Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Zepelin (talk | contribs) at 07:11, 29 July 2023 (→‎Requested move 22 July 2023). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articlePizzagate 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2016Miscellany for deletionKept
August 24, 2018Good article nomineeListed
December 26, 2019Peer reviewNot reviewed
May 17, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

"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)[reply]

@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.”
source
 
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.
Snarevox (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 22 July 2023

Pizzagate conspiracy theory → Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) – For consistency with Spygate (conspiracy theory). GnocchiFan (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the FAQ rationale. Our general article titling policies favor moving the article to simply
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)[reply
]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose move. No need for the parentheses, per
    WP:RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose - Is there some other Pizzagate that is not a conspiracy theory? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose what's the other pizzagate?—blindlynx 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    It would involve overturning a consensus strong enough that it was put into the FAQ. If there was a very clear change of consensus in favour of that change then I guess it could be done without an RfC but that's very clearly not the case. DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean...I was there. I helped bring this article to GA. My opinion on the naming hasn't changed. GMGtalk 17:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We can't and should not do anything that might even give a slight impression this is a valid theory. This is (after all a BLP about criminal allegations). Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Just because all of us here are smart enough to know that anything other than Watergate being styled *gate is nearly always a heap of conspiratorial nonsense doesn't mean that we should assume that all our readers share the background knowledge required to realise this without being told. Not all our readers are adults. Not all our readers have English as a first language, and even those who do might not have familiarity with this peculiar Anglosphere idiom of affixing "gate" to random things (and not-even-things) to imply scandal. Even those who are, might struggle to recognise when it is being done sarcastically and when not. We need to make this clear for readers of all levels of prior knowledge, even if many of them do already know it. DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven I respect your opinion, but don't understand how the addition of parentheses gives this the impression of a valid theory. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it implies there is another that is not. In the sense that if this is about the conspiracy theory there must be one that is just about Pizzagate. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because
    WP:NATDIS is preferred. cookie monster 755 16:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per all of the above "oppose" arguments. I would repeat the same points, which are all valid. Fred Zepelin (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1167685440"