Talk:Liz Crokin

Conspiracy theories
There is a lot of coverage of Crokin in reliable sources about several theories that they label hoaxes or conspiracy theories, namely her views on Pizzagate, QAnon, Covid-19, and John F. Kennedy, Jr. Here are some sample sources: Here are some search links that have more sources: pizzagate/pedogate; QAnon/Storm; empty hospitals; JFK Jr.. Note that these theories tend to morph and coalesce, so the sources above and search results tend to overlap quite a bit. Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pizzagate/pedogate – ref 70 at QAnon; Chicago Reader; WaPo; NY Mag.
 * QAnon/Storm – ref 2 at Liz Crokin; Daily Beast; Mother Jones; The Atlantic; SPLC.
 * Covid-19/empty hospitals – MediaMatters; The Conversation; DailyDot.
 * JFK Jr. – QAnon ref 69; Rolling Stone; RightWingWatch.


 * From what I can see, the only topics with even lightly significant coverage in mainstream media was around the Chrissy Teigen (Jan 2018) and Roseanne Barr (Mar 2018) tweet whirlwinds, and even those were gossip-of-the-day level. The other stuff seems to only be minor reports in highly-biased sources outside the mainstream press. -- Netoholic @ 01:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If you are recalling the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources" from WP:SIGCOV, that is a Notability standard, and applies only to topics. The notability guideline does not apply to content within the article; there are different guidelines for content. As far as "other stuff", you might be right, but being part of the mainstream press is not required for Verifiability; being reliable, independent (and preferably secondary) is. I don't know which sources you believe are "highly-biased", but if there are some, the reliable sources content guideline specifically mentions biased sources, and they are not excluded from being used in Wikipedia as a source to provide verifiability, as long as they meet the criteria for a reliable source and are used properly. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the portion of the SPLC piece that talks about her wrt QAnon/pizzagate is 509 words; if it weren't copyrighted, it could serve as a stub article all by itself. The DailyDot article is entirely about her and her theories. Daily Dot is used with in-text attribution in numerous articles at Wikipedia; it was also the subject of an article in this edition of Signpost in connection with some investigative journalism they did about a hoax perpetuated at Wikipedia. Mother Jones quoted her and named her as "QAnoner Liz Crokin, a former gossip journalist." The article in the Daily Beast quoted Crokin, and named her "a leading QAnon promoter". NY Mag called her "a so-called 'citizen journalist,' popular among the craziest sects of alt-right Twitter and YouTube". Rightwing Watch calls her "a right-wing 'journalist' and fringe conspiracy theorist", and quotes her at length in their article about her, and spends the rest of the article talking about her theories. The coverage is not that light, and it's not fleeting, as articles have appeared ever since she first gained some notoriety, right up to the present. Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Listed: at WP:BLPN. Mathglot (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * See, I think if you'd started with the WaPo piece and didn't stray too far outside the mainstream, I think you'd have made a much better argument. But you're using some highly-biased sources like SPLC and Rightwing Watch for some very serious assertions/aspersions/guilt by association. I said the coverage is not significant because apart from the WaPo/NYMag/DailyDot where she is central to the story, none of the rest give Crokin more than a passing mention. I feel like this is something often prone to WP:CHERRYPICKING, where only the most salacious pieces are chosen because they use exactly the particular terms you quote above. Your search links tying her name to those conspiracy theories is the kind of thing that results in cherrypicking. I would point to the WaPo piece and this CBS News as a starting point, rather than many of the others you've brought up. And this aspect of her life is minor compared to the rest, so I'd hope there is some attempt at WP:BLPBALANCE. -- Netoholic @ 05:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you look at a non-cherrypicking search in News for "Liz Crokin", and tell me if you still hold this opinion?
 * "Liz Crokin" in news
 * It seems to me, that this is mostly what she is known for, and most of the article should be about this, in proportion to the preponderance of articles about it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The pendulum seems to have swung hard in that direction; probably too far. She's still a (former) MSM journalist, and that should be stated in the WP:LEADSENTENCE, along with her conspiracy theorism. Mathglot (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)