Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archive 6

Pizzagate wiki
This Wired article notes the existence of a wiki devoted soley to covering Pizzagate. Might be worth mentioning. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I dunno... It was a passing mention in a single source. I don't think that hits WP:DUE, but at the same time it seems germane to me. I'm gonna wait for more input before adding this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Without looking at the wiki, I don’t see how it’s useful without multiple RS saying so. I was positively mentioned in the first issue of Wired, and still don’t think it’s a good enough source on its own. Objective3000 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are wikis and other websites devoted to just about everything. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

as of 29Aug2017 the site is down - here is an archive of it from may2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan592 (talk • contribs)
 * So then it's unlikely to ever be worth mentioning. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

New topics/info/research since Pizzagatewiki page is down
as of 29Aug2017 the Pizzagatewiki page is down - here is an archive from may2017

note: the wiki page was started 18Dec2016 -29Aug2017 and had 15,953 URLs (wayback machine: )

New Topics

 * Huma Abedin FOIA emails (case number: F-2016-07895) released 1Sept2017
 * - validating WikiLeaks DNC leaks: Huma FOIA email found in Wikileaks DNC dump, thus validating the authenticity of the DNC leaks
 * - Huma Abedin FOIA emails Reveals further Clinton / Rothschild Connection, Soros, Human Trafficking etc


 * addition to list of mysterious deaths
 * - Kurt Smolek


 * Updates to Awan case/investigation
 * - (compilation post with research on Awan case) George Webb's Trello page: - note: he is currently in/undertaking a court case (against whom?)
 * - Imran Awan Pleads ‘Not Guilty’, Asks for Ankle Monitor to Be Removed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan592 (talk • contribs)


 * Posts on Reddit and Trello do not meet our reliable sourcing standards. IMOWired.com also fails our reliable sourcing standards because it is a blog.  Disobedientmedia.com likewise fails our reliable sourcing standards because it is obvious to anyone with critical thinking skills and an elementary knowledge of politics that that site is a conspiracy-fantasist dumpster fire.  Also, Wikipedia only cites and summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.  We do not engage in original research (which includes interpreting primary sources or combining sources to make statements that neither source explicitly makes) and we do not start with a conclusion and cherry-pick whatever we can imagine supposedly justifies that conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ok I deleted the bad links and simply kept the topics and to be sourced later with more validated links

Why does this say conspiracy?
Pizza gate is proven fact and there has been arrests made period so how do you support false facts and covering up sick nasty shit that has taken place ? Like why is it not changed ? Cuz Alex pizza gate jones says it's not real well he would say that when he is part of it but anyway it's a fact that's it true and not a conspiracy theory so fix it like wake up Craiggod (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because all the reliable sources say it's a conspiracy theory. Please review our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because a conspiracy is what it being alleged.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pizza gate is proven fact - aaand we have no reason to regard anything OP says as helpful anymore, even if it's in good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are some very misinformed people out there, and I get that. But how on earth would anyone come up with "there has been arrests" an an argument that "Pizza gate is proven fact"? No offense to Craiggod, but at first glance that suggests some serious incompetence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You gave up on reading his post a lot later into it than I did. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What post? I saw that somebody with "god" in their handle commented here with their first edit and wrote it off as more off-topic whining without even checking. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a step up from an editor with "truth" in their handle at least. TheValeyard (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's on Bingo for a reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on, guys. To be fair, 'there has been arrests made period'. There has been arrests, and those arrests made period. That's some hardcore arrests, right there. And, I mean, we are all paid shills for the Democratic party. Got my check last week! And liberals. Or possibly even ((liberals)) . Plus, you know; think of the children. Pizzagate must be real.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair there have been, Edgar Maddison Welch for one. Just not of any one linked to any child sex conspiracy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But what about the children?!?! THE CHILDREN!!1! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If any one can produce RS saying children were arrested fine include it, do you such as RS?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the OP is using User:Hpfan592 as a linkfarm for all this conspiracy nuttery. Not sure what can e done about that, nominate the userpage for deletion? TheValeyard (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the FAQ with the intention of making it less personal by not addressing any specific person or group and writing it from wikipedia's voice Edaham (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"unproven" but not "debunked"
I realize that this discussion had been had, but the citation of the 3 sources, NYT, PolitiFact, and by all means SNOPES are not at all convincing. All 3 articles are clearly partisan/biased on the question. And all 3 present the matter from the beginning in a very distorted light and do not present any new knowledge or any evidence to the contrary.

The correct phrasing might be "unproven" but not "debunked".

There is no question that the original Comet Ping Pong accusation is not proven by any direct evidence. And by now the chances for such proof should be near nil. It is also possible that the online instagram postings of the Comet Ping Pong associates might have been intended to raise a false panic about something that never occurred at that place, yet, may very well occur at other places, as victim accounts make highly probable. So saying that this was "debunked" is clearly disingenuous. Gschadow (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We have had this discussion again and again. Not only is it debunked, it's ludicrous. You have brought nothing new to the table to reopen. Objective3000 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As above + All the "evidence" that is checkable has been shown to be falsified. Care to share 1 piece of proven evidence, care to share one victim story?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Gschadow, please consider reviewing our verifiability policy before posting again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think "hoax" is the best description. Hoaxes don't get debunked, they get exposed. TFD (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a hoax. "Hoax" implies that the genesis was intentionally deceptive, and that's not at all clear. We know that at least one person thought this to be deadly serious, but we don't know of anyone who definitely knew better and yet promulgated the CS anyways.
 * your claim that snopes is biased or partisan is not verifiable by an objective overview of snopes. Even mediabiasfactcheck.com, a reliable rater of biases rates snopes as "least biased", and they tend to exaggerate left-leaning biases and under-report right-leaning biases due to their methodology. Furthermore, the "snopes is biased!" claim is a red flag for editors who are here to push their own political views, mostly because it's such a blatantly false claim that is only promulgated among right-wing media outlets; specifically, those right-wing media outlets whom we have found to be the least reliable. Everything I've said about snopes applies equally to politifact, as well. Plus, "debunked" is and has been the go-to term for reliable sources reporting on this almost since day 1. There was never any serious consideration of Pizzagate as truth by anyone who wasn't a far-right, anti-Democrat conspiracy theorist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The author(s) based their claims on fabricated evidence. As written by Buzzfeed, "a white supremacy Twitter account that presents itself as belonging to a Jewish lawyer in New York tweeted that the NYPD was looking into evidence that emails from Anthony Weiner's laptop contained evidence of Clinton involvement in an "international child enslavement ring.""  That's intentional deception including saying he was a Jewish lawyer in New York.  And there was a clear political motive - to discredit the Democrats on the eve of the election.  TFD (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not so. First regarding SNOPES, there is serious doubt, published by people who obviously were not inclined to believe it. . Kim La Capria in particularly is obviously biased, and this had been published also. . Regarding the WaPo and NYT articles, everyone knows that their credibility is massively damaged since they had positioned themselves as major agitators against the candidate who is no the president of the USA.
 * This matter is so highly politicized that you cannot resolve it with just sticking to "reliable sources" (and dismissing other opinions' sources as "unreliable"). You have to actually follow the argument and it's logic and see what exactly is claimed and refuted. The SNOPES article does nothing of the kind. It is instead countering strawman claims. The one critical issue on which the entire suspicion hangs is the Instagram photos from @jimmycomet and his associate @joshuaryanv. Your article claims and cites SNOPES that these photos were falsified. But that is not proven at all in the SNOPES article. In fact it is impossible to prove such a thing because these instagram photos were archived from the original accounts. The SNOPES article knocks down a straw man, misrepresenting the claim as if the depicted children were victims, which they do not have to be to be relevant. The important thing is the very clear pedophile innuendo that these images and their comments convey.
 * So no, this is not "debunked" as much as articles from the same side of the political spectrum are making claims or debunking fake claims that are not the issue. Gschadow (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your sources are about as bad as you can get. The DailyMail is considered worthless as a source by Wikipedia. Your claims about the NYT and WaPo: everyone knows that their credibility is massively damaged since they had positioned themselves as major agitators against the candidate is, frankly speaking, utter nonsense. This page is also not the correct place for such discussion. If you have a problem with WaPo, NYT, and Snopes;  take it to WP:RSN. Wikipedia does not perform original research. We just rely on reliable sources. Reliable sources state that this is debunked. Objective3000 (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And again, care to share some non debunked evidence with us?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I care very much, and I did. But this joke of an "open information platform" or whatever the hype about WP is, has decided to actually hide my list of 7 points and make a threat to shut me up. This is how far this world has become. Those who have ears will hear. I am not going to risk my life and happiness on this any further. Ask the admins (whoever has the superpower to censor information on WP) to un-hide my edit. Check history page. You know, people who suppress information (censors) and who use threats to go after people's opinion, are not credible. Even if they have mainstream media "sources" they can unilaterally claim to be reliable Gschadow (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell you have not provide anything more then a few articles questioning unrelated material.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care what any one individual "can tell" and how far. So whatever. My material was hidden and threats were made. And any of your or anybody else's claim is baseless without the proof being shown. I am open to correction and to add references. Not at all a problem. But just to have someone do the Wiki lawyering with OR while claiming that I have not shown evidence, along with the risk of being killed or otherwise destroyed if my points stick, I have no interest in carrying this further. Anyone who comes by here sees how surreal WP has become. Hiding info and threatening people. Gschadow (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is threatening to kill you? Objective3000 (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're finding that the Wikipedia is run with a wee bit of a higher standard than 4chan or /r/theDonald. Objectionable content on a talk page is usually just reversed, but still viewable in the page history, but whatever you posted was so egregiously awful that the admins had to scrub the history so it could no longer be seen. Bring something productive to this topic, soon, or this will probably b wrapped up fairly quickly. TheValeyard (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been no threats to kill you, that's a paranoid fantasy. You are not the hero, you're just another disruptive editor who doesn't know how to present proper evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think an ANI may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with everyone that "debunked" is correct. However please assume Gschadow came here in good faith.  I know having to explain the same thing over and over to different editors is tiring, but don't take it out on them.  No one is requiring you to respond to them.  If a FAQ were created for the talk page, that might give you some relief. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And for me he overstepped the mark with his last comment about fears of being killed over this material (not by us, after all if we keep it out he is safe).Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can believe his talk page, it looks like he left. Archive this section?  No need for ANI lynching. That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt he came in good faith, but by claiming that there have been death threats against him and viewing being held to (as aptly put it) a higher standard than 4chan or /r/theDonald as if it's some sort of conspiracy, he's showing an assumption of bad faith that is more compatible with trying to "right great wrongs" (at least in this article, no comment on elsewhere) than it is with productive editing.  And as editor who has been here since 2005, he should know better.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Archive it
It has been suggested (to me) that we archive Gschadow's interactions in order to draw a line under this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The opening of this FAQ section is full of venom and assumption of bad faith on other WP editors. The attempt is to shut up dissenters by ridicule and censorship. Nothing has been debunked. Gschadow (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You can't seem to wait to hide the issue
As with the original pizza gate issue, you are treating my comments the same superficial way. You construct a strawman to be able to "debunk it" and hide information. Nowhere did I say that you are threatening to kill me. I am saying that you are threatening to block me based on an issue you are taking with material I wrote, which you hide from anyone's view. So you are accusing me of something I did not do, without showing the evidence. And you keep threatening me with blocking me if I do not shut up. That is the issue at play in your treatment of my contention. I did say that I run the risk of being killed if my points were becoming famous and a cause for more people to wake up to the seriousness of the issue.

Nothing is settled about the original issue that I brought up ("unproven but not debunked"). Nothing of substance of the pizza gate issue has been debunked. What the entire pizza gate article here does is distort and hide the real substance in order to create an appearance of "debunked" which does not hold water to any closer inspection. I gave the concise list of substance of the pizza gate issue, 7 points, that are public verifiable information, and none of that has been debunked by anyone. You and your biased "reliable sources" (LOL) are doing nothing but spewing ridicule and fighting strawmen while hiding the real issues. Now you can come again and tell me that I am assuming bad faith, but look what you do? You cannot wait to hide the contention! And you mock me telling me that I have not brought any substantial verifiable issues, yet when I did, you falsely accused me of something I didn't do and hid my entire list of substance that has not been debunked.

Once again, nothing has been debunked. Only straw men. Gschadow (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Gschadow, please stop accusing the unspecified "you" of doing this or that. It's confusing everyone. In any case, to respond to your substantive concern: Many, many reliable sources have said Pizzagate has been debunked. Not just the New York Times, Politifact, and Snopes, all of which are broadly accepted within the community as reliable. If you want the word "debunked" removed, you are going to have to go through each and every reliable source that has called the theory debunked, and convince the good folks at WP:RSN that they are not reliable. Please be aware that sources are not required to be neutral to be reliable. Best of luck. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * These sources are not reliable on this issue. They are partisan. And they have not debunked the substance of the claims. They have debunked only their own straw men. Gschadow (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not listening and you apparently refuse to educate yourself on basic Wikipedia policies. If reliable sources say X, then we can say X. It doesn't matter whether the sources have gone into any details on the substance. There's nothing about "substance" in our verifiability policy. And whether these sources are partisan or not is not relevant, as has already been pointed out to you. If you are having too much trouble wrapping your head around that, then please consider that even Fox News has said Pizzagate is debunked. Let's move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

FAQ
Any interest in compiling a list of issues that keep cropping up? I know you get tired of hearing the same old conspiracy theory nonsense, but you only have two choices: Engage the mouth-breathers or walk away. Just because you've explained why InfoWars is not a reliable source 100 times doesn't mean you can ignore the next rube. Wouldn't having a FAQ take some of the sting away?That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It has never worked on other pages, but we can give it a try.Slatersteven (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've seen it help a bit on more complex articles. But, it won't have any effect on InfoWars followers or anyone that actually thinks there is anything to this Pizzagate rubbish. "Debunked" is the one issue that keeps rearing its head. Objective3000 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but it does make it easier to collapse many of these oft-repeated claims that get posted here with a "See FAQ" title. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support it. We tried it at Talk:Breitbart News. I could be mistaken, or perhaps it's coincidence, but I believe talk page discussion substantially improved after that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite the disdainful tone of the original FAQ suggestion, I actually think that would be a great idea. You should indeed make a list of all substantive points raised by the Pizza Gate Conspiracy Theory, and show how they were debunked. When you actually do that with intellectual honesty, you will realize that they have not been debunked at all. So do go ahead. Gschadow (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

OK lets see some suggested text.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think an FAQ in this article should be very brief. The one issue that repeatedly arises is over the word debunked. We need only point out that we don’t do OR, we just follow RS, that’s the word used by RS, and therefore the consensus is to use that word. Objective3000 (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay then, how's this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(I hope no one minds, I moved the draft FAQ to Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/FAQ.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "True"? That is the very kind of confrontational and POV pushing line that is the very kind of thing a FAQ should avoid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I await your suggested rewording. Just edit the proposal directly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, factual statements relevant to an issue are not "POV pushing". Some POV pushers might claim they are, but they're wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Verifiable. Objective3000 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my first thought, just to replace the word "true" with "verifiable", but I hate doing that (because the claims of conspiracy theorists are verifiable, but we're not going to report them as fact), so I think I'll try "factual" instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why also mention RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If someone writes a book A that gets attention by the public and journal B writes a review tearing it up, you can of course present a summary of the book still in Wikipedia, because the reliable source is the book. You are not constrained to cobbling together a summary of the book from the shreds that the various reviews might or might not mention. So is it here: the salient point of the conspiracy theory can be sourced from original presentations by its proponents. The reception of this and the refutations can then be sourced from whatever their sources are. The Ben Swann summary serves as a very good basis. However, one does not have to rely on hearsay, as all the sources that he mentions exist as reference-able written source material. Gschadow (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So suggest a text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No Gschadow, that is not correct. That might be your sense of how Wikipedia should work, but it wouldn't comply with community standards. When secondary sources all say one thing, we don't use primary sources to contradict them. That's classic original research. Moreover, fringe theories must be treated as fringe theories. They can be described as long as we're careful not to give them (or their criticisms) undue weight. On top of that we have to contend with our BLP policy, which requires us not to rely on primary sources. (Remember, we're dealing with unverifiable claims that people have engaged in heinous crimes.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * , I would adjust the FAQ in several ways. My biggest concern is that it doesn't touch on our WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, or WP:CONSENSUS. My inclination is to strip out all of the justification and just refer readers to prior discussions, as we did at Talk:Breitbart News. This isn't because I disagree with you (I don't), but because different editors have expressed different reasons for saying Pizzagate is debunked, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with trying to encapsulate everyone's reasoning in a short FAQ. I also think that a justification like this gives the Pizzagate believers a toehold to make further arguments ("You're wrong because X, Y, Z."). At the end of the day, we are rejecting most folks' arguments because they have already been considered and rejected by the consensus. It doesn't matter why at this point. If editors come along with substantively new arguments for removing "debunked" or somesuch, then we can and should address them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , edit away at it. You don't need my permission. We should just keep editing it until we can all agree on it, then make the FAQ out of it. As far as toeholds go; the true believers will continue to believe no matter what we say. How many people have come to this page with arguments that are explicitly debunked in the article itself? The point is not to have a comprehensive FAQ, because that would just be a reformatting of the article into a Q&A presentation. The point is to have something to point to when we hat disruptive comments. If you feel that addressing each individual reason accomplishes that better than addressing the underlying "Is it true or false?" question, then go for it. As long as it doesn't equivocate over whether the theory is true or false (or "factual" or "counterfactual" if you will), I'll be happy with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've edited the FAQ with the intention of making it less personal by not addressing any specific person or group and writing it from wikipedia's voice Edaham (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I too have made an "improvement".Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not support this sentence and have removed it. I do not believe this reflects prior talk page consensus and I believe this could open up a Pandora's box. I do not want to add fuel to arguments that we should include an in-depth analysis of Wikileaks e-mails, Instagram comments, and pedophilia symbols just because a reliable secondary source has mentioned them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. We don’t need a detailed analysis of the rationale some people have used to come to the conclusion that the moon is made of green cheese, along with twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows to prove it isn't. It’s enough to say this has been debunked. Objective3000 (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, if a source feels inclined to mention social media, internet sleuths, or even the Pope that means it may be included in the article. "May" does not mean "must".  I doubt we will find any source that will mention any "facts" from primary sources without putting it in context of being pure balderdash.  The point of the FAQ is to be able to address the reoccurring problems we see at such conspiracy theory articles.  I'm not aware of any consensus that disallows the possibility of including well sourced material.  I understand your concerns, so I will try and fix this so we mention that the sources have considered thes primary sources.
 * I don't quite understand what you sought to accomplish with your most recent additions, but they did not reflect Wikipedia policy or consensus on this page. There is no strict prohibition against using primary sources. However we must be cautious with them, especially with respect to BLP content. This is already in the FAQ. And I don't think there's much benefit to trying to explain our RS guideline. No one has sought to cite the National Enquirer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are citing a consensus which frankly does not exist, neither in the history of this page nor in the short history of this FAQ. So I'll go back to sourcing; There is no consensus  against including mention of wikileaks email material if a RS covers it provided it is paraphrased as such.  That is exactly how sources are supposed to be used. That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring for the moment the questionable provenance of Wikileaks email material, the material simply doesn’t say what the authors of this conspiracy say it says. The conspiracy authors claim words mean things that they don’t mean, in rather spectacular manners, to push an outrageous narrative involving heinous accusations. We have already seen threats and gunfire resulting from these accusations. We must be very careful in our handling of such in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about adding to the "what about the emails" question a line about exactly what we can use such primary sources for? An example of what I mean (I don't necessarily think this is exactly how we should phrase it) would be something like;

If an email states that John Podesta has leftover cheese pizza, we can only refer to this email to support the claim that the email stated that Podesta had leftover cheese pizza. We cannot interpret that to be a coded reference to child pornography, because no reliable source has made that connection. In fact, we cannot even cite that email to support the claim that Podesta actually had leftover cheese pizza because we cannot verify that; we can only verify that the email stated that he had some.
 * I realize we're getting into the "duplicating essay pages in an FAQ" territory here, but if it helps, it helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with a few words in the FAQ, so long as they are designed to avoid pollution of the article itself. Objective3000 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I boldly added the FAQ. Contributors are welcome to keep editing and discussing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of saying in the FAQ that Pizzagate is a fringe theory or "essentially a fringe theory." In my view this would likely serve to increase the number of angry discussions, rather than decrease it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that additions was needlessly antagonistic (unintentionally so, of course), so I changed it. I also added a much shorter version of the original answer I proposed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments made by Welch at sentencing hearing
Can we please not edit war over this material? I happen to think it's not sufficiently worthy of inclusion, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, since these sorts of statements are said at almost every sentencing hearing. Defense lawyers advise their clients to say this sort of thing to draw sympathy from the judge and reduce their sentences. The argument that it was picked up by the news, therefore we should include it is directly contravened by WP:NOTNEWS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you’re supposed to follow the advice of your lawyer and express contrition, and we don’t know if it is an act. But, I think many readers (whether conspiracy-minded folk or those appalled by such) would like to see this chapter closed with the defendant’s final act – whether he defiantly stood by his guns, or apologized. And, it’s only half a sentence. Objective3000 (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's certainly worthy of the very short mention. As said above, not all convicted defendants apologize - some are defiant, deny guilt, etc. I think it's sensible to have this brief note on the defendant's final act. Neutralitytalk 23:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Could we see some of the text?
I have heard a lot about this but still have no idea what was actually said. How about quoting some of the emails that were apparently suspicious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.226.166.166 (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2017
 * You can find this at various fake-news sites. Objective3000 (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In can see value to quoting some of the e-mails without any of the "ANALYSIS!".Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you leave out the "ANALYSIS" and manufactured "EVIDENCE", they’re just boring, idle chitchat about food and such having nothing to do with anything of interest to anybody. I mean, one of the "SOURCES" also claims the Queen of England is a reptilian alien. Objective3000 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is all the OP wants, and I have no issue with it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But, if we add a sample e-mail like: It's an amazing Ligurian dish made with crushed walnuts made into a paste. So stop being so California, then someone will say this is pointless without analysis. Then were going to see additions explaining how this means a political party is run by pedophiles headquartered in a basement that doesn't exist and a t-shirt that says J'&hearts; L'Enfant refers to pedophilia instead of a café named after an American colonist who served under George Washington. Slippery slope. Objective3000 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we ask for the analysis, I.E. the methodology of decoding the code, and not just the conclusions they reached.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason here to resort to primary sources when there is ample secondary sourcing available, much less 4chan and reddit, much less when there are potential glaring BLP implications.  G M G  talk   17:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * How would quoting the emails add to the article? How would it change the narrative presented by the article? It wouldn't. So what's the point? As has been pointed out so many times, there are good reasons not to, and with no good reason to do so... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know this is hard to believe but for once I agree with Objective3000 and MjolnirPants. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161208075242/http://dcist.com/2016/12/what_on_earth_is_pizzagate_why_did.php to http://dcist.com/2016/12/what_on_earth_is_pizzagate_why_did.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2017
Really? Might be time to update this - an stay posted because this rabbit hole goes DEEP. I'll be mass posting this tomorrow with countless others.. . 2600:8800:9C80:2B90:2855:D353:DA20:1CE3 (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be better if you at least explained what you were going to suggest adding now. Also I would advise against a "mass posting, it will make discussing the material very hard.13:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * O3000 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are you mass posting? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"debunked"
Except it hasnt been debunked. It was never properly investigated and the news screamed out FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS before any kind of investigation came out when at the very least an investigation was warranted. Ive never seen the news act this way in wake of a conspiracy theory before. (Removed horrendous WP:BLP violation.) There is obviously nothing to see here, move along folks. I would suggest taking "debunked" out of the article if you really want to be taken seriously as an unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.229.194 (talk) 03:30, November 30, 2017‎ (UTC)
 * ”It was never properly investigated”—says who? —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Provide concrete evidence or kindly shut up. --130.182.24.7 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request
I was looking to start a new category, Category:2016 hoaxes, containing this article, but it’s semi-protected. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been significant discussion over whether this qualifies as a hoax, and to the best of my recollection, the loose consensus was that it does not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer
, can you please lay out the basis of your belief that the Skeptical Inquirer has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is therefore a reliable source in this context? I reviewed the RSN archives and saw there if there was any consensus, it was against. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been used as a RS here for many years. Of course there is no source, including The New York Times, which is considered a RS in every situation. It all depends on how it's used. Sometimes a source may not be a RS for fact, but still a RS for its own opinion. You should start reading it. It's available by subscription and in all major bookstores, such as Barnes and Noble. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a justification. There are lots of unreliable outlets that have been used all over Wikipedia and still need to be cleaned out. And you can get all sorts of unreliable sources by subscription and at major bookstores. Typically you establish that an outlet has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy by showing that its editorial leadership has solid credentials and/or that other reliable sources cite it approvingly. This is all spelled out in WP:RS. We are dealing with extremely contentious BLP subject matter here so it's critical we hold this article to our community standards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Those are all good points. I assumed you were familiar with the board and contributors, and would realize that those basic assumptions were already part of my baggage here. See my comment below. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * DrFleischman, Fact-checking is their raison d'être. It is what they do. They aren't a news outlet, they do investigative journalism for the express purpose of fact checking extant claims, specifically those that regard conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and the paranormal. They are one of the precursors to the modern day Fact checking site.
 * Conspiracy theories are one of their specialties. This article is about a conspiracy theory. They have an impeccable reputation for accuracy, they are widely circulated, well-respected and long-established. There's no cause to consider them unreliable here. They are, in my opinion, one of the most perfectly reliable sources available for use in this article. See their article for more info. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have said it better. They are the people who formalized and advocate the backbone principles which are now used by fact checkers, but they precede them. The scientific method, their speciality, is the basic method behind all fact checking. Their board, staff, and contributors are highly educated and influential subject experts and include Nobel laureates. Take a look: Skeptical Inquirer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm convinced. All I really needed was that link to Skeptical Inquirer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Debunked conspiracy theory
I don't see fluoride in the water being a gay frog generating mind control substance prefixed with 'debunked'? What's the point in adding 'debunked' (and a bunch of citations) in front of the words 'conspiracy theory' besides to dog whistle given that this is a pseudo-political that we're of the Approved Narrative (TM) and virtuous? Really detracts from the article and credibility of the project when we have to prefix conspiracy theories with 'debunked'. Agendabender (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fluoride in the water being a gay frog generating mind control substance is not a conspiracy theory that accuses living people of heinous crimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This debunked conspiracy theory resulted in gunfire and threats against multiple living people. In any case, we say what reliable sources say. Please read: WP:BLP WP:IRS.
 * Besides, fluoride turned me into a newt. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It turned me into a killer, at least according to a certain website I'm not very popular with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note OP has been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. See . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

News sources
It seems that the main sources of information and facts for this article are news outlets, most of which have reputations for being either left or right wing when it comes to political issues. I realize that there isn't a ton of scholarly writing about Pizzagate at this point but using news articles as fact, especially during the time of the election, can be extremely problematic. Just by clicking through some of the sources, you can see that they come from news outlets, of varying reliably and professionalism, but their facts are all being used equally in this article. Rb1157a (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the problem here? We rely on news sources all the time for our current events articles. You may want to familiarize yourself with community standards such as WP:V and WP:RS--and WP:BIASED in particular. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * News sources who satisfy the requirements at WP:IRS are considered to be generally reliable for claims of fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Refuting the Conspiracy Theory many times throughout the article
Any uninformed person that reads this article to know more about it would think that the authors have some vested interest in making sure that the reader does not believe the conspiracy theory. The article should just present it as a conspiracy theory and keep all the arguments that debunk it, rather than saying that it is debunked every paragraph. Most decent articles on Wikipedia maintain a neutral tone, and it should be the case here as well, even if there is no proof that it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.177.58 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed ad nauseum. The consensus is that because the theory falsely claims that living people have engaged in the most heinous of crimes, per our BLP policy we should make crystal clear that the theory is debunked and even include some redundancy. We have already scaled back the redundancies somewhat. You're free to look back through the prior discussions in the talk page archives. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually i think then OP has a valid point. I think it does somewhat undermine the claim it is false. Of course it is not out job to either support or undermine that, just to report what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What specifically is your concern? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The OP may have a point. But, considering that this is considered by some as the ultimate of crimes, that multiple incidents involving violent threats resulted including gunfire, and that the accused are numerous living persons, and that the claims are absurd, and that the claims are politically motivated, and that folks keep stopping by to delete the words debunked or claiming this is true – I think this is warranted. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems fairly reasonable, but when you check the sources, they're mostly about how obviously fake it was, how it's been debunked, and how ridiculous it was to begin with. The article's tone accurately reflects the source's tone. If we change it, that's a form of OR. Plus, there's the BLP concerns that the good Doctor raised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Pizzagate, a debunked[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] conspiracy theory" makes me laugh every time I see it. Surely it doesn't help - if part of the fear is the allegations against living people, then surely this sort of tone does more to incense and provoke people prone to paranoid or conspiratorial thinking than to write more "impartially". Maskettaman (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Also if people are going to be paranoid or conspiratorial whilst ignoring evidence (whilst accepting "if we assume that small cup of coffee is a secret code for "buggering a child" based upon no real evidence other then my assumption it might") whatever we write will have that affect, as anything can be said to be a secret code or cover up? As far as I care we ignore them and write about facts, not wtry and write our articles so the small and the silly wont read into them all kinds of idiocy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As others have said, I haven't seen any other conspiracy theory page, even topical ones (perhaps I haven't been reading enough) receive this sort of treatment. It's not so much the style as the fact that Pizzagate (and other election-relevant articles) stand out among the rest. It makes their contentious partisan vibe really transparent. Other articles at least maintain a tone of neutrality. It's discomforting when you read an article that feels like it is attempting to convince you of something, rather than inform you. I probably also just fundamentally disagree with Wikipedia's policy to align itself more or less with predominant journalistic narratives and make proclamations of truth - something that I just, even with regards to things that are obviously bullshit. Collective consensus is not the same as objective reality. I just can't take such blatant truth claims seriously. They're too stubborn and, in my eyes, dangerous. People give Wikipedia a lot of authority, a lot of trust, but I think it's really too messy, too amateur, and too undiscriminating to measure up. Whenever you read an article in some area of expertise or more-than-general knowledge it feels like reading some shitty popular science article. All the focus is off, the definitions are skewed, there's often an abundance of trivial information at the expense of more important info. And so on. It's annoying - by criticising the content of the article, and its tone, it makes me appear like an apologist for the conspiracy theory itself. I feel like I'm drawing suspicion upon myself. It's a really polemical atmosphere. Maskettaman (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When the media and the police all say there is nothing to see I do not see why we need to have a false "neutrality" by implying it still might be real. Especially when the counter evidence is (frankly) non existent. What do you think is the important info? What do you think is Trivial? By the way, if you have not seen any other pages how do you know what tone they have?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2018
Snopes is not a reliable source. 24.113.77.55 (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Snopes has been discussed multiple times with a general agreement that it is reliable. See for example this discussion and this discussion.  G M G  talk   11:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A lot has changed since 2013, hasn't it? Any 'recent' or relevant discussion on 'reliable' sources? Anyone rational or with any concern for truth would be open to re-visiting this 'question.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

update: I would also note, that through both linked 'discussions' between these 'editors' I found ZERO (0) references to any qualifications, primary sources, review, or even anything remotely resembling a professional process demonstrating the 'reliability' of the 'source' (snopes blog) in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.77.55 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As already mentioned, the answer you are looking for but do not want to hear can be found in previous discussions by editors (without scare quotes).  APK  whisper in my ear  13:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I found ZERO (0) references to any qualifications, primary sources, review, or even anything remotely resembling a professional process demonstrating the 'reliability' of the 'source' (snopes blog) in question. All it takes is about 30 seconds of googling. Also, Snopes is not a blog, but a privately run, topical research publication (the topic being "rumors, urban legends and public claims of fact") with a well-defined mission (the mission being "exposing the truth of rumors, urban legends and public claims of fact"). This is similar to publications like the Skeptical Inquirer, which are equally reputable. You should probably start giving more credit to reputable publishing organizations than to chain emails forwarded to you by your grandmother if you actually values concepts like "truth". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Take it to WP:RSN if you really want to waste editor time. Snopes has long been considered a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

10 tons of organic tomatoes in the basement
Re the James Alefantis statement from http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/04/from-scratch-james-alefantis/
 * Like our sauce — we harvest a whole crop of organic tomatoes — 10 tons of tomatoes every year.
 * Can them all, store them in the basement, have like a harvest party when it gets loaded in.

Does anyone know if Alefantis later clarified which building's basement he was talking about in this interview with Doug Rule? Was it a farmhouse / fruit cellar / warehouse associated with Comic Ping Pong which then delivered to them? I've seen this linked up with the "We don't even have a basement" statement from 2016 as if to disprove it but he never actually specifies which building's basement so it seems plausible it could have simply been another location owned by CPP for storing its ingredients? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss such matters. We’re here to write an encyclopedia article, not to traffic in conspiracy theories. I suggest you try reddit or 4chan instead. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

They are not storing 10 tons of tomatoes. But cooked and jarred pizza sauce. However, many jars 10 tons would get you once it is cooked down. This storage space is the basement of Alefanti's other restaurant Buck's Hunting and Fishing.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018
Hi.

I came to this page while trying to research who Brittany Pettibone is.

Under the sub-heading 'Spread on Social Media' this Wikipedia page currently states: '...and has been promoted by alt-right activists such as Mike Cernovich, Brittany Pettibone, and Jack Posobiec.[12][19]'

Only the BBC article [12] refers to the "alt-right", and a close reading of both articles makes it hard to justify that each of the three persons named promoted the conspiracy theory.

(i) Jack Posobiec is only said to have investigated the conspiracy theory after the 2016 election - and that he found nothing to support them.[19]

(ii) Brittany Pettibone is quoted in tweets referring specifically to Tony Podesta's personal art collection [19] (which is not referred to within this Wikipedia page), saying that the truth will be "brought to light" by "citizen investigation" [12] and praising Jack Posobiec for investigating the conspiracy theory - even though, according to the WashPo article cited, he found nothing.[19]

(iii) Mike Cernovich has a sole tweet quoted, stating that the "story will be huge!" and linking to reddit.[12]

Whilst I accept that it is possible that each of the three people named may have "promoted" the specific conspiracy theory detailed within this Wikipedia page, I would suggest that the only one against whom a case could be made from the two cited articles is Mike Cernovich, as he is shown to have linked to the relevant reddit. (Calling for an investigation and/or investigating are not of themselves the same as promoting - regardless of one's view of the politics of the individuals concerned.)

I would therefore suggest that the names of Brittany Pettibone and Jack Posobiec are either removed from that sentence, or that the allegations against them are supplemented by additional citations (if any are available) that specifically address the allegations made on this Wikipedia page. 51.6.176.173 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Bullshit, the Washington Post extensively covers Posobiec's statements that "Any story that accused Clinton, John Podesta and Brock of nefarious deeds deserved some investigation" and his subsequent amateur "undercover video" visit to the restaurant. Pettibone tweeted that "the truth being brought to light is inevitable, cited to the BBC. Your assertions are straight-up fraudulent. TheValeyard (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I started putting together an intelligent response before realizing that this request is so braindead wrong that I agree it should be labeled as complete bullshit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Wired article
Nice job. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ..."44 million entries" ...Somehow I don't think my user talk archives are really part of "a priceless resource". Somebody didn't pay attention on their math.  G M G  talk  21:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018
Remove incorrect reference to "SubjectPolitics."

In the "Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory" Wikipedia page, there is an incorrect reference to the political blog SubjectPolitics.com, that should be taken out.

Under the sub-heading "Genesis," this page currently states "Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, including SubjectPolitics, which falsely claimed the New York Police Department had raided Hillary Clinton's property.[8]"

The Buzzfeed article cited doesn't say SubjectPolitics "elaborated on" Adl-Tabatabai's story. Buzzfeed explicitly states that SubjectPolitics made an unrelated claim.

Buzzfeed says SubjectPolitics ran a misleading headline about Hillary's "property" being "raided," but clarifies that the SubjectPolitics post was referring to was Hillary's "Property" in the form of her emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop that was seized by the FBI.

Here is the Buzzfeed Excerpt:

'While many sites simply repeated the details from Adl-Tabatabai, others introduced new, baseless claims. SubjectPolitics.com ran a story with the headline "IT’S OVER: NYPD Just Raided Hillary’s Property! What They Found Will RUIN HER LIFE." Er no, the NYPD did *not* raid property belonging to Hillary Clinton.'

'...(The story itself goes on to say that the "property" in question was any emails to or from Clinton that were on Weiner's laptop.)'

So Buzzfeed makes no claim that SubjectPolitics "spread" or "elaborated on" the Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory or Adl-Tabatabai's story, as this wikipedia page claims.

Also, this Wikipedia page refers to SubjectPolitics as a "fake news website" when they're typically classified as a right-wing partisan (or hyper-partisan) blog.

Media Bias/Fact Check rates SubjectPolitics as an extremely biased, and questionable source, but does not consider the site a "fake news" site. 

Please change:

"The theory was then posted on the message board Godlike Productions. The following day, the story was repeated on YourNewsWire citing a 4chan post from earlier that year.[8] Adl-Tabatabai's story was then spread by and elaborated on by other fake news websites, including SubjectPolitics, which falsely claimed the New York Police Department had raided Hillary Clinton's property.[8] The website Conservative Daily Post ran a headline falsely stating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had confirmed that story.[11]"

to

"The theory was then posted on the message board Godlike Productions. The following day, the story was repeated on YourNewsWire citing a 4chan post from earlier that year.[8] The website Conservative Daily Post ran a headline falsely stating that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had confirmed that story.[11]"

Gwilson20 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that some of this content wasn't supported by the source, so I removed it accordingly. However SubjectPolitics.com did in fact spread and elaborate on Adl-Tabatabai's story. See for yourself, here's an archive of the SubjectPolitics.com story. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

origins of phrase "cheese pizza"
Suggestion is to remove this sentence and replace it a more authoritative source

Old Sentence For example, The New York Times reported that the phrase "cheese pizza" was thought by a poster to 4chan to be a code word for child pornography since they had the same initials.[2]

New Sentence

The term "CP" had long been in use on boards like 4chan to refer to Child Pornography. Users would request that other users "Post CP." Later users began to parody this, by posting pictures of other different CP's like Captain Picard or Cheese Pizza. Note: the phrase "cheese pizza" is not used at all in the Podesta emails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7204:1e00:91b2:5971:b151:5820 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2018‎


 * ❌ We use reliable sources. The New York Times is reliable. Know Your Meme is not, since its content is largely user-generated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

New York Times proof???
I don't think Pizzagate is a debunked theory. How can you cite a New York Times news to say it was debunked. Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKRevolution (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is widely accepted as a reliable source for U.S. politics and culture among Wikipedia editors. It is vastly more reliable than sources that spread vile conspiracy theories. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pizzagate is an extraordinary claim that lacks any sort of evidence. Random posts on 4chan and reddit are not evidence. Belief is not evidence. Pizzagate is just more fake news designed to drum up a furor over nothing in order to galvanize an easily-led reactionary base. Don't you think it's interesting that pizzagaters don't care about child welfare in general? How many do you think protested the treatment of children in detention facilities? How many 8channers or voat users care about child welfare? Facts do not care about your feelings; facts exist whether or not you believe them. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If you don't think Pizzagate has been debunked, or that the NYT is a reliable source, then you don't have any business editing an encyclopedia. No offense, but go edit Conservapedia if you can't tell the difference between reality and conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a source saying it is not debunked can we see it, your opinion is not an RES.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018
181.115.10.63 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No specific edit has been proposed.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Debunked
Having read the Talk page, I understand the official rationale for adding the debunked tag, all the same it's wrong. This has not been debunked because those that have claimed to have debunked it lack the capacity to debunk it. How on Earth can a newspaper uncover the truth in this? Did those involve allow the New York Times in to see everything? Did the New York Times fly down to Panama and question the police re: the sketches of the Podesta brothers? No. The New York Times "debunked" this article from the comfort of their desk chair in New York City. That is not debunking, that is putting the official narrative spin on something, filling the first 3 pages of Google with "debunked" stories so this inconvenient truth will go away. Worse is that a lot of WikiEditors here are so sanctimoniously holier than thou that they're fully willing to make blatant appeals to authority and personal attacks. That just exposes them for the fakes they are. Wikipedia is going to do what it's going to do, but that doesn't mean that this theory has truly been debunked. The circumstantial evidence is too great.108.2.69.17 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:TRUTH. If you think the NYT didn't do their due diligence when writing their articles, you'll have to pony up hard evidence for it per WP:RS and WP:V. clpo13(talk) 23:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * IP, see the FYI at the top of this page. Also, /pol/ is full of bullshit and you should never believe anything you read there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being civil this time. Are you sure you read the talk page and understand the "official rationale"? Because it certainly doesn't sound like it. If there's something you don't understand, feel free to ask. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times "debunked" this article from the comfort of their desk chair in New York City. 122 journalists have been killed in Syria alone. In some hotspots, more journalists are killed than soldiers.  Please don’t post this forum stuff here. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

GAN?
It looks like this page was tagged for GAN by a user who has not been involved with editing the article, and has since retired. Should the nomination still be considered active? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's got a half decent chance of passing, what with the fact that it eventually became pretty dang stable, and there's a half dozen or so regulars floating around (myself included) who I'm sure would be willing to address any of the GAN feedback.  G M G  talk  17:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * actually, getting this thing to GA is the only thing I really care about doing on this site now. If the review comes around, I will happily contribute to it, but that will probably be the last thing I do here. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 03:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Notes section
Why do we have a footnote detailing Alex Jone's defending InfoWars as not being fake news in a way that lends equal credence to the accusation and his defense?
 * The RSes are almost unanimous that InfoWars is fake news, so this note gives a false balance by contrasting Jones' vacuous defense with only one of the numerous well-researched accusations.
 * This note does absolutely nothing to improve the reader's understanding of Pizzagate. There's no benefit to this article, whatsoever.
 * The very existence of this note creates a false balance by implying that whether or not InfoWars is fake news is a matter of judgement or opinion, or even that it's subject to debate among the RSes. It's not. No RS has, to my knowledge, ever defended InfoWars as not being fake news, and I would eat my own shoe if anyone found one that did. InfoWars is such a dominant example of fake news that I would argue that any source defending them would, due to that very defense, not be a reliable source.

I'm removing this note. Please discuss here before restoring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it says naff all about Pizzagate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that was a compromise from one of the winding discussion on the talk. It was probably me who moved the content to a note, since I have a sick fascination with using explanatory footnotes.  G M G  talk  14:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh Oh.Somebody needs to get smoked... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't understand the extent of the problem. I really love footnotes.  G M G  talk  15:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't really love footnotes unless you have 80 of them Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh god. 80 footnotes, 500 Harvard citations, separated by online and print sources, and further reading? That's basically MoS porn.  G M G  talk  15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be best to remove the reference to Infowars being fake news, and just let the reader look at the article about them. It tells us nothing about Pizzagate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't InfoWars in particular being called out (and we call InfoWars fake news in wikivoice in its article, anyways), and it's an important part of that sentence. I don't think we should remove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry misread the section, yep we do not single out infowars, which make it odder that we did with their defence.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was the one who moved it there, per a note On the GA review that I misunderstood. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 14:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as no-one is clamoring to restore it, I'm happy enough right now. Maybe I'll trout you and GMG later if I start feeling particularly vindictive. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I need the food, I'm wikiemanciated 💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 15:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mmmm.... Roast trout with lemon butter and a garlic sea salt rub. Yeah, it's getting close to my lunch time, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yusif Lee Jones
I'm actually not seeing anything at all about where this guy was actually sentenced. He was supposed to be sentenced in April of last year, but it looks like he just fell out of the news cycle and no one bothered to keep up with the details. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Google searching for his name, with a date range of April 1st to May 31st, 2017 returned only one result, which was one of those mugshot collection sites. See the search results. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really usable per WP:BLPPRIMARY but "MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge S Maurice Hicks: SENTENCING held on 4/12/2017 for Yusif Lee Jones (1), Count(s) 1, Defendant sentenced to 1 month imprisonment, credit for time served; 2 years supervised release; $100 special assessment. (Court Reporter: Marie Moran Runyon) (crt,Bray, K) (Entered: 04/20/2017) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This makes sense. Nobody saw any big headlines in time served and supervised release. Looks like not even the local paper ran a story on the sentencing.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did a look myself and this was the latest source []. So yes it rather does look like he has just disappeared into a stream of non notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd think the media would continue to cover such a memorably bizarre event... <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 15:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a liberal conspiracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Explaining who spread the conspiracy
I recently edited the lede to explain that the conspiracy was largely spread by Trump supporters and other Clinton opponents, as described by the BBC. I also think a Good Article should use better sources than a CNN opinion piece arguing that "Fake news is domestic terrorism". The edit was incidentally marked as "minor" because I also used a script to harmonize reference whitespace and forgot to uncheck the box. FallingGravity 15:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the changes you put in, so I'm adding them back into the article. <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 16:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with them as well. They didn't look POV pushy to me. If anything, they were generalizing Trump supporters, but that's not exactly a problematic thing to do, these days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the original source says "alt-right Trump supporters", but I didn't want to copy too much from the source to prevent WP:Close paraphrasing. Maybe "members of the alt-right" would work better? I'm thinking Trump supporters in general would be included in "opponents of Clinton's presidential campaign". FallingGravity 18:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my personal experience (I know, I know) I have found that Trump supporters come in two varieties: Either they're rural, working class white folk who don't care about politics enough to even be aware of this CS, or they believe the CS is true. The latter are in the majority.
 * But it's the alt-right who are really pushing this CS still, so I think taking that bit and leaving out the Trump supporter bit is an accurate representation of the facts and an accurate enough representation of the source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm...Given considerations regarding the Trump Horizon (second time I've been able to link to that today BTW), I have a difficult time imagining that...how to put this...smoking pot is a defining characteristic of people who go one to do harder drugs, but going on to do harder drugs isn't a defining characteristic of people who smoke pot. I live deep in Trump Country. My road isn't even big enough for two vehicles to pass in most spots. Most people here in my experience (obligatory "I know, I know") just...don't understand how the federal government works, don't really follow politics all that much in any kind of intricate policy based detail, and have probably never heard of Pizzagate, much less be a proponent of it.
 * So although we can find a verifiable source that links this directly to Trump supporters, I struggle to imagine that the preponderance of sources links it to Trump supporters per se in a defining way, rather that linking it to the fringes of the far right primarily, and then of course the fringes of the far right are going to be more likely to be Trump supporters...barring things like radical libertarians, although my own great state's Rand Paul seems to have bowed the knee recently.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * GMG, I just want to point out that you are making the exact same point as me, only giving it far more weight, and only describing the first group of the two I described. Just in case you expected that you were disagreeing with me in saying that. (I live in a more urban area, so I'm not surprised the folks in my second group are far less common in your neck of the woods. The area of Alabama where my father lives and where me and my wife are considering moving to is much the same.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am dubious about making this about Trump supporters rather then the alt right. Especially as the source makes it clear they are talking about "alt-right Trump", not all Trump supporters.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Trump supporters" is vague. Does it include the country club Republicans, most of whom voted for him? Is it people who wear MAGA baseball caps and have the TV permanently tuned to Fox News Channel? At its widest it means everyone who voted for him, of whom few know much about the alt right. TFD (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The page currently attributes it to "Members of the alt-right and other opponents of Clinton's presidential campaign," and since no-one is suggesting changing that, I don't think we need to explicitly affirm our support for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)