Talk:Pizzagate

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Some issues

I think this article is a good start. A few of criticisms:

  1. The references should be formatted more correctly. I have shown how with one.
  2. Phrases like "does little to debunk the claims other than cite Kang's article from The New York Times" should probably be changed. At this level, we care about facts and not context. Whether it debunks or not is not important, but the fact of its denials and the arguments used. Context can be argued about by other levels of the eventual Infogalactic multi-level system.
  3. Perhaps a Criticism section would be useful, although there seems to have been little critical except the one NYT article.

-- Crew (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive of r/The_Donald Pizzagate

Not wanting to mess up the article I thought I'd drop this note and link here and if someone thinks it useful they can add it to the main article.

http://archive.is/TJJxv

Archive of r/The_Donald post connecting pedophile (James Alefantis) to the Clinton's, Obama, Soros, Abramovic, & Podestas.

Changes

Objective facts are the basis of Infogalactic. The infobox is filled with speculative, libelous statements. It openly declares Comet Ping Pong the "main hub" of "human trafficking, institutional child abuse." It vaguely accuses "high-ranking politicians." Most ridiculous of all is that it claims casualties as "hundreds/thousands of innocent children" and that a trial is "planned." That is why I'm deleting the infobox. Keep this article real. —0 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Keep it real. -- Crew (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing Monica Petersen stuff; the story was false. Removing Cecilia Kang BNP Paribas note; the Cecilia Kang at BNP Paribas is not the same person as the NYT journalist. —0 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding, the page is about the investigation; it is not the investigation itself. To the extent that the death of Monica Petersen was investigated in connection to this case, it should remain on the page. If the allegation was proven to be false, don't delete it; add to it. Refutation is also information. Wisdomtooth (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
On balance I tend to agree with the removal of the Monica Petersen stuff because it is a distraction and we don't need to write up all the details of the 'investigation.' -- Crew (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A distraction?? A distraction from what? Again, you confuse the portrayal of the investigation with the investigation itself. If the lead was closed, it's as simple as "Monica Petersen's death was initially linked to the case because (citations) but was later found to be unconnected (more citations)". THAT is what actually happened; the investigation happened. And it's not even closed yet! [1] Wisdomtooth (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I will put her back in. —0 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Good one, thanks. Wisdomtooth (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the term 'child trafficking' should be strengthened to 'child sexual abuse' in the intro. -- Crew (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed —0 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Infographic meme

An encyclopedia isn't the appropriate place to spread a meme full of obvious bias and speculation. Write factual statements with sources. —0 (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

0, you seem not to understand: pizzagate is the investigation. The speculation is the fact. Whether the allegations are true or not is immaterial; what is material is the allegation. Its refutation, if they are disproven, is also part of the story. It's not something to erase; it's something to record: this was alleged, that was shown to disprove the allegations. Wisdomtooth (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's what I mean. Saying, "Ice cream is their codeword for male prostitute!" is biased and not factual. No one can say for sure that it is true. A more objective way to write it is, "An investigator speculated that ice cream could be a codeword for male prostitute." (This sentence is true.) The end section of the meme is particularly bad at openly declaring as fact that the elites are definitely raping and sacrificing children. Phrasing like that is simply libel. The article needs to continue to present everything in an objective way. (True sentences.) I am happy to add all of the relevant information about Pizzagate to the article. I acknowledge that the article is incomplete and there is more information to write into it. I am planning to continue to do so, but it takes time to do it properly. 0 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The image is obviously not content produced by Infogalactic; it's an illustration of the subject matter. It's like putting an antisemitic poster on a page about nazism. Putting it on the page says "look, this is what these people are said", not "look, this is what we are saying". This should be obvious, since an encyclopedia can't say "x is y", it should only say "authors A, B and C say x is y", but perhaps a caption can make that clearer. Wisdomtooth (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
An example of an anti-Semitic poster makes sense on page that discusses anti-Semitism. It conveys encyclopedic information in a way that words cannot. Whereas this Pizzagate infographic essentially shouts PIZZAGATE IS TRUE all the way down the right side of the entire article. Most of the image is text. The only reason someone would put this image in the article would be to bias the reader. But some of the artwork and photos within the image, on their own, would be suitable to place near the appropriate paragraphs of the article. —0 (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The Corbett Report

From the James Corbett (journalist) article:

Without corporate agendas or censorship while supported by donations, subscriptions, a growing community, and open source journalism, James Corbett promises to comprehensively report anti-stateism, Truther awareness, and anti-dogma concepts and contexts that mainstream media can't or won't.[1]

Of note is the video citation titled, "BREAKING - Reddit Bans #Pizzagate Investigation. The Corbett Report Continues It." Eventually when James Corbett addresses this subject with a documentary, you know he'll do a kick ass job. This is not a bad prequel about how elites use pedophilia as a power/manipulation/control thing: "Meet The Kakistocracy – Tjeerd Andringa on The Corbett Report".

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Seth Rich demands inclusion and addressing

Without getting into details and citations, a fundamental premise missing here but widely known is that if Seth Rich for whatever reasons was the leaker to WikiLeaks and subsequently may have been murdered or witness-protected for whatever reasons - if all of this is true - then the Russians did not hack anyone's email and this accusation still lacks any proof as of this June 17 2017 posting. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. "BREAKING - Reddit Bans #Pizzagate Investigation. The Corbett Report Continues It". Philosophers Stone. Philosophers Stone. 24 November 2016. Retrieved 1 December 2016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>