Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory
Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Pizzagate conspiracy theory has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE. Note that the biographies of living persons policy applies to all areas of Wikipedia, including this talkpage. |
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Why does Wikipedia say that Pizzagate is "debunked"?
All known reliable sources say the theory was either proven to be false or debunked. Our neutrality policy and our guideline on fringe theories explicitly warn us against presenting a false balance of unsupported and supported claims. Q2: But what about all the evidence collected on social media?
Our policies prohibit us from engaging in original research, or from using material drawn from user generated content. This includes most blogs and social media sites such as Reddit, Facebook, and 4chan. Q3: How about the Wikileaks e-mails?
The Wikileaks e-mails are primary sources, and we are required to be extremely cautious with them when using them to make assertions about living people. Extensive use of primary sources is prohibited by our policy prohibiting original research. Q4: Why doesn't this article simply present the evidence and let readers decide for themselves?
This article is about allegations that living people have committed exceptionally heinous crimes. As such, we are legally and ethically obliged to remove potentially defamatory material and to avoid even the suggestion that these people have committed any crimes without credible allegations supported by exceptionally reliable sources. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Additionally, it is our purpose to build an encyclopedia. This means documenting all aspects of the subject, including summarizing any conclusions on the subject made by reliable sources. Q5: Why isn't the article called simply "Pizzagate"?
Due to the "-gate" suffix implying some sort of genuine scandal, letting the name stand alone may unintentionally lend credence to an unsupported conspiracy theory. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Template:WikiProject Hillary Clinton |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Pizzagate conspiracy theory was copied or moved into List of "-gate" scandals with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
There is something important missing in this article
The origin of the "gate" portmanteau is, as most are probably aware, the Watergate scandal. There needs to be a sentence explaining this somewhere in the lede or in the first section. Also, pizza is good and almost never scandalous. 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Pffft. You sound just like a shill for big pizza.
- In all seriousness, such a statement had been in the article, IIRC, but was removed for not being sources, and no-one being able to find a source. I can't find one now with a quick search (though it's possible that a more exhaustive search could turn one up). In any case, I think it's widely enough understood that adding the "-gate" suffix to coin a neologism by which to name a scandal that it goes beyond "we don't need to source something so obvious" and ends up in "We don't need to mention something so obvious."
- If some of the regulars at this page are in favor of adding it, I won't object. But I don't see it as really necessary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for the background, that was helpful. I still think that the article is missing something important for anyone who doesn't know what Watergate is (this may actually be a serious issue when you consider a global audience that is not educated in US political history and wasn't alive in the 20th century). Explaining the etymology risks lightly endorsing that there is a scandal, but this can be alleviated if it's made clear that the name was coined by conspiracist proponents of the conspiracy theory, so these readers will learn about the name and also that it is only a "scandal" in the eyes of the conspiracists. But if there is no source for it, then that alone is reason for it to not be here. 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Reasonable enough, I've added it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't object to the addition. I just looked through List of "-gate" scandals and controversies and saw plenty of international stuff. It's more of an English-language convention than an American one, from what I can see there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is a very amusing list, I had no idea there were so many! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've been going through it all morning, since I looked it up while responding to the IP. You're right, it's thoroughly amusing.
- Also, what do you want to bet that, at some point in the next 90 days, your edit will get reverted by someone complaining about the lack of source? It won't be me (I'm 100% convinced this is squarely within WP:SKYBLUE territory, as I mentioned above), and I'll be happy to revert and argue about that, but I feel like editors get extra pedantic about politically-charged articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- That is a very amusing list, I had no idea there were so many! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't object to the addition. I just looked through List of "-gate" scandals and controversies and saw plenty of international stuff. It's more of an English-language convention than an American one, from what I can see there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Reasonable enough, I've added it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for the background, that was helpful. I still think that the article is missing something important for anyone who doesn't know what Watergate is (this may actually be a serious issue when you consider a global audience that is not educated in US political history and wasn't alive in the 20th century). Explaining the etymology risks lightly endorsing that there is a scandal, but this can be alleviated if it's made clear that the name was coined by conspiracist proponents of the conspiracy theory, so these readers will learn about the name and also that it is only a "scandal" in the eyes of the conspiracists. But if there is no source for it, then that alone is reason for it to not be here. 2600:1012:B060:BDFC:2C0A:91B3:6F47:8E46 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a comment from a random wikipedia reader-- I came here to find out what the pizzagate conspiracy theory was about. That is very hard to determine from this article. There is an enormous amount of verbage being spent to describe it's lack of credibility, which is certainly interesting and relevant, but there should also be a good description of what the theory supposes. 2601:243:1400:310:C895:2BB7:7CC6:143B (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- We do its called Genisis, this is elaborated on in Debunking, where we mention each claim, and how it had been shown to be false. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's already summarized in several places. The second paragraph of the lead says that
Proponents of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory falsely claimed the emails contained coded messages that connected several high-ranking Democratic Party officials and U.S. restaurants with an alleged human trafficking and child sex ring. One of the establishments allegedly involved was the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C.
; likewise, the second paragraph of the Genesis section says thatProponents of the conspiracy theory read the emails and alleged they contained code words for pedophilia and human trafficking. Proponents also claimed that Comet Ping Pong, a pizzeria in Washington, D.C., was a meeting ground for Satanic ritual abuse.
These are the key points according to the main sources that have covered it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC) - I think the IP has a point in that the narrative of the conspiracy theory isn't summarized in the lede. I'm not suggesting we should repeat its claims in any detail, but a simple sentence would do it. E.g.:
- "Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle.[1][2][3] It described a non-existent basement under a pizza restaurant in which Democrats supposedly engaged in ritualistic child sacrifices. It has been extensively discredited by a wide range of organizations, including the Washington, D.C. police.[4][5][6]
- That would seem to be the best possible lede, not too different from the way we treat other forms of fiction: We define it, then we very briefly describe it, then we give information to contextualize it.Happy (Slap me) 18:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- All unassessed articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- GA-Class Alternative views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- GA-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- GA-Class Turkey articles
- Low-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- GA-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- GA-Class District of Columbia articles
- Low-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- GA-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report