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: 90 days |
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. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
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. |
"spear-phishing" typo to be corrected please
Could whoever has edit rights to this article please fix this obvious typing error. In the 1st sentence in the 2nd par of the article it reads :
"In March 2016, the personal email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, was hacked in a spear-phishing attack. WikiLeaks published his emails in November 2016. "
The words spear-phishing should obviously read phishing
Note that the hyperlink is correct.
It may be possible to determine who inserted this typing error, which seems to me to be an act of malicious vandalism by people who should be banned from Wiki Pierre Hugot (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Pierre Hugot: this is wikipedia, we all have edit rights. i dont know if you are just unfamiliar with the terminology and thought it was racist or what, but spear phishing is a very real method of social engineering, and it differs from regular phishing in that:
“Spear phishing is a specific and targeted attack on one or a select number of victims, while regular phishing attempts to scam masses of people. In spear phishing, scammers often use social engineering and spoofed emails to target specific individuals in an organization.”
-
- which, is exactly what is being described in the paragraph you had erroneously edited. again, spear phishing is merely a targeted form of phishing. it has nothing to do with racism here.
- to be completely fair, what happened to podesta could also be considered whaling, which is simply the use of spear phishing techniques to target senior executives and other high-profile individuals. however, since whaling is nothing more than spear phishing with loftier goals, i think reverting back to “spear phishing” will be sufficient, and it should avoid the need to link to or provide the definition of, a completely new term, such as “whaling”... if you still have a problem with spear phishing as some sort of racial trigger, feel free to mention it here and we can discuss possibly opting for “whaling” instead. if you do reply, please ping me or whatever so i get a notification next time i log in.
-
- thank you for your patience and understanding.
Discussion at Sound of Freedom (film) regarding inclusion of connections to QAnon
There is a discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) which may interest the regular readers of this talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 22 July 2023
It has been proposed in this section that Pizzagate conspiracy theory be renamed and moved to Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Pizzagate conspiracy theory → Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) – For consistency with Spygate (conspiracy theory). GnocchiFan (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning oppose. The brackets on Spygate (conspiracy theory) are only there because they serve to disambiguate between that and some other things also called "Spygate". Spygate itself is a disambiguation page for them. That is not the case here. Pizzagate is not a disambiguation. It just redirects to here. So I don't think the same logic automatically applies here. One question is what the topic is most properly called? Is it a conspiracy theory called "Pizzagate"? In that case I think that either name, with or without the brackets would be OK. Is it called the "Pizzagate conspiracy theory"? In that case it would be wrong to add the brackets. Either way, I'm not seeing any compelling need to change the name to add brackets and I think it would be best to just leave it as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Move to Pizzagate per WP:CONCISE. No disambiguation in the title is required here, whether WP:NATURAL or parenthetical. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguation is not the reason why we have "conspiracy theory" in the title. As Q5 of the FAQ says,
"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."
So, I think the question of whether we need the brackets is on the table but the question of whether we need "conspiracy theory" is asked, answered and enshrined in the FAQ as a settled yes. (BTW, sorry if I inadvertently suggested this idea to you with my poorly worded !vote above. I have revised it now to be clearer.) DanielRigal (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguation is not the reason why we have "conspiracy theory" in the title. As Q5 of the FAQ says,
- I don't agree with the FAQ rationale. Our general article titling policies favor moving the article to simply Pizzagate. However, if the choice is between the current title or the proposed title, then I oppose the move as WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, especially in this case where the parenthetical disambiguator wouldn't even really be a disambiguator but as some kind of weird conspiracy theory title warning.Rreagan007 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep current title as is. All those words are needed, but a parentheses is not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose move. No need for the parentheses, per Moon landing conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and more. As DanielRigal points out, we typically only use parentheses in a name when there's ambiguity between two articles with the same name, but different topics. Regarding the argument about removing "conspiracy theory" altogether, that would require its own WP:RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - Is there some other Pizzagate that is not a conspiracy theory? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- oppose what's the other pizzagate?—blindlynx 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Support the suggestion by @Rreagan007: to move to simply Pizzagate. There isn't some other Pizzagate that isn't a conspiracy theory that we need to differentiate from. And incidentally, no, moving an article doesn't require an RfC, or even an RM. Local consensus is fine. GMGtalk 14:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- 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
- Requested moves