80:
figures' and 'various conspiracy theorists'. This statement has 3 citations associated with it, but the statement does not represent their contents accurately. If we really want to keep this statement, we ought to exhaustively cite every conspiracy theory about sandy hook, all of which must provide no supporting evidence. As it stands now, none of the citations contain an exhaustive proof that there exist no sandy hook conspiracies which provide any evidence. At best, they demonstrate that there exists at least one or more sandy hook conspiracies that do not present any evidence (or misinterpret evidence).
373:
always be true, regardless of whether or not "we do not list any that have not been ". Since your statement is a truism, and completely trivial, its still not clear to me what my listing one or more non-debunked conspiracy theories has to do with the discussion as to whether or not the statement in question ought to stay in the lead. Though I definitely agree that if they have all been debunked then it is valid to say in the lead that 'all have been debunked', this seems too obvious to mention and irrelevant.
175:
thats your view. In order for the statement to remain in the article, it should be cited with a reliable source that proves exhaustively that there exists no conspiracy theory that presents a single piece of supporting evidence, meaning the citation's specific conclusion would then be well-represented by the current statement. If such a citation were provided, the statement should stay in the article with its current citations replaced by the new citation.
31:
130:
occurred at Sandy Hook". The problem is that this statement is misrepresenting its citations, which only analyse a few examples of these theories and their lack of evidence, or questionable evidence. Just because there is one or more instance of the theories in question which lack evidence (or present questionable evidence), does not mean that all theories which "doubt or dispute what occurred at Sandy Hook" also provide no evidence.
437:
sometimes it's not. When a crime is investigated, especially one that has more than one role player, investigators will also establish conspiracy theories, which they then corroborate or refute with evidence. One may also doubt an official narrative of an event (Which may actually be a conspiracy theory itself) based on evidences or the lack thereof. But that hasn't to be a conspiracy theory in itself. --
461:
548:. I didn't look very specifically at the reorganization in the "Fetzer" bit--though that opening sentence, "A book...", isn't particularly well-written. It's the Alex Jones stuff that I don't agree with. You removed the "completely fake" quote, though that seems pretty well verified, and the "typically described as" is really a dangling modifier: who described it as that?
268:
citations would be, "The Daily Beast, the
Atlantic, and the Washington Post have published articles showing that some of the theories have no supporting evidence, or come from questionable evidence." This statement could be further specified by explicitly listing each theory that is analyzed in the three articles which are used as references for the statement.
510:
310:
the conspiracy theories have any supporting evidence" or, "all of the conspiracies have no evidence", is not a valid logical conclusion from the content of the three citations. No one has disputed this. Since you are no longer interested in discussing the matter, I assume you have no further objections to the statement's removal.
340:
I don't see how that is relevant. The discussion isn't even about a statement that uses the word 'debunked', so I really have no idea why you are asking this of me. I also don't see how a discussion over any given conspiracy theory and whether or not it has been 'debunked' is easier than explaining
309:
On the other hand, the current statement as-is undermines the substance of what the reliable sources in the statement's citations have to say, for the reason I have made clear in my previous posts. That reason is that the conclusion, "no evidence supports any of the conspiracy theories" or, "none of
271:
That is beside the point, though, because another user can add a correct and sufficiently specific statement later on if they want to. The point right now is that the statement, "No evidence supports these conspiracy theories, which make a number of implausible claims." is a misrepresentation of its
393:
Except I did not say that, I said that the lead summarizes the article. And no my statement will not always be true, inclusion of a non debunked theory would render the sentence in the lead null and void. And no we do not say in the lead only that which is true, we say in the lead only that which is
182:
Its not clear why you think removing an incorrect statement from this article "gives credence to arrant and often malicious nonsense...". This is likely another logical error. If the article no longer said that there exists no conspiracy theories with any evidence, that would not imply that there
372:
Since if we agree that it is valid to say something in the lead if and only if it is true (I hope we do!), the proposition "saying in the lead 'all have been debunked' is valid " is equivalent to the first proposition in the antecedent, "they have all been debunked ". Therefore your statement will
267:
I only plan to remove the original statement, since it is incorrect, and I only provided that example statement which you are criticizing to demonstrate to others what would be a logically correct statement. Another statement which is more specific and also correctly represents the contents of the
86:
The statement should be removed since there is nothing cited which supports exhaustive and large scale claim that it makes. I will do this if no one objects. If someone cares to, they can change the language of the statement to reflect the citations, perhaps something like, "some have pointed out
174:
It seems that you do not dispute that the statement does not logically follow from the contents of its sources, and therefore misrepresents them. Calling that hair splitting doesn't change that fact. However, you seem to feel strongly that the statement should still be included, which is fine if
583:
cite that supports the "completely faked" quote ("Jones, the founder of hard-right wing news site InfoWars.com, was widely rebuked for calling the Sandy Hook massacre 'completely fake' and 'manufactured' last year." The grammar in the new edit makes it a little hard for me to tell what WillieP is
357:
Because if they have all been debunked and we do not list any that have not been then saying in the lead "all have been debunked" is valid and does not even need sourcing in truth. In fact material in leads should not be sourced as it is only a summery of the article, and thus any material there
129:
I think you misunderstood me, because you didn't address my reason why the statement should be removed. The statement in question reads, "No evidence supports these conspiracy theories, which make a number of implausible claims." It refers to all "conspiracy theories that doubt or dispute what
376:
Furthermore I would like to reiterate that the statement in question, which should be deleted for the reasons I have stated, does not ever use the word 'debunk' and does not really resemble the statement you are using ("all have been debunked"). This is another reason why I struggle to see the
186:
So far, no one objects to the fact that the current statement is not a correct logical conclusion from its sources, and therefore misrepresents them. The main concern seems to be that removing the statement will mean the article will 'give credence to arrant and malicious nonsense' or 'advance
305:
The additional details in the more specific example statement do not imply that there is legitimacy to any theories. The only implication of the statement is its specific, intended meaning, which is clear: certain media outlets have written articles pointing out the lack of evidence or flawed
290:
that there is any legitimacy to these theories is an obvious attempt to undermine the substance of what reliable sources say about them. This pedantry only serves to advance an abhorrent conspiracy theory which has no place on
Knowledge, and is not worth wasting any additional time discussing.
79:
There is an issue with the statement "No evidence supports these conspiracy theories, which make a number of implausible claims." in the article summary. By 'these conspiracies' the statement refers to 'conspiracy theories that doubt or dispute what occurred at Sandy Hook' promoted by 'fringe
436:
There is a little difference (or more than one) between a "conspiracy theory" and doubting the veracity of an official narrative. A conspiracy theory would be naming perpetrators and a plot that has been followed for a conspiracy that has been occurred. That might be thin on its evidence, but
102:
No evidence supports the conspiracy theories. Demands for proof of a negative are a stock conspiracy enthusiast tactic under the guise of following sourcing. The conspiracy theories are scurrilous nonsense and are condemned by everyone outside of InfoWars. You're proposing to water that down?
178:
As it stands right now, each individual article only reaches the conclusion that "one or more conspiracy theories does not have any supporting evidence, or has evidence that is disputable". The current statement is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not
151:
Rhetorical and logical hair-splitting don't change the fact that the conspiracy theories have no basis in reality. Knowledge is not in the business of giving credence to arrant and often malicious nonsense concerning the amply documented murder of children, either explicitly or by omission.
133:
Consider the statement "No cats have black fur." Imagine this statement on the wikipedia article for cats, followed by several citations: articles from different sites which point out cats that are gray, brown, and white. That is the same logical error currently on this
588:
conspiracy theories, or Jones's particular brand. If nothing else, the grammar needs to be fixed, although I think reverting these edits would probably get us back to a reasonable state at least until Willie can describe what new information they're trying to convey.
341:
why the statement is actually logically valid and should stay, finding a suitable source for the statement so that it may stay, or removing the statement because it is a logically invalid conclusion and misrepresentation of its citations.
59:
306:
evidence with several of the conspiracy theories. The fact that there are some theories with no evidence does not imply that there are then necessarily theories with evidence -- that would be another logical error.
47:
17:
137:
So its not a matter of 'watering down' the statement, its a matter of correcting a logical error, by removing the statement (or changing its language so that is correct, if someone else cares to).
249:
claims through this kind of vague and evasive language. No reliably sources give any credence to any of these conspiracy theories, and therefore neither should
Knowledge, not even indirectly.
471:
201:
Nobody thinks your premise is valid, and nobody thinks you're doing anything but trying to promote conspiracy theories through obfuscation. You have no consensus to do anything at all.
571:
source because of the paywall/free articles limit, I find it's still usually possible to view the archived versions of articles. I just formatted the ref from a bare URL, and ran
604:
Restored the completely fake wording and edited sentence in question. Completely fake was only removed to not suggest that Jones was the only adopter of the didn't-happen theory.
552:, I can't see the NYT quote (and those references seem kind of haphazard--a bare URL and a non-templated citation). Does it provide any warranty for this "described as" stuff?
187:
conspiracy theories'. However, since I have demonstrated to both of you that that is obviously not true, hopefully there are no further objections to the statement's removal.
576:
183:
are conspiracy theories with evidence. The only thing that implies that there is a conspiracy theory with evidence, would be a conspiracy theory with evidence.
83:
The
Atlantic article even directly contradicts the statement, pointing out a couple pieces of evidence that have spurred on conspiracy theories (mistakenly).
272:
three citations and does not logically follow from their contents and therefore should be removed. I will remove it if there are no objections.
613:
598:
561:
530:
501:
446:
403:
386:
367:
350:
335:
319:
300:
281:
258:
218:
196:
169:
146:
120:
96:
518:
378:
342:
311:
273:
188:
138:
88:
438:
497:
38:
594:
493:
467:
382:
346:
326:
OK let make this easy, list one of the conspiracy theories which our article does not say has been debunked.
315:
277:
192:
179:
explicitly stated by any of the sources. Even worse, the conclusion is an obvious and simple logical error.
142:
92:
442:
399:
363:
331:
521:. That article is already linked in the first line of this article so no reason to repeat the link. --
609:
210:
161:
112:
590:
549:
296:
254:
517:, Adam Lanza doesn't have a article. It is just a redirect to a paragraph in the shooting page:
395:
359:
327:
557:
246:
242:
605:
541:
526:
204:
155:
106:
87:
that some of the conspiracy theories do not have evidence, or misinterpret evidence."
292:
250:
492:
I would change Adam Lanza in the first paragraph to a link to the Adam Lanza page.
553:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
572:
522:
455:
25:
18:
Talk:Sandy Hook
Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories
245:
wording, among other problems. Articles should not validate
472:
Sandy Hook
Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories
545:
75:
Statement in article summary misrepresents citations
584:trying to say -- I'm not sure if he's describing
519:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Perpetrator
579:work for you? Regardless, it appears it is the
8:
452:Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020
241:of the conspiracy theories..." This is
358:should already be sourced in the body.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
286:No. Providing additionial details to
7:
567:If you're having trouble viewing a
24:
377:relevance of what you are saying.
508:
459:
29:
1:
546:parts of this series of edits
447:22:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
486:to reactivate your request.
474:has been answered. Set the
404:16:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
387:16:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
368:16:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
351:16:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
336:15:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
320:15:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
301:03:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
282:02:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
259:22:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
219:16:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
197:15:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
170:03:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
147:02:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
121:22:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
97:22:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
633:
531:21:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
502:20:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
614:17:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
599:17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
562:17:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
544:, I have doubts about
237:have pointed out that
42:of past discussions.
432:A little difference
577:this archived copy
575:on this pageādoes
494:Emperor Cranberry
490:
489:
215:
166:
117:
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
624:
516:
512:
511:
481:
477:
463:
462:
456:
216:
213:
209:
207:
167:
164:
160:
158:
118:
115:
111:
109:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
632:
631:
627:
626:
625:
623:
622:
621:
539:
509:
507:
479:
475:
460:
454:
434:
394:in the article.
211:
205:
203:
162:
156:
154:
113:
107:
105:
77:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
630:
628:
620:
619:
618:
617:
591:GorillaWarfare
569:New York Times
550:GorillaWarfare
538:
535:
534:
533:
488:
487:
464:
453:
450:
433:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
374:
307:
269:
262:
261:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
184:
180:
176:
135:
131:
124:
123:
76:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
629:
616:
615:
611:
607:
602:
601:
600:
596:
592:
587:
582:
581:NY Daily News
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
515:
506:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
485:
482:parameter to
473:
469:
465:
458:
457:
451:
449:
448:
444:
440:
431:
405:
401:
397:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
384:
380:
379:74.79.240.188
375:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
343:74.79.240.188
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
312:74.79.240.188
308:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
289:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
274:74.79.240.188
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:
220:
217:
214:
208:
200:
199:
198:
194:
190:
189:74.79.240.188
185:
181:
177:
173:
172:
171:
168:
165:
159:
150:
149:
148:
144:
140:
139:74.79.240.188
136:
132:
128:
127:
126:
125:
122:
119:
116:
110:
101:
100:
99:
98:
94:
90:
89:74.79.240.188
84:
81:
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
603:
585:
580:
568:
540:
537:Recent edits
513:
491:
483:
468:edit request
435:
396:Slatersteven
360:Slatersteven
328:Slatersteven
287:
238:
234:
202:
153:
104:
85:
82:
78:
65:
43:
37:
593:(she/herĀ ā¢
36:This is an
606:WillieP100
542:WillieP100
476:|answered=
439:105.8.2.99
206:Acroterion
157:Acroterion
108:Acroterion
247:WP:FRINGE
243:WP:WEASEL
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
514:Not done
293:Grayfell
251:Grayfell
39:archive
554:Drmies
212:(talk)
163:(talk)
114:(talk)
573:IABot
523:McSly
480:|ans=
466:This
288:imply
134:page.
16:<
610:talk
595:talk
586:most
558:talk
527:talk
498:talk
443:talk
400:talk
383:talk
364:talk
347:talk
332:talk
316:talk
297:talk
278:talk
255:talk
239:some
235:Some
193:talk
143:talk
93:talk
478:or
470:to
612:)
597:)
560:)
529:)
500:)
484:no
445:)
402:)
385:)
366:)
349:)
334:)
318:)
299:)
280:)
257:)
195:)
145:)
95:)
608:(
556:(
525:(
496:(
441:(
398:(
381:(
362:(
345:(
330:(
314:(
295:(
276:(
253:(
233:"
191:(
141:(
91:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.