Talk:Comet Ping Pong

Pizzagate

Sources are clear and included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
no source anywhere in this article indicates the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia has discredited pizzagate 24.228.190.254 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC) This is an important discussion. No sources exist saying DC Metro Police debunked pizzagate.. AOKuneff (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Of course they do. Read it. Now take your conspiracy-peddling BLP-violating nonsense elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof:— Preceding unsigned comment added by AOKuneff (talk • contribs) @Neutrality: @NorthBySouthBaranoff:— Preceding unsigned comment added by AOKuneff (talk • contribs) @AOKuneff: I guess you meant to post "WP:RS indicates reliable *third party* sources are required to make a claim. No reliable *third party* sources exist to say metro dc police debunked pizzagate. Only 1 parenthesis on a single third party source made before the current DC Metro Police Chief took over. Should be removed from article entirely" on this page? WP:PRIMARY does allow for primary sources in specific instances. In this case, the source is reputable, the statement it is cited for does not make any analysis not present in the source (that's what you're doing), and the article is not largely based on it. The Pizzagate conspiracy theory is so obviously bullshit that for the DC Metro Police to have described it at any time as "a fictitious online conspiracy theory" is enough to count it as debunking. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Pizzagate is obviously real. "Lots of [unsupervised] kids running around", creepy art.. A 3 year old parenthesis from 1 anonymous primary source press release does NOT mean that the CURRENT metro dc police has debunked the theory. That's like having a 3 year old quote from the White House saying "The Paris Climate Accord is an important agreement". There is a new DC Metro Police Chief. You can continue to say snopes and nytimes have rejected the theory as they had entire articles claiming as such, but a 3 year old 5 word parenthesis from a single press release is not enough evidence to say that the entire metro dc police has debunked the theory. 24.228.190.254 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Would you happen to be AOKuneff? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC) The MPD is not required to provide annual updates or extensive explanations to state that a nonsensical conspiracy theory remains a nonsensical conspiracy theory, or even to give the subject the time of day to satisfy conspiracy enthusiasts who will never be satisfied. Their statement was concise and widely reported. Acroterion (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC) A 5 word, 3 year old parenthesis from a primary source is not a reliable source according to wikipedia standards. It should definitely not to be mentioned twice, including in the lede of the article. Why does it matter if only snopes and NYT debunk? Metro PD has not actively debunked the theory - they issued no statements to newspapers, and no one from the department has commented on the issue. It is a fact that leadership has changed since the statement was made. Oversensitivity to this issue is evident. 24.228.190.254 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Overreliance on one source?

Conspiracy trolling, time to move on.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Isn't that to be avoided? DC Metro Police "debunking", cited twice, runs into problems with One source, Only primary sources.24.228.190.254 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC) No, as you've been told before. Log in and use your account. It's the investigating agency's statement (the primary source, which can be repeated and referenced as a plain statement of what was said), and it was reported in many secondary sources. They're not required to write paragraphs to satisfy conspiracy promoters, nor are they obligated to issue repeated statements. That there are overlapping references is because of editors who have tried to remove them, to omit a statement from the agency with jurisdiction, which had to take the extraordinary step of issuing the statement in the first place to address the conspiracy enthusiasts who were creating a danger to public safety. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Your editing is identical to that of NorthBySouthBaranof, in time, content and persistence in beating the same dead horse. The discussion was improperly closed. Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for only following rules when you see fit. Clear violations of and exist for claims that Metro DC Police has debunked pizzagate. 24.228.190.254 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Opening Up Discussion Again NorthBySouthBaranof has tried to censor discussion about this topic. He was also nearly banned for vandalism on another article recently, so it is clear he is a biased editor. And the fact that this article mentions twice, including in the lede, that a single 3 year old primary source means the metro dc police has debunked pizzagate is categorically false. Metro DC Police are able to do as they please, of course, but as wikipediens, until they issue statements to 3rd party sources, it is our duty not to encyclopedically cite their "debunking" as fact 24.228.190.254 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Why close discussion?

Because your question has been answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just wondering. This doesn't seem to be common practice nor a productive one and there are multiple people arguing on each side of the discussion. Additionally, NBSB seems to be the person who wants to close discussion, and he has a reputation as a biased editor. Unlike ip / User:Doug Cousins, I don't necessarily believe pizzagate is real, but wikipediens have put too much weight on a single 5 word half sentence by a metro dc police comms that is not reporting to the same boss. AOKuneff (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC) The discussion is closed because it's neither based in policy nor common sense. That anyone disagrees with the reliable sources is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. We're not here to rehash ludicrous bullshit made-up conspiracy nonsense - particularly ludicrous bullshit made-up conspiracy nonsense which implicates living people. Closing discussions is a normal part of the encyclopedia, and your suggestion that it "doesn't seem to be common practice" belies your utter lack of experience with the encyclopedia. I suggest you review content policies such as WP:BLP before editing any of these topics further. The IP ended up blocked for disruption, and you seem to be spouting the exact same nonsense babble like "there's a new chief." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Firstly, only a single primary source is quoted by an old comms department, not "sources". Secondly, I am actually correct regarding your unusual decision to close discussion. Per WP:Closing discussions -- "it is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week." Lastly, before I made the edits to the page, 0 sources were cited to back up the claim that DC Metro Police debunked pizzagate. How are you so confident that comet ping pong is clean? And why are you so combative? There are proven connections between pedophilia (ie Jeffrey Epstein) and high level Washington politicians, so even if Comet is clean, there are definitely dirty locations in and around DC.. AOKuneff (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC) "How are you so confident that comet ping pong is clean?" - Because I'm sure they use cleaning products when the clean the bathrooms and floors. If you're insinuating anything else when you say "clean" then please take your fringe theories to another site, thanks. Closing discussion now. APK whisper in my ear 20:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)