Talk:Ben Swann/Archives/2018/January

Pizzagate police investigation
I am concerned about the sentence: The "Reality Check" segment ended with Swann asking why law enforcement hadn't investigated the allegations. This seems to imply that law enforcement hadn't investigated the Pizzagate allegations. And as far as I can tell, there's no evidence out there that the police didn't investigate Pizzagate. As far as I can tell, the DC police have never answered that question, which would be typical police protocol (i.e. do not disclose the existence or nonexistence of an investigation). The only statement by the police was a press release referring to the scandal as "a fictitious online conspiracy theory" (in reference to the Welch charge, full text of press release here). How the police arrived at the conclusion that Pizzagate was fictitious is anyone's guess.

In light of this, isn't the sentence, "The 'Reality Check' segment ended with Swann asking why law enforcement hadn't investigated the allegations," inherently misleading? And if so, what do we do about it? I mean it does seem to be Swann's central premise, but it seems to be based on a key unfounded assumption that we are unwittingly perpetuating. Do we remove it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that touched on this issue in a way back in January when they wrote, I will add the point he made since it is a fact missing from Wikipedias coverage: no investigation has been done. That was I think the main takeaway from his piece and should at least be mentioned here. I actually agreed with that comment, on the assumption that the lack of an investigation was a verifiable fact. Upon further research today I now think I was mistaken (and so was Petrarchan47). Of course if there are reliable sources saying that the police did conduct an investigation then I stand corrected. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And another point worthy of mention here. Even Swann himself used critical qualifying language when talking about this in his segment. He said, "There has not been one single public investigation of any of this." Notice the word "public." Then he follows up with. "The big question is, why hasn’t any investigation taken place?” Notice the conspicuously missing word "public." Anyone who knows even a whit about police investigations--e.g. anyone who has ever watched Law & Order--knows they're usually done in secret and are not "public." To equate "no public investigation" (why would there be one?) with "no investigation" period is shoddy journalism at best. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since there were no victims of pedophilia, there was no one to make a complaint. I would imagine the police have enough on their plate without investigating things on conspiracy sites. If someone did call it into the police, they might have looked it up on the web and dismissed it as a frivolous call. I suppose you could call that an investigation. In any case, I agree that the sentence is misleading and think it should be removed. It’s like saying: “Why was no investigation made into the large hadron collider summoning the god of death” as part of a conspiracy. Objective3000 (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I could be misinterpreting you, but I think you're missing my point. You're justifying why there was no investigation. But how do you know there was no investigation? How do you know there were no complaints? Complaints don't have to come from the victims themselves. For all we know there might have been complaints (I suspect there were plenty), and there might have been an investigation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't the faintest idea if there was a complaint, or an investigation, or how the police define "investigation". As you say, "shoddy journalism". I suppose the existence of the sentence illustrates shoddy journalism. But, it might not be taken that way by the reader. (And may not be the way the editor who added the quote took it.) That's why I think the sentence isn't useful. Objective3000 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for lack of clarity. This article is annoying. Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * look at those mental gymnastics. bad cops are cops who look the other way as crime is happening.  take a second to realize what you believe, and push is all I'm saying.  really think.  remember what Chomsky says about manufactured consent and priming.  104.33.114.195 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. Did the cops look the other way? How do you know that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * no, I'm talking about you and what you are doing. I know the politics on wikipedia are such that Democrats will be favored, and opposition will be silenced.  I was thinking of something else comparing to bad cops.  its that they also do cover ups.  what is the change you are trying to do?  I don't care about the article.  what is it you are doing, and why are you doing it?  you can benefit the Democrats, sure, but then what? 104.33.114.195 (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks. If you have an argument to make, make it about the article, not the editors. Objective3000 (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot be so naive, or do those mental gymnastics. I am not attacking the guy, and I dont care about the article.  I'm just asking him what he's getting out of this.  every talk edit you, Objective3000, make has been even more blatantly biased to me.  is it illegal to be honest about how I see it?  104.33.114.195 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I made it pretty clear what I'm doing and why. I proposed removal of the question posed by Swann because it's inherently misleading. This is about improving the encyclopedia by not misleading its readers. It has nothing to do with partisan politics, and I'm sorry you think it does. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * we both know that's a lie. I see what Chomsky says, that mainstream media spews lies and gets the people to believe the lies, so that the horrible things that happen happen because they were asked for by people.  I hope you see that, and that's all I really have to say. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * i agree with the question raised in the OP. The question itself begs the question of whether there was a police investigation or not. It is like "does your mom know you beat your wife?".   There is no need to go there, and no need to rehash what the pizzagate conspiracy was. So i did this which was reverted with edit note, "not an improvement."  i think my edit was an improvement, as noted above.Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , your edit appears to be against consensus. Please review this discussion and self-revert or explain your position. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I wasn't aware of the discussion. Let me read and consider, you can revert me back if there's consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * DrFleischman, no, there is nothing misleading about stating what Swann ended his segment with, as that is a fact. If you're concerned about the veracity of his claim, simply find evidence that the PD did conduct an investigation and add a little note, or better yet, find an article criticizing Swann for such a gross misstatement and just quote from there.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What is a fact? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a loaded question. Why purposely mislead the readers? Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Friends, there was no investigation by the DC police. That is a fact, and you will find no one criticizing Ben Swann for claiming such, because he told the truth. Now how is that misleading?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "there was no investigation by the DC police" - We need a reliable source for this. I cannot find one. Perhaps you can help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be crystal clear here Petrarchan: I'm not saying there was an investigation. I'm not saying there was no investigation. I'm saying we don't know whether there was an investigation. But you seem to know, so if you're basing your knowledge on a reliable source, then please point us to it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll add that I don't think it matters. The DC police probably haven't investigated what kind of cheese the moon is made of. They don't normally investigate alleged crimes without a victim or reason to believe a crime was committed. Objective3000 (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It does matter, because it's a major talking point for Pizzagate boosters and it was ostensibly the "thesis" of Swann's segment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a fallacy of presupposition. It assumes conspiracy theorists presented evidence requiring an investigation. But, the theory has been debunked. So, that would be an incorrect assumption. If it is added, it should be added in that context, assuming secondary sources say such. If it's presented here without this context, it raises BLP issues. Rather serious issues considering there has already been a shooting. Objective3000 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)