep it quiet. Enough's enough - can people please stop wasting everyone's time with a bunch of mocked-up images, codes thought up by trolls, blogs that say "it could be true, you never know, oooo!" and other useless junk. I'm challenging people to bring information that Pizzagate is true from '''Reliable, Independent Sources''' - not this pathetic nonsense. People are so ashamed of this weak information that they can't even bring themselves to log into their main Misplaced Pages accounts before they post it here. I say, man up - log into your actual account and present something real - or stop wasting everyone's time. ] (]) 23:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bot}} |
|
|
{{collapse top|reason=Misplaced Pages does not ] We include only what is reported by ], and accusing someone of running a pedophile ring without a reliable source, is a violation of the ]. ] 15:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)}} |
|
|
'''Pizzagate emerged from the Wikileaks emails, not from some alt-right conspiracy blog. No one has yet challenged the authenticity of any of the email released by Wikileaks. PizzaGate can only be called a conspiracy/be debunked if the emails, using pedophile codes will be proven as fake. If they are fake, then we need to ask; who sent them and was this a false flag?--] (]) 15:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
''' |
|
|
::And no one had demonstrated there was any such code. No one disputes the existence of the e-mails, only that there is no actual verifiable and proven evidence they in fact were coded communications. When we have had evidence that can actual be verified it has turned out to be fabricated, that is why the E-mails are relevantIrrelevant to this being a debunked theory.] (]) 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Come back when Podesta actually confirms that the emails are authentic. He hasn't yet, so it's pointless going on about them really. ] (]) 17:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Podesta has confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails, see for example the december 18 Meet The Press interview. The existence nor the authenticity of the e-mails is disputed, only their meaning and importance is at play. ] (]) 11:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's not accurate, but thanks for posting. ] (]) 15:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What do you mean, ], by 'not accurate'? In the interview (see c. 08:15 in ) he says, I quote: "(...) after Wikileaks started dropping my e-mails (...)". And the same is said in different words during the interview, and not a word about the e-mails being not authentic. Please don't accuse me of being unreliable. ] (]) 20:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bot}} |
|
|
'''Support''' Personally, i think the term ‘discredited’ is better, but I find ‘debunked’ acceptable ] (]) 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - "debunked," "discredited," and "fictitious" all work for me. The first two are somewhat better, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support a change in wording''' which unequivocally signifies that the conspiracy theory has been discredited. It does seem like overload and a bit jarring for "debunked conspiracy theory" to be there in the lead. ] (]) 17:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' because the claims it has been debunked are all based on other sources claiming it has been debunked. There has been no actual investigation into the claims and no one has gone through each claim systematically debunking them. It is stated that the DC police investigated and found nothing, but on submitting a FOIA request for the report of that investigation, a YouTube user was told that in fact, (video uploaded on 23 December 2016). So they lied initially when saying they had investigated. This means that no one has actually investigated the claims or debunked them. All sources simply point to the fact that other sources have apparently debunked it in a circular fashion. The Pizzagate investigation also moved well beyond the pizza restaurant, and much more evidence has been discovered including linking the Clinton Foundation to child trafficking in Haiti and more besides. No source has even looked at these other findings. The fact that the police did not investigate is an important aspect of this story as many of the sources stating it has been debunked base that on the supposed police investigation. Therefore it cannot be said that this has been debunked. ] (]) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC) <small>— ] (]{{#if:{{IsIPAddress|77.243.183.11}}|| • ]}}) has made ] outside this topic. </small> |
|
|
:He's right you know.jpg ] (]) 09:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) <small>— ] (]{{#if:{{IsIPAddress|76.72.9.197}}|| • ]}}) has made ] outside this topic. </small> |
|
|
::{{small|There hasn't been an investigation to prove that the two above IP addresses aren't ]. ] (]) 09:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)}} |
|
|
:::{{ping|Ian.thomson}} One of those IPs is a British proxy, and the other part of a wide-open american network that's commonly (read: almost entirely) used for hijacked proxies. I know you were being sarcastic, but you're probably exactly right. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] ] (]) 23:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' As the person above me stated, a FIOA request revealed the DC police hasn't done any actual investigation. Sources cited claim DC police has said it was fictitious. But DC police hasn't done any investigation at all. They just said they did. They assumed it is false based on nothing at all. ] (]) <small>— ] (]{{#if:{{IsIPAddress|217.63.154.8}}|| • ]}}) has made ] outside this topic. </small> |
|
|
::The above cited Youtube video definitely fails meet the ]. Judgements about what is written in Misplaced Pages cannot be made on someone's unvetted personal opinion expressed in an Youtube video that isn't backed up by a reliable source, ]. Personal opinion, speculation and innuendo might be acceptable for Voat, but Misplaced Pages is different. A person can find a Youtube video to support almost any point of view. You need to fine more authoritative and reliable source to support your position. ] (]) 15:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::So what would be needed for WP to believe he actually filed and got a response to a FOIA request?] (])<small>— ] (]{{#if:{{IsIPAddress|217.63.154.8}}|| • ]}}) has made ] outside this topic. </small> |
|
|
:::Third party RS saying that there had been no investigation. I can claim I spioke on the pnoe only yesterday to Mr Assange who asured me that he had been personally handed the disk with the e-mails on by Vladimir Putin who told him "and now my best mate Donny will be president and soon America will be ours, MUhhhahhhaa!". But my word is not enough.] (]) 17:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Who says we don't believe it? The fact that a couple of right-wing conspiracy theorists can't figure out the difference between "there is no ongoing investigation" and "we never bothered to investigate" is not our problem. The fact that a random youtube video that purports to show an email evinces nothing except for the creator's possible image-editing skills is not our problem. The fact that a non-notable person who just so happens to have a youtube account thinks this conspiracy theory is real is not our problem. You want to prove this bullshit true? Go do it on your own, and stop expecting WP to validate your bizarre beliefs for you. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::For the police to initiate an investigation of a alleged crime, there needs to be at least ] to believe a crime has been committed - either a complaining victim or a credible witness will generally suffice. If nobody has done that, then there won't be an investigation. Anyone is welcome to go to the DC Police and file a police report; of course, that would require signing a legal document under penalty of perjury, and it doesn't appear any Pizzagate conspiracist believes in their nonsense enough to risk going to jail for filing a false police report. ] (]) 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Police have also likely never investigated the claim that Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer, and that's because...well...that claim is completely made up. Police don't investigate allegations based on ''lack of repudiating evidence''; they investigate claims based on confirming evidence indicating the allegations may be true. There is none, and so there has been no investigation. ] 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Threaded discussion=== |
|
|
* {{ping|A Quest For Knowledge}}. Yes. See archive. Multiple editors have questioned this, including at least one admin. ] 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK, I stand corrected. ] requires that we not just say it's been debunked, but go into detail how it's been debunked. I remember reading ] not because I thought the Holocaust wasn't real, but because I wanted to know what Holocaust deniers were saying. The article not only explained what Holocaust deniers were claiming, but also explained the flaws in their arguments. That, to me, is the mark of a good article about a ]. If it had just said that Holocaust denial had been debunked but didn't explain why, that would do our readers a disservice. ] (]) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just to clarify, {{ping|A Quest For Knowledge}} - You've voted "support" in the survey, supporting the retention of "debunked" in the article. You've then, in response to another user's comment, said that changing the wording sounds better. Which is your vote? I only ask because you say you would like the word "debunked" removed. ] (]) 18:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm saying that the word "''debunked''" should be removed from the opening sentence, but not the whole article. The article can and should critically analyze this conspiracy theory. To be honest, I find the wording a bit insulting to our reader's intelligence. ] (]) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So you should vote "oppose" then, surely? ] (]) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::@Exemplo347: No, if you don't understand the difference between the opening sentence and the entire lead or the whole article, I'm not sure what more I can say. ] (]) 19:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I hate to burst your bubble but this discussion is specifically about the lead. Thanks for posting. ] (]) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Exactly! It's about the lede in general, not specifically the opening sentence. I suggest you reread my responses. I don't think I can make it any more obvious than I already have. ] (]) 19:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Two minds, NPOV says we should be neutral, but it is hard to see this as not thoroughly debunked. The only evidence that has not been proved as either made up, falsified or misrepresented is the "code" and that is also totally unsubstantiated. Thus is is hard to see this as not debunked. I would say change it to "unproven and widely debunked".] (]) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Unproven" weakens the language somewhat. It's not as strong as an unequivocal phrase like "false" ] (]) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Except I rather do have so play devils advocate here and point out it has not been shown the code is false. Only that it has not on shred of evidence to support it. I would opt for the more neutral phrase just to stop the damn arguments.] (]) 18:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In a very formal sense, you are absolutely right. But in the heuristics of reality, the fact that all the 'evidence' has been shown to be false is, itself, convincing evidence that there is no truth to it. It's a sort of ]: it's not false ''by definition'' but it's so unlikely to be true that it might as well be. |
|
|
:::Why does this matter? Because Misplaced Pages documents reality. It's an encyclopedia, not an exercise in applying strict formal logic to real questions. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That's the point I've been trying to make for days. This is an entry in an encyclopaedia, not a web forum where anyone can post anything they like, slanted exactly how they like, to push whatever agenda they choose to push this week based on something they read on some random message board. Facts - cited, referenced facts - that's what Misplaced Pages articles need, not petty arguments over semantics based on the personal feelings of editors. This isn't 4chan - this site actually gets taken seriously. ] (]) 21:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I feel I must add to this discussion, because the article, as well as the talk page here, seems to omit some very important aspects of Pizzagate, which I'll try to adress short. Pizzagate is not 'a' conspiracy theory, it is in fact a still evolving amalgam of theories. Literally thousands of people are investigating what they find a suspicious network of relations that breaths a to them very disturbing suggestion of different kinds of evil. One of the major branches of this - ongoing and, like I said, evolving - investigation focusses on the Clinton Foundation and its international connections to (as some or many see it) supposedly criminal activitities and organisations; I stress here that it is for many of the researchers not a partisan issue. The Wiki-article fails to even mention the Clinton Foundation and the stress laid upon it under the name of Pizzagate. I find it quite unbelievable how a plurality of Wikipedians, that is: encyclopedians, picks only the obvious (and, indeed, clearly debunkable) surface of this 'conspiracy theory gone wild' and seems to try so hard to maintain it is a debunked conspiracy theory. It appears to me as if no one has felt the need to give a more elaborate account of this subject, and all are trying to get it over with and bury the subject by stating it as debunked. By the very definition (and the article's lead seems a poor one) of this many-headed monster it cannot be said to be debunked as long as it is growing, which in my opinion it still does. And no, I haven't seen a smoking gun, nor even a victim, but as someone said: 'Pizzagate is not a theory, it is an investigation' - Wikipedians in this case might learn something from that. ] (]) 16:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hey ]. I don't think anyone is against putting anything in the article on principle, but, because of the ], we can't include anything in the article that isn't backed up by a reliable source, ]. ] 16:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't know why Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiable sources is confusing so many people. It's been in place for years. ] (]) 17:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Not everyone has been here for years, and some who do still often get it wrong, which is why we should take care not to ] users who've only ever made three edits. ] 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It was just a general comment really. People who have been here for longer than I have still keep getting tripped up by the Verifiability policy. 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi ], reliable sources did focus on some of Pizzagate's theories concerning the Clinton Foundation, debunking it or not, for instance the . I just felt obliged to notice that to many Pizzagaters Pizzagate is much bigger than the Wiki-article suggests, and that it seems akward to call debunked something which is much broader than a detail shown. ] (]) 17:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Ah ha. Now, this is a good point and with a really good source behind it. We could probably use this to add some breadth to the Origins section. ] 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks, I think you got the point. ] (]) 17:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree that some mention of the spin-off conspiracy theories could be good, as long as there's the word "false" added if it's in the sources. ] (]) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think it is fair to say the initial allegations have been pretty conclusively debunked, and the wider issue is not really about Pizzagate and so it's proper place would be elsewhere (such as the Clinton foundation).] (]) 17:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Seems every bit as relevant as allegations that the FBI raided Clinton's home. ...And if anyone is seriously considering suggesting this be added to the main article for the Clinton Foundation, the only thing that's going to get you over there is an archive template and a link to ]. The only reason WaPo is covering it is because of its connection to Pizzagate, and this isn't the first person that has suggested that the coverage of the actual content of the conspiracy theory has been shallow. ] 18:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Agreed - mentioning pizzagate-related spin-off conspiracy theories (when they appear in reliable sources) is perfectly valid.] (]) 18:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*Pizzagate is a word that references the false allegations that Hillary Clinton is involved in the running of a child sex ring out of the backs (or basements) of a chain of D.C. based pizza restaurants. That claim '''absolutely has''' been debunked. Now, the fact that this claim is one of numerous other claims alleging some human trafficking charges against Hillary Clinton, and that there are tangential claims surrounding it doesn't change the fact that the initial claim has been shown to be false. I might remind editors of a few things: |
|
|
:#] claims continue to grow and evolve, despite being long debunked. |
|
|
:#The fact that there is a close-knit web of conspiracy theories involving the Clintons, many of which are related to this one doesn't imply that this one cannot be differentiated from others. |
|
|
:#The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked has no bearing on whether this one has. |
|
|
:#The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked doesn't imply that they are true, either. |
|
|
:<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
Are there any RS saying the police had carried out no investigation whatso ever?] (]) 11:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, though it's worth pointing out that if they did, that would mean that the police didn't have the probable cause to launch an investigation. It would just lend ''more'' credence to the "this is bullshit" conclusion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 15:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
Sorry for not being a 1337 super-wiki mod, and forgive my lack of credentials and[REDACTED] knowhow. I thought this is supposed to be a public encyclopedia open for discussion and such. Sorry I can't devote my life to understanding the nuances of all the rules here. Anyway, I just wanna say this: There are tons of "reliable sources" who cite an alleged investigation by the DC police department. These "reliable sources" also use this "investigation" as a reason this "consipiracy theory" has been debunked. None of the "reliable sources" actually cite a police report number or any kind of official record with the DCPD. If no investigation took place, and no reliable source can point to proof that an investigation took place, why is this claim allowed to persist?] (]) 06:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ooooooooooh. Scare quotes. You win. Pizzagate is totally true. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 06:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, it's open to discussion, within limits based upon the encyclopedia's foundational policies. We don't second-guess the undisputed and overwhelming conclusions of reliable sources. Wikipedians are not investigators, we're encyclopedia editors. The fact is that every single reliable source which has commented on this matter has declared it to be false, fictional, debunked, lies, nonsense, take your pick of phrases. As far as we are concerned, that's the end of it, until and unless anyone brings forth trustworthy reliable sources which seriously claim otherwise. |
|
|
:That you aren't interested in taking any time to "understand the nuances of all the rules here" means that you clearly aren't interested in seriously editing the encyclopedia, because a basic requirement of editors is ], and competence requires reading, understanding and complying with our ]. If you are, at some point in the future, interested in editing, you're welcome to review those policies, develop that understanding and join our community. ] (]) 06:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do the sources or the article claim there was a police investigation?] (]) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not to my knowledge. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 15:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Proposal to change the nature of the RfC=== |
|
|
{{collapse top|title=Withdrawn for now}} |
|
|
There have been three composed proposals made; the extant wording, the wording by NorthbySouth, and the wording contained in ]. I would suggest we re-word the RfC to allow participants to clearly choose between those three alternatives (and of course, to propose their own) and collapse the current !votes to keep things from getting too messy. Any thoughts? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Let's keep this one to the original proposal. ] (]) 20:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm mostly sitting this one out as proposer, but I think the best course of action would be to let the RfC run its course, and if consensus is against, follow that up with options. At least at that point, we would know that we need other options, and we would have actually accomplished something. What I don't want to end up with is an RfC that gives options A through F and no meaningful consensus is gathered for anything at all. ] 20:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Good point. I'll go with that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 20:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
A comment: I think it would be helpful if this article discussed earlier rumors and hoaxes about child abductions. An especially intriguing example is a "fake news" story from early 2016 about a "Satanic dungeon" being discovered in the basement of a Chuck E. Cheese's pizzeria. See http://www.snopes.com/satanic-dungeon-chuck-e-cheese/ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Comment on Suggested Move to Pizzagate == |
|
|
{{archive top}} |
|
|
*'''Support''' ] says we should use commonly recognizable names. "Pizzagate" is the commonly used name for this article's topic. "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" is a comparatively less used name in comparison to simply "Pizzagate". ] (]) 16:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Attempting to reopen an issue that has already been discussed & closed seems a bit disrespectful of your fellow editors, a bit pointless & potentially disruptive. ] (]) 09:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{reply to|A Quest For Knowledge}} Is there some specific reason that you're determined to reopen this already closed issue? Your editing is, as I said, becoming disruptive. This should be archived - if you missed the 14-day-long RfC discussion about this issue then that's your own fault. ] (]) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::To be perfectly fair, "Pizzagate" would be my preferred article title. The fact that it's a conspiracy theory should be defined in the lead, while ] is pretty clear. None of the sources refer to it as the "Pizzagate conspiracy theory" that I've seen. That being said, there's no rush to get this done. I'm perfectly content to wait until interest in it dies down and we don't have a messload of proxy IPs trying to fuck it up. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 02:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::My point is that the RfC discussion for this issue took place very recently, and the page title was changed as a result only 9 days ago. Do you think there's any justification for reopening this issue so soon? If not, this should just be archived. As I suggested during the RfC discussion, this issue should be revisited in a month or two - that doesn't mean it should be mindlessly dragged out. ] (]) 10:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggested move / title change == |
|
|
|
|
|
Since a title change can only come about via a move, may I suggest moving this to "Pizzagate hoax" since this has been debunked. |
|
|
A theory can ''potentially'' be true, since this has been disproven, it then becomes a hoax. What do you think ? ] 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Oppose''', Why? as far as I can tell the equally disproved moon landing hoax hoax is called a conspiracy theory.] (]) 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' - The images and emails found that allegedly "prove" the theory are not doctored, but are misleadingly connected. This is a definition of a flawed conspiracy theory, not a hoax. ] (]) 21:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
We've already had a discussion about this - there was no consensus. Let's just leave it there for now... ] (]) 18:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Actually, I checked the archives for the discussion of that before I started this topic. I don't see any discussion about changing the title, I do realize, however, some archives aren't necessarily full and complete , in either case, Consensus can change. ]] 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::{{ping|KoshVorlon}} I see the problem here. When the move was done, the original talk page archive was not merged into the current one and still exists as a sub-page of the redirected talk. See ]. I'm not entirely sure (because archive bots hate me) whether it can be manually archived in the correct place without breaking the bot. ] 13:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::{{reply to|KoshVorlon}} - Yes, consensus can change, but the article's name was changed (by moving the article) only 8 days ago after a 14 day long Request for Comment discussion. Are you really suggesting starting another discussion for a page move this soon after the previous one? ] (]) 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I've manually archived the contents of the other page in the correct archive for this one, and requested technical deletion of the old. I suppose at this point we wait to see if that breaks the bot on this page whenever an old thread should unequivocally have already been archived. ] 17:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I'm not entirely convinced this is a hoax. Hoaxes are deliberate attempts to deceive, and there's no evidence that the purveyors of this 'story' (to use a neutral term for the sake of this discussion) don't actually believe it. There certainly aren't any RSes that I've seen which argue that all the 'believers' are faking it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 15:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed - it may have been originally fired up by 4chan trolls as a joke but people genuinely do believe in it. It's a shame nobody has been able to come here with a single reliable source from around the world that says there's a single bit of truth in it, but that doesn't make it a clear-cut hoax. ] (]) 10:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If it was started as a joke by Trolls, then it is a hoax. Just because some people believe it does not mean it is not a hoax if those who created it did not believe it.] (]) 11:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Does this article deny the antecedent? == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article appears to ] when it refers to the child-sex ring as non-existent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be the logic of the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
If the arguments given by pizzagate conspiracy theorists are sound, then the child-sex ring exists. (P→Q) |
|
|
|
|
|
The arguments given by pizzagate conspiracy theorists are not sound. (~P) |
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, the child-sex ring is non-existent. (~Q) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is not a valid argument (see the page for denying the antecedent), and it appears that the article is implicitly making this invalid deduction. |
|
|
|
|
|
In other words, just because the reliable sources cited prove the arguments given by pizzagate conspiracy theorists are unsound (i.e. debunk them), that does not mean the sourced prove the child-sex ring does not exist. There could be some other reason why the child-sex ring exists. One could make the argument that it's unlikely, but that would need to be in a reliable source and it still doesn't prove the child-sex ring is non-existent. |
|
|
|
|
|
If it is denying the antecedent, then it could also be said to commit the ] (AKA the fallacy fallacy). ] (]) 07:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:We don't perform logical analysis on our sources, sorry. ] (]) 07:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::It appears to me that the article is implicitly making a logical analysis on the information in the sources using falacious reasoning. ] (]) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Also the article is about Pizzagate, not the existence a of child sex rings. If the article claims the child sex ring (rather then Pizzagate) have been debunked you might have a point, does it? I cannot see that it does, so can we have an example please?] (]) 10:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::For example, the top image of the article has this caption (emphasis added): " "Pizzagate" connected Comet Ping Pong (pictured) to a '''non-existent''' child-sex ring." On an unrelated note, the article is inconsistent with whether it puts a hyphen between 'child-sex', and we should probably be consistent. ] (]) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Reliable sources state that the theory is debunked. Therefore, this article says the same. No need for logical inference of any brand. ] (]) 12:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think you missed the point of my post. ] (]) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree that is. Not sure if there's much we can do about it. We can only repeat what the sources say. ] (]) 12:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I believe the sources only debunk the arguments. I don't think any of the sources claim that the child-sex ring has been proven non-existent. It is the Misplaced Pages article that appears to be making the leap in logic when it says (emphasis added): "a '''non-existent''' child-sex ring." If any of the sources do commit the fallacy, then they shouldn't be considered reliable sources in my opinion. ] (]) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I haven't examined the sources so I cant really say but if that is the case then I agree with you, it should be changed.] (]) 19:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fortunately, the personal opinions of editors have no place in Misplaced Pages articles - they are meant to be a dispassionate description of information from reliable sources and nothing more. Original research (including private opinions or analysis) has no place here. ] (]) 19:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If what he/she is saying about the sources is true then it is not him /her who is bringing his/her personal opinions in to the article] (]) 19:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So you haven't even read through the sources yourself? That's odd. Anyway, no single reliable source states that a Pizzagate-related child sex ring exists. The burden of proof here is on the people who want to suggest that it "might" exist if you want this information to be included in the article. Without a reliable source, what you're suggesting would create a false balance within the article, giving undue weight to a Fringe opinion. ] (]) 20:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Why is that odd? I don't think it should be included in the article at all. All I am saying is that if he he/she is right then this article is fallacious.] (]) 20:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::As long as this article faithfully states what is contained in Reliable Sources, claims of fallacy are pretty meaningless. Misplaced Pages editors are not here to perform analysis of the reliable sources. ] (]) 20:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I know that and as I have already I stated I agree with it. Either you are missing IWillBuildTheRoad's point or yu havent been following what I have said. ] (]) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Why are we still debating this when both of you agree it has nothing to do with improving the article? ] 20:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::{{ec}} I've followed what you've said, quite easily. What I'm saying is that none of it is relevant to the article. Talk pages are meant for discussions about improvements to the article - they're not a forum for general debate about the content. ] (]) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Well then you haven't understood what I WILL BUILD THE ROADS is saying.] (]) 15:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::I've understood perfectly, it's not that difficult. You and the other editor are saying that this article should leave open the possibility that a Pizzagate-related child sex ring ''could'' exist. However neither of you are providing reliable sources to back up this attempt to insert false balance into the article. Are you understanding what I'm saying? ] (]) 15:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::No they are saying no RS says the child sex ring has been debunked, so we cannot say it has. If RS have clearly said there is no sex ring then we need to source it.] (]) 15:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::None of the sources say "Pizzagate is partially fake" - the child sex ring is an integral part of the conspiracy theory that every single reliable source calls "debunked" or "fake" or "fictional" or "insane" - you can't cherry-pick bits of it when the reliable sources are so unequivocal in their statements. This strays into Original Research territory. Don't play semantics - the whole thing is fake according to every reliable source. ] (]) 15:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::<s>I would argue your argument is synthesis, the sources say Y so X must be true. We can reword the article to better reflect what the sources actually say, rather then extrapolate from them.] (]) 15:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:::::::::::::::: Source found end of argument.] (]) 15:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::Again you have made clear that you have misunderstood the argument. The arguement is that the sources gave called the arguments for the conspiracy theory debunked but not the conspiracy theory itself.] (]) 16:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::Well I've added a source to the article that says there was no child sex ring. What now? ] (]) 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{od|::::::::::::::::::}}Regarding the logic: Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that alleges the existence of a child sex ring. The conspiracy theory has been debunked. Therefore, <big>'''logically'''</big>, the existence of the child sex ring has been debunked. Other child sex rings may exist, but '''by definition''' they have nothing to do with Pizzagate. This is one of the worst pretensions to logic I have ever seen, because it is premised upon one of the most fundamental failures of logic that one could ever describe. You are arguing that A<sup>1</sup> is an A, A<sup>1</sup> has been shown false, but since A<sup>1</sup> is a subset of A and not A itself, A<sup>1</sup> must therefore be true. You are mangling the laws of ] and ] in such an ignorant manner that the only possible response is to suggest you before you attempt to use them to push changes to this article. |
|
|
:Regarding the claims about the sources: The sources absolutely do not claim the "arguments" are debunked, but that the "theory", the "rumor", the "tale", the "story" is false. {{ping|Slatersteven}} you are 100%, unequivocally wrong. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
*Misplaced Pages is not a formal debate. We don't care whether or not the articles commit fallacies, so long as they follow the sources. |
|
|
:Not that it matters, because you are wrong. Implicit in normal language is a certain element of doubt. e.g. "I love my wife," in common parlance is taken as the equivalent of the formal statement "When thinking of the woman I perceive to be my wife, I experience an emotional state which I identify as 'love' based on numerous similarities it shares with what other people in my culture and time have said about 'love' in a subjective but experiential way which I cannot distinguish from reality." |
|
|
:This implication is based upon taking any definite statement made outside of a formal context to be a ]. In this case, it is implicit in the article that it is written based on the best available sources, and that the conclusions therein are highly likely but not logically certain. |
|
|
:Finally, your own argument is an ] as you've previously made it implicitly clear that you think this CT may be true, and this argument is clearly an effort to promote that agenda. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Iwillbuildroads has a valid point, the caption the picture should be changed, do any sources disprove there may be a child sex ring in operation? I suggest we remove "child-sex ring" and replace it with "pizzagate conspiracy"] (]) 15:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 == |
|
*'''Note''' - I've added a citation to a reliable source that says there was never a child sex ring at Comet Ping Pong. Can this be the end of it, or is there going to be a few days of complaining about semantics and the reliability of sources first? ] (]) 15:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hat|] for discussing the topic, and we really don't care what TikTok influencers are saying. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pizzagate conspiracy theory|answered=yes}} |
|
|
As a tiktok influencer pizzagate isn't only limited to people interested in dance moves or BLM if you search #pizzagate on tiktok and view the top and majority of the users profiles talking about it none if them relate to either of those so not sure why that was approved without research with an article like this. ] (]) 12:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Because RS did. ] (]) 12:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 14:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== What... == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Welch was killed == |
|
...the actual fuck is going on in I'm not entirely sure what the intended purpose was. But there is certainly a better way to accomplish it than to revert an entire week's worth of discussion. ] 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to a report on CNN, Welch was killed yesterday, see |
|
:It looks like the editor in question was attempting to delete the SPA notices I'd added - the reason why, however, totally escapes me. It makes no logical sense and it's difficult to see it as anything more than a disruptive edit. ] (]) 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/09/politics/pizzagate-gunman-killed-police-shooting/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc --] (]) 14:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:And what has this death to do with Pizzagate? ] (]) 14:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::He's the dude who wandered in with a gun and demanded to see the basement of a place that had no basement. ]] 15:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, but what has his killing got to do with it, how is the killing related? ] (]) 15:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::He was the perpetrator of the entire Comet Ping Pong pizza shop hostage situation, so I'd say his death is relevant. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm unsure what your revert has to do with it being "unrelated." I added a preamble "Eight years after the initial incident at Comet Ping Pong, ..." because I wanted to make clear the temporal distance from the original gun discharge event. This seems to me important as someone skim reading could carry away the impression that Welch was shot in the restaurant. All the best: ''] ]''<small> 18:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
:::::Because his shooting was not related to pizzagate, but to an unrelated offense. It literally tells us nothing about this conspiracy theory. THis page is not about him. ] (]) 18:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::OK, turns out you made two reverts, one of which was a shotgun revert of my changes. The second one was to remove all reference to his death. The bulk of your reverts has been reverted. Since you are only concerned with presence of a discussion of his death on this page, I will reinstate my other changes. In a separate edit I will reinstate the "eight years" contextualization, which, if anything, should make the text more palatable to you. Please do not make any more shotgun reverts. |
|
|
::::::I '''support''' having a sentence about his death on this page. I suspect it should not be where it is, maybe I'll move it, maybe I won't. |
|
|
::::::All the best: ''] ]''<small> 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC).</small> |
|
|
::::::He is one of the most notable Pizzagate individuals due to his actions at Comet Ping Pong. His death, after a string of ''further'' convictions & parole violations, seems relevant to this page. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Protected edit request 10 January 2025== |
|
::Also {{ping|A Quest For Knowledge}}, if you get in the habit of using the rollback function in this way (which is I assume was how this was done), you may not long have it. ] 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welch's death by police is described twice with the same details in the "Criminal Responses" - once at the end of the fourth paragraph and once in the newly-created final paragraph. Please remove one. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
== New section == |
|
|
{{collapse top|Talk pages are meant for discussions about improvements to the article - they're not a forum for general debate about the content. ] 22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)}} |
|
|
It would be helpful to show us exactly how this Pizzagate theory was "debunked". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:We have a section explaining exactly what evidence (beyond unproven assertions) and how is is either false or inaccurate.] (]) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Why do people keep logging out before they post their comments? ] (]) 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{tq|It would be helpful to show us exactly how this Pizzagate theory was "debunked".}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 17:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Pizza. <small>Italian. Italy. <small>Rome. Latin</small></small>. <big>Illuminati. </big> |
|
|
::Gate. Fences. Yards. <small>Playground. Children. Humans. <small>Cars. Commuting. Traffic.</small></small></small> <big>Human trafficking.</big> ] 20:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thank god you've explained this. I've been trying to work out why people who work in a Pizza place would be emailing about pizzas - it's been very confusing for me. ] (]) 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quote|"Talk pages are meant for discussions about improvements to the article - they're not a forum for general debate about the content."}}] (]) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
:The two mentions of his shooting death do not agree on the date. And the first says that he was shot and killed, but then says he did not die until two days later. ] (]) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::He was shot, taken to the hospital, and died later, per sources. I've removed the redundant paragraph & moved the relevant cite to the later paragraph. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
Welch's death by police is described twice with the same details in the "Criminal Responses" - once at the end of the fourth paragraph and once in the newly-created final paragraph. Please remove one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.204.66 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Aristarchos_logo_small.png){kind=link}