Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:57, 1 January 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIESThis page is subject to discretionary sanctions; 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 WP:AE. Note: The article has been protected so that only users with extended confirmed rights can make edits. See Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. Note that the biographies of living persons policy applies to all areas of Misplaced Pages, including this talkpage.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This page was nominated for deletion on November 30, 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Food and drink: Foodservice This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Related taskforces: /  [REDACTED] This article is supported by the Foodservice task force. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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. TimothyJosephWood 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that would be an improvement over the current wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Wording could be different, but the gist needs to remain "unproven and widely debunked"Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support current wording but... I support NorthBySouthBaranof's suggestion more. I've quoted it below to highlight it.

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.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, "fabricated" sounds better and I've made the change in my suggestion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 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. Objective3000 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Change Wording per NorthBySouthBaranof. Pretty much all lead paragraphs of Misplaced Pages articles regarding conspiracy theories do not say that word such as the debunked series of Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 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 WP:BLP issue has led to actual violence with an actual gun, as described by an FBI Special Agent at File:US v Welch Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint.pdf. Sagecandor (talk) 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 this individual who was arrested for giving death threats to the parents. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Holy ever loving crap... I knew that woman. Like, in real life. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

How long has she been believing these theories for? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 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. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Obvious, and factual, as cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per sourcing. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 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. Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support in some form per WP:RS, 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 MOS:WTW and I don't see it as automatically problematic, though it is perhaps more of a Snopes than WP approach.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  18:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Personally, i think the term ‘discredited’ is better, but I find ‘debunked’ acceptable The Happy Warrior (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - "debunked," "discredited," and "fictitious" all work for me. The first two are somewhat better, though. GAB 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. HelgaStick (talk) 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, DC Police had done NO investigation (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. 77.243.183.11 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — 77.243.183.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He's right you know.jpg 76.72.9.197 (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — 76.72.9.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There hasn't been an investigation to prove that the two above IP addresses aren't Trolls from Olgino. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The presence of irony does not necessarily mean that the earnestness is excluded. Ian.thomson (talk) 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. 217.63.154.8 (talk) — 217.63.154.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above cited Youtube video definitely fails meet the Misplaced Pages policy on verifiability. 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, WP:VNT. 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. Paul H. (talk) 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?217.63.154.8 (talk)— 217.63.154.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.Slatersteven (talk) 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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

For the police to initiate an investigation of a alleged crime, there needs to be at least probable cause 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 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. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Support The conspiracy theory is fake; we should call it as such. All the reliable sources denounce Pizzagate as untrue, and Misplaced Pages reports what the reliable sources say. Joshualouie711 22:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• @A Quest For Knowledge:. Yes. See archive. Multiple editors have questioned this, including at least one admin. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. WP:NPOV requires that we not just say it's been debunked, but go into detail how it's been debunked. I remember reading Holocaust denial 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 fringe theory. If it had just said that Holocaust denial had been debunked but didn't explain why, that would do our readers a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, @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 here you say you would like the word "debunked" removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So you should vote "oppose" then, surely? Exemplo347 (talk) 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble but this discussion is specifically about the lead. Thanks for posting. Exemplo347 (talk) 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. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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".Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"Unproven" weakens the language somewhat. It's not as strong as an unequivocal phrase like "false" Exemplo347 (talk) 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.Slatersteven (talk) 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 statistical syllogism: 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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jürgen Eissink. I don't think anyone is against putting anything in the article on principle, but, because of the Misplaced Pages policy on verifiability, we can't include anything in the article that isn't backed up by a reliable source, even if it is true. TimothyJosephWood 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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 WP:BITE users who've only ever made three edits. TimothyJosephWood 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 User:Timothyjosephwood, reliable sources did focus on some of Pizzagate's theories concerning the Clinton Foundation, debunking it or not, for instance the Washington Post. 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. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 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. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you got the point. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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).Slatersteven (talk) 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 WP:DONTFEED. 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. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - mentioning pizzagate-related spin-off conspiracy theories (when they appear in reliable sources) is perfectly valid.Exemplo347 (talk) 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:

1. Moon landing hoax claims continue to grow and evolve, despite being long debunked.
2. 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.
3. The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked has no bearing on whether this one has.
4. The fact that other conspiracy theories haven't been debunked doesn't imply that they are true, either.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there any RS saying the police had carried out no investigation whatso ever?Slatersteven (talk) 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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.64.121 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC) 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?2601:202:4001:8B20:9130:AF5F:8B02:2242 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ooooooooooh. Scare quotes. You win. Pizzagate is totally true. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 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 competence, and competence requires reading, understanding and complying with our foundational policies. 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. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Do the sources or the article claim there was a police investigation?Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change the nature of the RfC

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

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

• Support WP:COMMONNAME 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". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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 WP:COMMONNAME 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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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 ? KoshVorlon 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.Slatersteven (talk) 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. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 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... Exemplo347 (talk) 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. KoshVorlon 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@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 Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)/Archives/2016/December. I'm not entirely sure (because archive bots hate me) whether it can be manually archived in the correct place without breaking the bot. TimothyJosephWood 13:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@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? Exemplo347 (talk) 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. TimothyJosephWood 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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this article deny the antecedent?

This article appears to deny the antecedent 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 argument from fallacy (AKA the fallacy fallacy). IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't perform logical analysis on our sources, sorry. PeterTheFourth (talk) 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. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 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?Slatersteven (talk) 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. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 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. Objective3000 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my post. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 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. Apollo The Logician (talk) 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. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 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.Apollo The Logician (talk) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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 articleApollo The Logician (talk) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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.Apollo The Logician (talk) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 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. Apollo The Logician (talk) 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? TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well then you haven't understood what I WILL BUILD THE ROADS is saying.Apollo The Logician (talk) 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? Exemplo347 (talk) 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.Slatersteven (talk) 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. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Source found end of argument.Slatersteven (talk) 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.Apollo The Logician (talk) 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? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

And that is changing the goal posts, we are talking about the fact that no source claimed the child sex ring was fake. WEe now have that source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the logic: Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that alleges the existence of a child sex ring. The conspiracy theory has been debunked. Therefore, logically, 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 is an A, A has been shown false, but since A is a subset of A and not A itself, A must therefore be true. You are mangling the laws of identity and non-contradiction in such an ignorant manner that the only possible response is to suggest you actually study the fundamentals of logic 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. @Slatersteven: you are 100%, unequivocally wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

eg

In the span of a few weeks, a false rumor that Hillary Clinton and her top aides were involved in various crimes snowballed into a wild conspiracy theory that they were running a child-trafficking ring out of a Washington pizza parlor. The fast evolution of the false theory revealed how a powerful mix of fake news and social media led an armed North Carolina man to investigate the rumors about the pizza place, Comet Ping Pong, last Sunday.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? I never said anything about The arguments" being debunked and not the "theory" has not been, I said that you cannot claim that a sources says X because it says Y. As we now have a source explicitly saying that the Child sex ring hoax has been disproved it is a moot point, but I still do not see how a source saying that (for example) the photo's were faked can be used to say that the child sex ring allegation has been disproved. It can be argued that the above does (implicitly) say that the child sex ring allegation is false, and that is all I asked for a source saying it was.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? I never said anything about The arguments" being debunked and not the "theory" has not been, The part of my comment about what the sources debunk was not directed at you. The part about the logic was, but even that is fairly immaterial as an discussion of changes to the article, because as has been pointed out many time; we don't edit based on our own logical analysis of the exact wording of the sources. And once again to explain the flaws in your argument: the sources explicitly debunk the existence of the child sex ring, because the very existence of the child sex ring hinges upon the postulate that Pizzagate is true. Absent the truth of Pizzagate, the postulate that a child sex ring exists has no basis whatsoever. It's a bald assertion that doesn't merit any response. Furthermore, the logic used by the sources might be not deductive, but merely inductive, but that does not make it wrong. It merely makes it a statistical syllogism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: After I wrote the following post, I realized that you may have not been replying to me. If that's the case, please ignore this. — The sources claim to refute the arguments/evidence that pizzagate supporters use. Logically, the existence of the child-sex ring has not been debunked. Why by definition would the child-sex ring have nothing to do with Pizzagate? Definitions generally don't specify what something has nothing in common with (they can, but they generally don't). You are giving a strawman argument which replaces my argument with a contrived statement with little connection to my actualy argument. What are you talking about? I'm "mangling" the laws of identity and non-contradiction. Yes, I have studied (and currently am studying) formal logic (I haven't read the book you linked though), and I hate to say this, but I'm skeptical you have because you're making incoherent statements. No, I'm not "mangling" the law of identity and non-contradiction. The fallacious argument that gave as an example doesn't even violate the law of identity. Violations of the law of identity are generally false equivocations. The three classical laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) aren't even used in logical arguments (they are simply metalogical statements about classical logics, not inference rules or axioms), so how would any of my statements be "mangling" the law of identity and non-contradiction and what effect would it have on my argument? I also never attempted to push changes to this article. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources claim to refute the arguments/evidence that pizzagate supporters use. That is blatantly untrue. The first two sources explicitly claim that the rumor is untrue. Further sources have been added that explicitly say this. I have quoted from the first source, above. Please read it and stop insisting upon untrue claims that we all know the truth of.

Logically, the existence of the child-sex ring has not been debunked. Why by definition would the child-sex ring have nothing to do with Pizzagate? I am honestly shocked that you would make this argument. Seriously. This exposes such a fundamental misunderstanding that I strongly suggest you study logic further before you say anything else about it. Seriously, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to let you know that you are seriously getting the logic wrong, and that the way in which you are getting it wrong is extremely basic. I know you're not likely to take my advice, but I wish you would. Read some books on logic. I linked to a free one that you can download. Maybe take a college class. You could audit a course for free, in most colleges in the US. You get the learning without the cost (or the credit). It's something I've done a few times and would recommend to anyone. Now, let me try to explain the problem:

Pizzagate is a claim that a child sex ring exists. We all understand that child sex rings, as a phenomenon, exist. The particular child sex ring claimed by Pizzagate is differentiated from other child sex rings in that the Clintons, the Podestas and Comet Ping Pong (and a few other businesses) are claimed to be involved in one. The truth of Pizzagate hinged entirely upon arguments; no legitimate evidence has ever been produced.

Now, the sources have examined the arguments which are the only reason to assign truth to Pizzagate. They have found these arguments to be fallacious in numerous, obvious and fundamental ways. They have then concluded (their conclusion being the statistical syllogism I referenced earlier which appears below) that Pizzagate is untrue. Since Pizzagate is -by their assertion- untrue, it must then be true that Pizzagate is untrue (this is the law of identity I referenced earlier). Here's where we get back to the definition of Pizzagate: a child sex ring. So it is explicit that if Pizzagate is untrue, then the existence of a child sex ring in which the Clintons, the Podestas and Comet Ping Pong is untrue. This might change if a new claim of such a sex ring arises with better evidence, but it is not just fallacious but extremely illogical to postulate such things absent any evidence or arguments.

I have allowed for the possibility of other child sex rings, however by definition these child sex rings would not be ones in which the Clintons, the Podestas and Comet Ping Pong are involved (this is the law of non-contradiction I mentioned earlier). Therefore the hypothetical child sex ring you have insisted might exist would have nothing to do with Pizzagate. Do you understand now? I hope so, though I highly doubt you've read this entire comment.

You have states (twice now) that you don't believe in pizzagate, yet you've argued for some time that we must allow for the possibility that pizzagate is true. That is where the comments numerous editors have made to you about WP policy come into play: WP policy says that we do not speculate, we do not attribute opinions as facts, and we do not attribute facts as opinions. Now, according to the sources (regardless of any real or perceived flaws in their logic), pizzagate is not in doubt or controversial: it is bluntly untrue. Therefore, this article must report that it is untrue. The claims that we are not accurately reflecting the sources are completely wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:59, 1 January 2017 (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 statistical syllogism. 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 argument from fallacy 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. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You would need to explain what the statistical syllogism is for this situation, because I don't see your point. I'm not saying we need to be 100% logically certain, I'm fine with any statistical arguments that could be presented. I have actually said in an earlier thread that I don't believe Pizzagate is true, so you may be confusing me with someone else. Also, I'm not making an argument from fallacy. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (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"Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think at this point any sources could actually prove there is no child-sex ring (how would they even do that)? At this point, I conjecture that any sources we find will be denying the antecedent without realizing it, however since Misplaced Pages goes by what the sources say, I'm not sure there is anything we can do about it. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A reference from a reliable source, stating that no child sex ring exists at Comet Ping Pong, has been added to the article - this effectively renders your argument a moot point. Unless you're planning on moving the goalposts, this issue is resolved. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

My original concern has been partially resolved. My intention isn't to move the goalposts of my original argument, but rather to bring up whether we should blindly accept what the Rolling Stones opinion is (and maybe the answer is that we should). Is "13 Most WTF Stories of 2016" really material worthy for sourcing encyclopedic material? If the article provides no proof, should we trust it? Since the same article says Ken Bone was the antichrist, should we add that information to Misplaced Pages? It said 2016 was a shitshow, so should we say 2016 was a shitshow in the article for 2016? I'm just trying to understand since I'm new to Misplaced Pages editing. EDIT: Just to reiterate, I don't believe in Pizzagate and I'm not trying to force any political ideologies down anyone's throat, I'm just trying to understand how this is all considered in practice. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's exactly the response I expected, which is quite disappointing. You said it was unreferenced. I provided a reference. Now you're saying you don't like the reference? That is the perfect example of moving the goalposts & it completely undermines your previous arguments, as does stating that you're new to Misplaced Pages editing when you've been editing for almost 12 months. Don't be disingenuous. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

He has only reached 45 edits. He probably should have said inexperienced Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• 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? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

What...

...the actual fuck is going on in this edit? I'm not entirely sure what the intended purpose was. But there is certainly a better way to accomplish it than to revert an entire week's worth of discussion. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Also @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. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

New section

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class District of Columbia articles
• Unknown-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Turkey articles
• Low-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• Unassessed Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Unassessed Food and drink articles
• Unknown-importance Food and drink articles
• Unassessed Foodservice articles
• Unknown-importance Foodservice articles
• Foodservice taskforce articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment