Talk:Manufactroversy

Russian DNC hack
The manufactroversy is the assumption that Russia hacked the DNC; the PBS article disputes that such an assertion is known. Any claim that they did ought to be proven by thise asserting it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that there is little direct evidence, at least publicly available, of Russia's involvement. And the fact that several US intelligence agencies are in consensus behind the idea isn't too convincing either, given said agencies' track records for honesty with the public. In including this bullet point in the article, however, our specific claim is that it is a manufactroversy. As the burden of proof lies with the proponent of the claim, it's on us to provide evidence of that. It's fallacious reasoning to argue that a lack of proof of Russia's involvement constitutes evidence for the ordeal being a manufactroversy. Until someone presents any such evidence in a compelling way, it's best to leave it out of the article. B) talk 05:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, only intelligence agencies believe that the attacks appear to be something Russia would do. Regardless, I think it is fair to call this out as BS since those pushing it don't have any physical evidence.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's fair to say that Russia's involvement is questionable and could be BS. That's not at all the same as claiming it's a manufactroversy. Would you argue that it's clear what actually happened? If you wouldn't, we agree that there is controversy. To claim manufactroversy is 1) as yet unsupported by evidence and 2) in contradiction with our stated definition of the term ("pretending that a controversy exists over something which is, in fact, not in debate by anyone who has the slightest grasp of the facts"). Those who do have more than a tenuous grasp of the facts are likely those same people who decided Russia would be the official story, whether that is true or not. B) talk 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I feel that it is likely a manufactroversy because there is no evidence of Russia's involvement; the manufactrovesy currently listed all started the same way with propenents saying something was absolutely clear but having to evidence to back it up. I can't tell you that I know what happened, though, so I will relent for now.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Head Quote(?)
Edmund Blackadder: “I thought it was common maritime practise to have a crew.” Capt Rum: “Well, opinion on the matter is divided m’Lord. All the other captains say it is… I say it isn’t.” – Blackadder, Series 2

Gamergate Is not a manufactoroversy

 * How is Gamergate a manufactrovery? Apparently a few sexist trolls equals a conspiracy. Once again there's nothing wrong with ethics in journalism yet you mock said idea. Really rationalTheDarkMaster2 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
 * Be silent. GG had its chance to prove itself, but its actions soiled its claims. You don't get to play innocent anymore. 00:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Monstanto
Got bought out back in 2018. All truthers still complaining about it are morons. 00:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers to that! Twodots (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that Monstanto was bought out, but what about Monsanto? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk
 * Ok, that joke was fair. 13:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

manufactroversy vs fake outrage campaign
Do we consider fake outrage campaigns (such as DropTheB) to be manufactroversies? Kauri0.o (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)