Jump to content

Talk:Infowars: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 464: Line 464:
* https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-yanks-alex-jones-and-infowars-from-podcast-directory-2018-08-06?mod=newsviewer_click
* https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-yanks-alex-jones-and-infowars-from-podcast-directory-2018-08-06?mod=newsviewer_click
* https://www.voanews.com/a/facebook-apple-drop-alt-right-conspiracy-outlet-infowars/4515704.html
* https://www.voanews.com/a/facebook-apple-drop-alt-right-conspiracy-outlet-infowars/4515704.html
* https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-removes-infowars-from-podcast-directory-1533538681


[[Special:Contributions/138.75.33.12|138.75.33.12]] ([[User talk:138.75.33.12|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[Special:Contributions/138.75.33.12|138.75.33.12]] ([[User talk:138.75.33.12|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 10:59, 7 August 2018

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect to Alex Jones (radio).

Merge?

there's not much here. it needs to be expanded or merged with the InfoWars.com page. it'd probably be better for that page to merge into this one. and have a section on the website and the television show. Caesarscott 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was merged in 2006. Now in 2017 it's clear the a separate article for InfoWars is warranted. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just moved a lot of content about InfoWars from the Alex Jones article to this one. I think InfoWars is relevant enough to have its own article, considering how influential it is. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stylization of the title

It has been agreed upon by consensus here that "InfoWars" be styled as "Infowars". I will move this page. Every875 Talk to me 15:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I was unable to move this page since "Infowars" and "Infowars.com" already redirect to Alex Jones (radio host). This article should redirect to that page, but for some reason this is not happening. Every875 Talk to me 15:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have never tried it yet, but in theory page movers should be able to overwrite a redirect. However, I unfortunately don't have the impression of a clear consensus when reading that discussion... —PaleoNeonate – 12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

we have an article on Jones, is there a reason we need this? Why was it undone?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC) If there is no response within 24 hours I will revert it back to a redirect.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support your decision to revert the article back to a redirect. Every875 Talk to me 19:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for an article on the show is because it is independently notably of the person. And involves other personalities. Very substantially covered in reliable independent sources. This article is about InfoWars, the other article is about Alex Jones. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FloridaArmy -- Infowars is inherently notable on its own right and should have a separate article. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

The lead is form a summery of the article, if it is not in the body it has no place in the lead. Unless some expansion is done biographically I will start to remove that list of names.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it wouldn't be appropriate. Feel feel to create an article section for it if you want. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be as the lead is about summarizing the article not about emphasizing points.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove anything in the lead that is not talked about in the text starting now. Expands the body please people.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please start putting stuff in the body before we put it in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:LEAD

If we are going to have this article at least make an effort to write it properly. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If content doesn't belong in the lead please move it tp the appropriate section. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should people not obey what our article structure is? Why should I have to do what you lot should be doing, I would be happy to have this article deleted. If the article cannot be written (by those who wish to keep it) in a manner that Wikipedia thinks is encyclopedic it is not down to anyone else to do it for you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said 2 days ago that the lead is a summery of the body, and I was ignored, I repeated this 2 days ago, and was ignored. Material continued to be added to the lead that was not in the body. I have tried to make this article MOS compliant, and have been given no help. Instead I have had to continue to use my time to remove incorrectly placed material, I do have better things to do with my time (after having asked people not to do it, four times). It is not my job to write this article for you, but to tell you how to write it correctly, if I am going to be ignored then I am not going to do any more then the barest minimum to make this article complaint with our instructions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I am autoconfirmed, I will expand the page according to what you have said regarding MOS. Many thanks for getting this article up to a decent standard. KU2018 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative journalism organization

Would it be an idea to add the category Alternative journalism organizations to the article? Or else Alternative media? Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an alternativeto journalism, not alternative journalism as such. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's 100% a good idea, dare I say vital. Like it or not, InfoWars is one of the biggest and most influential alternative news outlets there are. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I don't think its reliability or whether it's reputable has anything to do with whether it is an "alternative journalism organization." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "alternative news", it's bullshit. I know that in the current world of false balance "alternative facts" are treated as something other than lies, but this is Wikipedia and we do not need to do that. What InfoWars publishes is not news, it is opinion; it is not based on journalism or investigation, it is very often based on paranoid fantasy. It was a clown show before Trump took office, and it remains a clown show today. The claim that Sandy hook was a false flag operation is not alternative news, it is paranoid bullshit. The idea that the government is using chemicals in airliner exhaust to control the weather and/or people's minds, ditto. You can make a case for Breitbart being alternative news, but not Infowars. Even Jones states in court that he is play-acting. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wether or not you agree with the perspective of InfoWars or its journalistic standards, it meets every credential for being part of alternative journalism. Something with 2.2 million YouTube subscribers, 10 million monthly unique website visits and even White House press credentials is qualified purely by it's influence. You're complaining about its reliability, but what you are saying doesn't exclude it from the alternative media. Kind Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WH press credentials actually are a very strong reason to call Infowars an alternative journalistic site -- and before someone says "well, it's Trump", White House press credentials are given on a non-partisan basis (I think a non-partisan committee decides these things). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "alternative journalism/news", like "alternative facts", is a euphemism for "BS"? Infowars is a very dramatic alternative to sources like the NYT, WSJ, etc. I don't think its lack of reputability means we must effectively have an outright ban the word "journalism" or "news" on this article. Let the facts speak for themselves. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Otherwise, the Daily Mail would be considered a propaganda outlet designed to undermine journalism and blur the line between fact and fiction. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets lay of the soapboxing shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi, can an uninvolved administrator/regular editor please close the discussion regarding the proposed merging between Alex Jones and InfoWars? The discussion has been going for two weeks with very few recent responses. Opinions seem to be split down the middle so I would strongly advocate a non admin closure. I can't reasonably do it myself as I have participated in the discussion when I was an IP editor at 141.241.26.20 a few days ago. KU2018 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there are two discussions about merging the article, both of which have gotten comments in the past few days. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just closed one of them. I was involved in the other. Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will edit this page once I can to try and improve it. The page has got of to a good start - is verifiable and demonstrates notability. KU2018 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/376613-alex-jones-says-youtube-will-delete-infowars-channel


Update Youtube might remove Alex Jones Infowars channel due to violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

We had two mutually contradictory categories: Category:American news websites and Category:Alternative journalism organizations. I have searched for reliable independent sources that call InfoWars either of these things, but am struggling to find any. I cannot, for example, find any good references for Infowars as a "news website" which do not preface this with "fake". In fact, Wikipedia seems to be the leading source for Infowars as either a news website or an alternative journalism organisation. These categories should not be added unless there are reliable independent sources that characterise InfoWars as either. And we don't count "fake news" as "news", obviously. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infowars hires journalists and correspondents, and it is without a doubt an alternative news source. Simply because there is fake news on Infowars does not mean we can't label it as "(alternative) news" and "alternative journalism." Anyone who reads the article would instantly find out about Infowar's accuracy. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if no source labels it as alternative news then we have no reason to add that label. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s some sources - http://antimedianews.com/2017/01/11/infowars-is-anti-semitic-but-pro-israel-alex-jones-goes-anti-palestine-under-trump-counter-current-news/amp/ and https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/04/26/look-incestous-alternative-media-echo-chamber-winning-over-online-audiences/216158 Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first clearly fails WP:RS. The second, don't know, it's highly opinionated. Not that it matters as it does not call InfoWars either alternative news or alternative journalism. Guy (Help!) 01:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice bit of WP:OR there. {{citation needed}}. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I can see no valid reason not to have both categories. They are not mutually contradictory.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the lack of any WP:RS that applies them, thus making it a violation of foundational policy, neither can I. Guy (Help!) 01:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to include Infowars in a category as a news aggregator website than a news website? Does the site do news reports? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they maybe Jones ranting, but they are still reports.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. This is Wikipedia, remember? Guy (Help!) 01:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Infowars entry was categorized as an American news website until current agendas surfaced. Now biased phrasing, calling Infowars "fake news", is acceptable. Any removal of said biased language, to restore neutrality, is removed in favor of upholding clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeph1 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was classified as an unreliable cesspool of conspiracy theorism with no understanding of fact checking, until the phrase "fake news" became more popular. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Classified as" based on individual bias and agendas motivated by the current 'social' atmosphere. To deny that motivation doesn't change reality. Otherwise, no one would have felt the need to reclassify Infowars as fake news in the first place. People could at least be honest. Zeph1 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reclassification, it's has never been accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. The only thing that changed is that more people became aware of it, and they immediately got that it's nothing but tinfoil haberdashery. If you have a problem with that, you need to find a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about if Infowars has ever been seen as a reliable source or not. It is not a linked 'source' in this context. This is a full article about Infowars. Despite the attempts at making an excuse for bias, it doesn't make reducing neutrality of this article acceptable. Furthermore, nothing says openness like telling people to leave a site over simply just trying to highlight neutrality versus bias. At least you've indirectly admitted that there there is a bias here within the Infowars entry. Zeph1 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand what neutrality is. When pretty much any non-conspiracy theorist source refers to InfoWars as fake news, it's perfectly neutral to state that that's the assessment. It's not neutral to try and hide that just because it might sit on one's side of the political spectrum. Neutrality does not mean creating artificial balance between truth and falsehood, nor does it mean disguising obvious facts as political opinions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So 'neutrality' has a shifting definition then? One that's fully determined by the tone and wording of biased (predominately left-leaning) sources? Got it.Zeph1 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality means that we balance competing views in relation to the prominence those views hold among mainstream reliable sources. That is Wikipedia policy. It is the foundation and framework for what we do here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't you label other news organizations as fake as well, since they also publish fake news, such as the Russian Collusion story?Rfulvio (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New source

I have found a new reliable source which can be used to expand the 'history' section of InfoWars, especially in relation to Alex Jones. The page can also be used for Jones's personal page. I will use the source for editing over the next couple of days.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/talk-radios-alex-jones-the-most-paranoid-man-in-america-20110302?page=4

KU2018 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a smear piece that is based upon someone's opinion. It's not something that should be added to the "history." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.72.21 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Para sourced to Breitbart and RT

It need hardly be pointed out that sources like Breitbart and RT cannot be used to establish the factual accuracy or significance of any content relating to a subject like InfoWars. Anyone who wants to include Jones' invasion ot TYT can do so as soon as they find reliable independent secondary sources that describe it and put it in context. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart, fine, remove it, even though it can generally be trusted. As for RT, that’s a major and quite credible outlet, and the referenced article from it isn’t even favourable to Jones. In fact, the first sentence refers to him as a “right-wing conspiracy theorist.” Even if a source is opinionated or biased, WP:IRS says that doesn’t disqualify their use and even says they may be the best sources in some cases. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. It's a Russian state propaganda outlet. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it definitely is linked to Russia and promotes the Russian narrative, but it is credible nonetheless. The article referenced didn't even relate to Russia. Apart from their pro-Russia stance, they're no different to the BBC. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not credible. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better sources may have mentioned it, if not, it's probably not worth mentioning; and it probably belongs in the Alex Jones or Cenk Uygur articles, if anywhere. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fake news in Lead

There was an RfC at Talk:Alex Jones#RfC regarding description of Infowars.com which established that Infowars is to be called a "fake news" site (or possibly a site which publishes "fake news") there. Do we need another RfC here? Although the sources for the Chobani section say "fake story", which seems close enough to "fake news". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Srsly? Of course not. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has reverted my changes twice. To avoid edit wars (and possibly violating my restrictions in American Politics), I thought I'd bring it up here to determine consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to hear why. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well until someone can produce an RS contesting the claim I see no reason to change existing consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hitler still alive" misrepresentation

The cited news source (slate) and the Wikipedia entry gives the idea that infowars reported that Hitler "is" [still] alive (ie at the time of reporting). The slate article's headline is "Trump-Endorsed Media Outlet Reports That Hitler Is Alive". This is a serious misrepresentation. It should've been "was" instead of "is". They were quoting from the jfk files. Unlike the cited news source, the Wikipedia should stick to it's policy of 'neural point of view'. Given that Shroyer's running commentary was not the best in conveying the ideas with clarity. But in no way can it be said that they were reporting that "Hitler is alive". Now, Shroyer himself was misrepresenting the contents of the jfk files by saying that the govt was lying about Hitler's status. It was only a rumor that an operative was investigating. The correct reportage on the jfk files - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adolf-hitler-escape-nazi-germany-rumor-cia-documents-jfk-assassination/ See Shroyer's take on it (VIDEO) - https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/11/02/reporter-alex-jones-infowars-says-hitler-alive-and-us-government-covering-it/218435 Infowars clarified their reporting the next day - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rbcfcRrmxw ToMt (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The MMFA source and accompanying clip both supports that Shroyer said that Hitler is alive. Was it ambiguously explained by Shroyer? Sure, but I'm not sure that's good enough. He said the US government was covering this up, but as the CBS story points out, there's nothing to cover up. The CBS story doesn't mention Infowars at all, either, so this isn't really usable for content here. In the rebuttal, Jones accuses MMFA of taking the quote out of context, but the 1:20 minutes of video provide enough context to see that Shroyer did say that Hitler was still alive if we take his words very literally. In context, he reasonably could've meant at the time of the report, but he wasn't clear at all. Perhaps Shroyer merely forgot to take his Brainforce™ soy pills, but it's not really up to us to say. Instead of attempting to interpret every unusual theory said in passing by anyone on Infowars, we rely on reliable sources to do this work for us. Since reliable sources comment on it, we should reflect those sources if we're going to mention this at all. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the 1:20 minute video, there's no way you are gonna get the idea that he meant Hitler is still alive. But, it can be misrepresented that way by saying that he literally said the words "Hitler still alive". His emphasis of those words after "the jfk files being declassified" is pretty clear. Enough context is there in that video to see that Shroyer was saying that Hitler WAS still alive according to the jfk files. The CBS story was included to show what exactly was in the jfk files, as after hearing Shroyer's running commentary, you would want to check what exactly was in those files. Regarding reliability, those slate and MMFA headlines (they are basically just headlines) are written from a biased point of view, it's just emphasizing on the literal meaning of selected words rather than on the context and that's probably the reason the much more reliable CNN didn't run such a story. The problem in mirroring such a narrative on Wikipedia is that unlike those sources, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. From such a pov, the issue here is that Shroyer misrepresented the fact that a CIA operative was pursuing a rumor of Hitler being alive to say that the govt withheld the "facts" from the people. You can't be blind to the "jfk files" part of the story like those "reliable sources" containing just headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToMt (talk • contribs) 11:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very OR'y, we do not analyse a source, we let others do it and report what they say. If RS say someone said something we say " X has something according to Y". However I note that our source is a blog, a bit iffy for a contentious claim (In a BLP as well). If we have other soruces for this use them, and attribute the accusation. If not then I would agree this should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should definitely be removed. Not only is it a second-grade source (i.e. a blog), but it is incorrect. trainsandtech (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On consideration, I'm inclined to remove it. The part about the Las Vegas shooting can be easily supported by better sources, such as this one. This source could also be used for context.
In the Shroyer clip, he was not a particularly clear speaker, and he was misrepresenting the source (to put it mildly), but even so it's hard to imagine any reliable outlets making a substantial story out of this. It was a single rushed, ambiguous comment made in passing. The Slate article is playing it up for laughs, and the MMFA source says nothing at all beyond a transcription. This is very far down on the list of unusual things Infowars has said, and it seems a bit gossipy to include it without more substantial coverage or context, and the current sources don't justify going into more detail. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has been accused...

This is regarding this revert, but the details of who/when are not important here. This is a reasonable edit, but I think it's worth discussing.

I'm not clear on what purpose is served by having "has been accused of" in front of "[publishing] fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims". As one simple example, the body of the article discusses Pizzagate in substance. This was an utterly false story, promoted and later retracted by Infowars. This story led to harassment and worse. There is no reliable source which is disputing either of these points, is there? This is not merely an accusation, this is a simple fact... right?

In this situation, why are we peppering so much of the article with "alleged"s? It reads like the overcautious faux-legalese of police blotters. We have the luxury of taking our time and considering our words more carefully, so hedging every explanation seems like a missed opportunity for clear writing.

If we rephrased every reliable source which calls Infowars fake news to clearly attribute who is making the "allegation", we risk turning this into tediously lengthy paragraphs full of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Attribution is one good way to avoid WP:WEASEL wording, but the overwhelming number of sources suggests that we could instead just say that it's fake news which has led to harassment. In simple language. We could say it both in the lede and in the body. If we need to, a cite-bundle would be easy enough to support this. Thoughts? Grayfell (talk)

I think the issue is an attempt to prevent edit wars between supporters and detractors. I agree no RS disagrees it publishes (knowingly) made up stories (rather then, say, publishing stories without bothering to check them). Maybe we should just only include examples, rather then an overall view.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publication of false stories leading to harassment is a matter of fact. We could qualify if at "some of the false stories it publishes have led to harassment" or "some of the stories it publishes, including false ones, have led to harassment". Saying that it ha been accused of this, as if it's a matter of opinion, is WP:WEASEL. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've made changes simplify the language used in the relevant section. Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that edit. I think one issue at play here is that no RS can really gauge what the motive behind some of the more sketchy stories by InfoWars are. They can say it's either intentional fake news or bad fact checking, but that's only their analysis at best. Wording may be WEASEL, but it prevents continuous controversies and vandalism (i.e. what's happening on the Alex Jones article). This might be a situation where WP:IGNORE trumps WP:WEASEL or it may not. Another idea is to remove the sentence from the first paragraph and let the Controversies section deal with it. Thanks trainsandtech (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lede should summarize the body of the article, and by far the most significant thing about Infowars, according to reliable sources, is it's promotion of conspiracy theories and fake news. If Infowars claims to be a news organization, it it should take some responsibility for what it reports before it reports it. If they fail to do this, reliable sources are allowed to pick-up their slack. Blatantly false information and unsupported theories repeated as facts are not just a difference of opinion at this point. I don't think neutering the article to avoid hypothetical future vandalism will work. Using weasel-words would basically be preemptively vandalizing the article before others get the chance. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an update https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-man-who-videoed-charlottesville-horror-sues-infowars-alex-jones-n856356

Alex Jones is being sued by a witness to the Charlottesville Riots over defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for this article?

As can be seen in the edit history, vandalism continues to plague this article. Perhaps some form of protection could be applied to protect it from vandalism on both sides (i.e. supporters and opposers of InfoWars as a news outlet). Would this be a good step? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could hep by notmisrepresenting eit disputes as "vandalism", and by not continually reintroducing a section on "programming" that is essentially redundant and of the form "InfoWars broadcasts these nutjobs, source, InfowaWars advert for the programs with these nutjobs". Guy (Help!) 10:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it is redundant a "nut job" to include the contents of InfoWars broadcasts? It isn't advertising, it is a fact. You can criticise InfoWars, but it knows its own programs and can be cited for its programming. Nothing about the source of the info is advertising; it is a good contribution to the article. Put your politics aside, okay!? InfoWars having a criticisable track record doesn't change what its shows are. trainsandtech (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraneous detail akin to advertising, especially when linked. Trainsandtech, it seems to me you need to get better acquainted with our policies and especially with such things as "reliable sources", which we have explained in WP:RS. I saw this summary of yours, where you referred to Slate as a "second-tier source"; in another edit summary you say "Infowars is a news site". Kindly rethink these statements, lest you run into someone mentioning WP:CIR to you on ANI or so. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second-tier source for second-tier statement

As it last stood, this article started off with "InfoWars is a right-wing news website." This was perfectly sourced and I could easily find other sources saying the same thing. However, this has been changed to "InfoWars is a conspiracy theorist website," which I find unconstructive and poorly sourced. I believe, in fact, that it is WP:FRINGE. 1. One of the authors of the book was Jeff Schantz. His personal bio on his website calls himself an "anarchist community organizer" and the same website decries the state "murder" of two anarchists who killed people. I don't know of the other author - I can't find much about him. Even if this was reliably sourced, so was the previous, more helpful (in the eyes of the reader) description. Remember that the same section reads later on that "InfoWars, and in particular Alex Jones, advocate numerous conspiracy theories particularly around purported domestic false flag operations by the US Government (which they allege include 9/11 and Sandy Hook). The site has published fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims." Any thoughts? Kind Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't actually need a source in the lede as it is unambiguously established in the body with multiple sources, but fans bleat if there isn't at least one ref to support the sky-is-blue level statement that infowars is a conspiracy theorist site first and foremost. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, it is a right wing news site. Spreading conspiracies is an action it does, but it isn't what it is. There are also plenty of RS that call it a right-wing news site. Perhaps a compromise could be "InfoWars is a conspiracist news website" or "InfoWars is a right wing and conspiracist news site." Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it, though? My assessment of reliable sources is that Infowars is known and described mainly as a conspiracy theory site. Over-priced nutritional supplement sales is competing for second-place with news. Regardless of political orientation, it is not accepted as a proper news source. While I'm sure a glut of sources could be found which use that label, the defining characteristic according to most sources is not their reporting of factual content.
Strictly as an aside, the book in question was published by University of Toronto Press, which is a reputable academic publisher. This is more relevant than any WP:OR about the book's authors. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point there. But perhaps it should also be pointed out initially that it is also a news site? In the situation that a reader is unaware of the stated or intended purpose of the website, however unlikely, they should know after reading the first few sentences. If sources support it, it could read that Infowars is a "conspiracy-driven news site" or something like that. But now that I understand your point, I'll let it stay if it must. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources that claim it is a news site, without any disclaimers at all? Drmies (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly not many. An example of one that does is the previous source. I believe it is best to use both sources and describe InfoWars as a "conspiracy theorist and right-wing news site" or something along those lines. That gives a better idea to the reader that one of the site's stated purposes is to provide news (which it undoubtedly does to an extent) as specifies that it is right-wing, as opposed to a left-wing site such as TYT. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's risking false balance to assume there's a meaningful comparison to TYT. We're not obligated to assume that Infowars is wearing a goatee to some other mirror-universe outlet. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Fox, CNN, The Economist, National Review, all of these news outlets have, at various times, been described as right-wing. Infowars is something else completely. Whatever TYT is labeled as should be discussed on that page, based on relevant sources.
The site's... pretense of being a news site is a reasonable thing to include in the lede, but I'm not sure how to do this in a neutral and proportional way. I agree that it is the kind of thing an unfamiliar reader would want to know to understand the site. Linking to Fake news website would be an option.
The substance of the NYDaily article is about accusations of false news and connections to Russian bots. As I said, there are a glut of sources which use the label, but if their using it for brevity, or in passing, we need to look more closely at the substance of what the sources are saying. The NYDaily article appears to have been derived mainly from this McClatchy article. This uses "news" only in the headline, and emphasizes other traits in the body. It says Jones is "known for embracing conspiracy theories such as one asserting that the U.S. government was involved in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." and that "InfoWars.com was a loyal Trump public relations tool." These are not descriptions of a news site. Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media platform - News media

Would it be appropriate to wikilink "media platform" to the article on News media? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I have gone ahead with this as there has been no objection so far. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice this. This link is not appropriate, because "media platform" isn't the same thing as "new media", making this an WP:EGG. Further, as has already been discussed, Infowars is not widely accepted as a news outlet, so this statement should not be (indirectly) made in the lede as a plain fact. Grayfell (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Bias

While it may be fair to refer to Jones and InfoWars as being promoters of conspiracy theories, they do not outwardly claim their theories as fact and it is therefore unfair and defamatory to refer to Jones and InfoWars as being propagators of fake news. InfoWars was rightly held accountable for the "Chobani incident" and the label "fake news" should be removed. I will make this change shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmezh (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against that, we have RS saying they publish fake news, the fact that infowars does not claim they are true is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for political bias. It is unequivocally not fake news by any definition of the term.

If you can't handle being honest and nonbias with editing, you shouldn't be on here. Mikereynolds4444 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources say it, the article should echo that. The lead is also the summary of the article, so if it's in the article's body and considered important, it can be in the lead. —PaleoNeonate – 04:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far right is white wash of Infowars?

Someone reverted my labelling of Infowars as far right saying it is "white wash". What's up with that? 175.156.32.122 (talk)

Actually it was someone elses edit that was, yours was just caught up in a revert. But we still need RS saying it is far right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't just add that they're far-right, you removed that they're a conspiracy theory and fake news site. "White washing" is a term for that kind of censorship. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the edits, I didn't remove the "conspiracy theorist" and "fake news" labels.175.156.32.122 (talk)
Okay, I think I accidently deleted the other parts. That was my mistake. I prefer extreme ultra hardcore far right myself, but I couldn't find good sources. I have edited it again.175.156.32.122 (talk)
So What's going on here? Reverted again for no good reason. What's the deal here? If no one replies, I am going to edit again.175.156.32.122 (talk)
You need to make a case, I am not going to tell you whether your edit was right or wrong. Rather tell you what you need to do. It is to read what users have objected to and explain why those concerns are not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something wrong with the sources? My case is that mainstream sources label Infowars as "far right". Here are the sources I used:

Sandy Hook families sue US conspiracy theorist https://www.yahoo.com/news/sandy-hook-families-sue-us-conspiracy-theorist-151918434.html
Dozens of leading brands pull ads from far right conspiracy site InfoWars' YouTube channel https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/infowars-leading-brands-youtube-pull-alex-jones-a8239371.html
Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/24/sandy-hook-families-sue-infowars-alex-jones-over-conspiracy-theory/641159002/
Conspiracy king Alex Jones fuels America’s crisis of truth https://www.statesman.com/news/local/commentary-conspiracy-king-alex-jones-fuels-america-crisis-truth/nQnBIZ3dCWFYXhIr7CFA8N/
InfoWars media bias rating is Right. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/infowars 175.156.32.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what is wrong with his sources, they seem to call it far right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if everything is okay, please edit in my edit or do I have to re edit it again? Thanks.175.156.32.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One other user has objected (though not for any specific reason), allow then time to give one.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with far-right based on USA Today and The Independent, I would not use allsides.com, Yahoo or the Statesman, they appear insubstantial. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo source is actually reprinted from AFP. If there's a problem with latter two sources, I will be replacing them with these two:

Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/technology/youtube-ads-infowars-alex-jones/index.html
InfoWars, Alex Jones sued for defamation over Charlottesville claims https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/13/alex-jones-sued-charlottesville-claims-459244

175.156.32.122 (talk)

If no one else has any objections, I am editing in the far right label soon. 138.75.61.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This User talk:JzG reverted my edit again saying that "it's not helping". It seems like he doesn't have any real reasons to block my edit and he doesn't even want to discuss it here on talkpage. He is making trouble here. What to do about him and preventing his troublemaking?138.75.61.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Edit warring. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG, why are you blocking my edits with lame excuses? Why are you avoiding talkpage?

You said "take it to talk". So I am here on talk, but where are you? Why are you blocking my edits with no proper reasons?138.75.61.138 (talk)

Upon further reading of the page history, it seems there is some controversy about your edits listing the site as far-right. From what I can see, they seem well-cited. However, it would be best to determine consensus on whether these edits should be kept. I recommend editors of this page in relation to this dispute read Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Okay, now I'm going to stay out of this. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it there was consensus for it's inclusion, and I am wondering what the new objection is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's agreement of a couple of editors (including me) but I think it needs more based on past history. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? So you do not disagree, I do not disagree no one who has commend disagrees, but we need to wait in case someone does?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are about three of us here, and this article has a lot more editors than that, and because we know form long experience that applying the label "far-right" to any article is controversial. I think that agreement of the handful of people who happen to be active on a talk page on a given day is a dangerous substitute for consensus.` Guy (Help!) 18:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what, if someone disagrees with it they can revert, that is what BRD is about. But you should really have more reason to revert then "just in case someone might disagree with it".Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is under PC. That implies consensus *before* addition. A huge number of edits are rejected for this article, and there is no doubt at all that if we include this we will end up with anons removing it almost immediately - there's an imbalance then because anon edits are usually rejected here. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time to put this issue to vote. I see no reason to block this edit. ALL requirements have been fulfilled.138.75.36.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to an RfC, as a means of gauging actual consensus and forestalling the inevitable subsequent disputes. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's bring it on. How to bring it about? Hope some editor can help arrange a vote.138.75.36.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just start an RfC. Use {{rfc}}. It's dead easy, there's one below already. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added?

There is a clear consensus that the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook should be added.

The specific wording of the addition is being discussed in the open RfC at #Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Cunard (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added? Jim1138 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The suits seems quite notable and is on many major news sources. There appear to be numerous lawsuits and plaintiffs involved Google search: "infowars lawsuit" Google search: "alex jones lawsuit I will add this to the talk:Alex Jones article as well.
What should be added? One suggestion:

  • A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation.[1][2][3][4]

Pinging recent editors @Pythoncoder, JzG, Slatersteven, Sweeps1979, Grayfell, and Ian.thomson: Jim1138 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aaron Cooper (24 May 2018). "Alex Jones, 'InfoWars' host, sued by 6 more Sandy Hook families". CNN. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
  2. ^ Emily Shugerman (25 May 2018). "US shock jock Alex Jones sued by six more families of Sandy Hook victims". The Independent. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
  3. ^ Josh Hafner (23 May 2018). "Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones aren't the only ones to threaten conspiracy theorist". USA Today. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
  4. ^ Dave Collins (23 May 2018). "More families of Sandy Hook victims, FBI agent sue Infowars' Alex Jones". Associated Press Chicago Tribute. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
  • comment I would rather wait until we know how far these actually get. But will not oppose inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per arguments above, include since its covered significantly in reliable sources but not in the lead. Meatsgains(talk) 21:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposish - a bit offtopic in considerations, and this lacks RS content appropriate for this article. It seems Alex Jones being sued is said, and most google hits for infowars is getting side-hits "Alex Jones of Infowars" or "Infowars host Alex Jones" and not content about lawsuits to corporate entities. There is some minor mentions that it's more than him but just not much. Hartford Courant hasd passing mention of the name in a list of those being sued, USAtoday said affiliates meaning multiple companies, but just not got anything from most or much to say. It would seem better to have the Alex Jones page also say it in passing as "Alex Jones, Infowars.com, and ... were sued'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:K.e.coffman DUE refers to showing all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence in published RS. Obviously there is not prominence of Infowars in the news pieces, nor is there prominence for the figurative assertion that they are one and the same. If there were agreement they are the same-thing, we would only have one article and not two. So... only RS that explicitly say Infowars goes here, the rest is OFFTOPIC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

The term "fake news" is biased. Infowars' article is biased against it. Needs a more neutral tone. 91.92.199.101 (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Multiple reliable sources use that phrase. The phrase is in line with wp:neutral point of view. Jim1138 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infowars is not a fake news website

Sock blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can you please explain to me how infowars is a fake news website? Creating a conspiracy theory is not fake news. Reporting something as factual when it's not is fake news. Vincecrystal (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because RS say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincecrystal: This is just bringing you one step closer to a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson are you threatening to block me for asking a simple question? That is an abuse of power. Vincecrystal (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincecrystal: Were you seriously defending a website that claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting victims are just faking it and that a random pizza restaurant owner is running a secret Satanic child-rape ring for the DNC? Oh, wait, that was before Jones's lawyers said that he was just playing a character and not presenting anything that a reasonable person would consider news. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, number one, you have anger management problems. Number two, Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. He does not declare anything as fact, he just uses hard evidence to back up is theories. There is so much evidence that suggests that sandy hook was a hoax, but I am not going to get into it, because I do not want to offend this generation of children and their liberal values. Also, Jones was not the one to start the pizzate conspiracy, that was wikileaks. Vincecrystal (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you earned a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo

Consensus is to use phrasing C. Fish+Karate 10:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First one may not have been closed or anything, but it's clear enough that something is going to be included. This RfC is based on the results of both Talk:Alex_Jones#Should_the_lawsuits_regarding_Sandy_Hook_be_added? and Talk:InfoWars#Should_the_lawsuits_regarding_Sandy_Hook_be_added?, in case you see something referenced here that's not on this page.

  • Which phrasing should be used?
A) A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation.
B) In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors.
C) In March 2018, six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting.
D) A number of defamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.
E) In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.
F) Something you should have suggested during the previous RfC... >:/
Reasoning behind this RfC

Initial suggestion was: A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation. However, there were issues raised with phrasing as well as to what extent WP:NOTNEWS applies.

With regard to phrasing: The particular points raised were regarding "number of" and the unqualified "Sandy Hook families." The alternate phrasing brought up was: In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors. The last part ("claim that the 2012 slaying... paid actors") should probably be a link to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories if it's not already linked in the article before that point. I kinda feel (per WP:GEVAL and WP:PROFRINGE) like we should emphasize that the 'paid actors' claim is utter bullshit, so I'd suggest In March 2018, six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. A number of dafamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax. was also suggested. Combining that with the other suggestion that's not mine, we get In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.

With regards to NOTNEWS: Filling in the gaps in the implied reasons given on both sides, I'm vaguely seeing the suggestion that the "routine news reporting" and "breaking news" parts of NOTNEWS applies if this is is presented as yet another lawsuit against Jones, but that it qualifies as the "recent developments" part of NOTNEWS (i.e. not NOTNEWS) if presented as a continuation of his claims regarding Sandy Hook. The consensus of the last RfC almost unanimously to include it, which would mean that it'd have to go in the School Shootings section (the only place to include it in the InfoWars article anyway).

Refs involved: [1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Aaron Cooper (24 May 2018). "Alex Jones, 'InfoWars' host, sued by 6 more Sandy Hook families". CNN. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
  2. ^ Emily Shugerman (25 May 2018). "US shock jock Alex Jones sued by six more families of Sandy Hook victims". The Independent. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
  3. ^ Josh Hafner (23 May 2018). "Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones aren't the only ones to threaten conspiracy theorist". USA Today. Retrieved 26 May 2018.
  4. ^ Dave Collins (23 May 2018). "More families of Sandy Hook victims, FBI agent sue Infowars' Alex Jones". Associated Press Chicago Times Tribute. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

Additionally, this New York Times piece has been suggested as a possible source. At the very least, it'd be useful to bludgeon any InfoWars fans who want to argue that the lawsuit is fake news or something. There was additionally a single suggestion for a Times of Israel piece to try to frame this as part of Jones going after people, but this would seem to fall under WP:SYNTH with the sources given and no one responded to this suggestion.

Pinging everyone who participated in the last RfC on either page: @Atlantic306, Bennv3771, BullRangifer, CNMall41, DrFleischman, Dryfee, Elinruby, EllenCT, Grayfell, HouseOfChange, Jim1138, Jojalozzo, K.e.coffman, L3X1, LivinRealGüd, LM2000, Meatsgains, MrX, Niteshift36, PeterTheFourth, Pythoncoder, Slatersteven, StuHarris, and Wumbolo:

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Threaded discussion

I'm going to try to stay out of these discussions in the future where possible, so as to avoid feeding the troll(s). It's fine to take me off the ping list. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Facebook .... struggles to explain why InfoWars isn't banned

Good RS for use here:

  • Facebook touts fight on fake news, but struggles to explain why InfoWars isn't banned[1]

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the popularity of that page and the click rate of the ads on it had nothing to do with their hesitancy to remove it... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this has to do with improving our article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a potential source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what?Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article. Duh.
If you happen to be able to peer into the future and thus know for sure that we will never once have to add the claim that Facebook waffled over whether to remove Infowars in mid-2018, then please tell us everything you know about this article's future state so we can just go ahead and fix it now. Also get me some winning Florida Lottery numbers, please. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it civil you knew full well what I meant. So there is no suggested edit. You are correct we do not know if this will not be a thing, but we also do not know it will. We do not know whether or not the Tioome Tommorow will carry a story saying that Jones has admitted to publishing fake news, nor if this [1] means that My Cohen will end up working for Jones. We can post random news stories about infowars with the line "it might one day be relevant" all the time. It clutters the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) Your "counter example" isn't even about Infowars, and your suggested hypothetical edit is blatant WP:OR anyways, so even if that article belonged here, the claim you use as an example wouldn't. So yeah, I agree with you that you example doesn't belong here. But your analogy is so bad that this doesn't say shit about Bull's link. Apples and Oranges.
2) Whether or not Infowars gets banned by FB is -without question- a subject with enough due weight to be included here.
3) There was nothing uncivil about my comment, so please stop with that tripe. You know better than to try this kind of newbie crap.
4) This section consisted of three lines until you decided to jump in, complaining about it. So the best way to keep sections like this from "cluttering the talk page" would be to not start a stink about them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or not to post "future" controversies. We do not engage in crystalballing. This is my last word on this other then to say at this time I do not see how or why this should be added to the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only crystalballing I saw here was your implicit insistence that this source has no use and never will. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Darcy, Oliver (July 11, 2018). "Facebook touts fight on fake news, but struggles to explain why InfoWars isn't banned". CNN. Retrieved July 13, 2018.

Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"?

Just scrolling through here, I noticed that there was a debate a few months ago about whether the phrase "far right" could be used in the intro to describe InfoWars like so:

InfoWars (stylized as INFOWARS) is a far right American conspiracy theorist and fake news website and media platform owned by Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC.

based on the WP:RSes:

It seemed like most editors in that discussion agreed with the descriptor, but because of historical objection decided to hold off until it could be properly decided by an Rfc. Then no one started an Rfc. I hate unfinished things, so here.

Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"?

Justin Kunimune (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (regarding first sentence)

  • Support as the most concise descriptor. Conspiracy theories are very rarely not political, but they come in both left- and right-wing varieties. Infowars deals almost exclusively in the right-wing variety, and adds far-right-wing commentary to the mix, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems supported by RS to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reliably sourced, wp:DUE Jim1138 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Accurate, reliably-sourced, and a description they'd be proud of. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the original poster that wanted to add in the "far right" label for Infowars. I delayed doing the survey because I felt that I lacked sufficient sources to cite, so I waited in order to collect enough sources before doing the survey. But since the survey has already started and events have moved beyond my control, under such circumstances, I thereby declare as follows: I Completely, Fully, Wholly, Totally and Thoroughly Support with FULL FORCE the motion to label Infowars as "Far Right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.33.12 (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2018
  • Very Weak Support Whilst we can find some sources for this claim I am not sure it is all that clear cut. I actually lean towards oppose but a quick search throws up some more sources for this. As such it is clearly sourced, I am just not sure it is actually true.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that Infowars is not far-right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this is not about what I think (wp:notforum) I wont answer, other then to say I was explaining why it is only a weak support.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fully convinced that you're wrong to say "Infowars being labelled far-right by RSes is factually inaccurate", and I'd really like to hear what your reasoning is, so if you could answer at my talk or in a new section here, I'd really appreciate it. This isn't a forum discussion, because if you have truly compelling arguments, it could influence how we treat the sources here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is perfectly cromulent. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is universally agreed that InfoWars is far-right. (I will avoid discussing whether or not the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are actually valid, since I personally believe these terms are misleading overgeneralizations that do not accurately reflect the complexity of views on political and social issues.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Please use below sources in article heading as citation:

138.75.33.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. I didn't use all of your sources, @138.75.33.12, because WP:OVERKILL. Actually, it might be overkill as is. Other editors can add or remove sources as they see fit.

12:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinkunimune (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose What bothers me even more is phrases likes these ones: "Jones runs a website, Infowars.com, devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news.", "InfoWars (stylized as INFOWARS) is a far right American conspiracy theorist and fake news website and media platform owned by Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC.", "Britain First is a British fascist political organisation formed in 2011 by former members of the British National Party (BNP)."

Do you guys realize that a lot of the sources you quote belong to the far left? Of course, they will not speak favourably of Alex Jones, InfoWars, Paul Joseph Watson, Britain First, Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Aldo Sterone, Brigitte Gabriel and so on—just because of differing opinions!

Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist, and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.

The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics'

Pretty harsh, eh? I've been following those people mentioned above for awhile, and I never heard them condone Nazism, neo-Nazism (some of them are actually Jewish and they all support Israel), fascism, violence, etc. Sure, they have a strong opinion on massive/excessive immigration, radical Islamization of the West, they can be critical of certain aspects of Islam, they strongly condemn horrendous crimes committed by certain migrants, radical Islamic terrorism, and that's okay! They never expressed total opposition to absolutely all immigration, they never opposed systematic hatred of anybody who is Muslim or thought to be so... No! They only have a problem with the radicals.

Why are those commentators so controversial, then? Because they go against the narrative of the far left? Something to think about... Also, I've noticed that Wikipedia articles can be quite biased against such commentators, and that's not fair! I find this rather immature and not encyclopedic. And I'm not some ole conservative but a young LGBT (and pro-LGBT) man. Now, I do not necessarily agree with everything those commentators have to say just like I do not necessarily agree with everything certain LGBT activists or commentators of the Left have to say. Not everything is so black or white! I hope I'm making sense! Israell (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I played a "spot the POV pusher cliche" drinking game with this wall of text I'd die of alcohol poisoning before I got to the end. And fix your damn userpage: Wikipedia in not the place for you to promote yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't even edited my user page in years! (Like 10+ years...) So much for "promotion". And you know what? Fuck you! Who the Hell do you think you are? I took part in the vote, was polite in my arguments, did not attack anybody, and I a got rude, asinine, condescending and impertinent response from you. And for what? I don't your share YOUR political opinion. Shame on you! Israell (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hypocrisy is palpable. Please read WP:PROMO and go fix your damn userpage or I'll ask an admin to delete it. Nevermind, I see an admin already noticed it. So I guess good luck with your campaign to convince people by repeating the same crap we've heard a thousand times from random IPs and new accounts that get indeffed after 10 edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My God! Obsess much! lol Okay... I've read the rules and republished my page—without any link to my portals—. For example: a five page résumé and advertising for your band will probably be too much, a brief three sentence summary that you work in field X and have a band named Y will be fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages Once again, I was never even using that page, and I completely did forget about it.
So, the moment somebody's views are any different than yours, it's "crap"? I thought Wikipedia was a neutral place for unbiased information... Is that so? It's so fucking ridiculous, especially since I was always a liberal. Why the Hell did I write that was so controversial? Let me guess this straight. Wiki editors are invited to vote, but all editors should have the same vote ("Support") and the exact same opinion. Okay... Israell (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a neutral place for unbiased information. That means we are expected to base our !votes on sources and policies, not trite, partisan, political hyperbole and my-first-day-on-wikipedia arguments. Also, you should probably read WP:NPA; you already know the admins are watching you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on Wikipedia for years! I just don't edit all that much! Pot... Kettle... Israell (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know how to properly indent talk page discussions (look at the diff of this edit for an example) and you don't know what "pot calling the kettle black" means, either (I was commenting on the qualities of your argument, not attacking your lack of experience, and that would not be hypocrisy even if it were what I was doing because I have something like 12 times as many edits as you). Do you need mentorship? If the issue here is a severe lack of experience, I would be happy to help. I presumed from your editing history that you would be well aware of what you were doing, but as that presumption was apparently wrong, I'm perfectly happy to help you learn the ropes. I will explain exactly what was wrong with the argument you posted and why you should avoid them if you want to be taken seriously here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "Pot... Kettle...", I was referring to your assertion that I was personally attacking you when I was just (honestly) responding to what was quite a rude response to my initial post. Speaking of sources, the President of the United States himself, Donald Trump, repeatedly called out CNN for fake news, but quoting Breitbart is forbidden, no matter how accurate and factual the article is. I could go on and on, but I've made my point. Israell (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Fuck you" is a personal attack. "Your argument is crap" is not. I've already explained this in my last comment, though it's clear you did not understand me then. This is why I said you don't know what the phrase means. Speaking of sources, Trump is as completely unreliable a source as there can be: he has repeatedly been caught lying and never admitted to any wrongdoing (or indeed, admitted to any fault whatsoever, no matter how obvious said faults are to any disinterested observer). Compare that to CNN, which is a widely respected journalistic enterprise that regularly corrects their own mistakes without any outside prompting. Similarly, Breitbart has been caught lying numerous times, even more than the president, despite being subject to less media coverage. Breitbart is as unreliable as the POTUS. I'm quite you you could go on and on, but you should be aware that if you do, you will quickly find yourself blocked or topic banned, as have the preponderance of other editors who insist that CNN is "fake news" and that Breitbart and Trump are reliable sources. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:IRS, because it's quite clear you don't understand our sourcing policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First, let me be very clear: I thoroughly despise the content pushed out of InfoWars, and I strongly disagree with the rationale of the oppose !vote, find it absolutely laughable that the argument was that those outlets were "far left", and have no sympathy for the obvious personal attack of other editors. With that being said, I don't think we can accurately give InfoWars any political assessment other than declaring them conspiracy theories. My thoughts are similar to those of Slatersteven, and I was originally going to give a weak support as well, but out of principle I can't do it. I have to admit that more often than not when it comes to labeling any individual in US politics as far (right/left) I'd normally be against it out of principle, as it's often used only as an attempt to dismiss or smear them as being too far gone, and news outlets are not infallible when they describe them as "far right/left." Similar discussions on whether or not to label Steve Bannon far-right or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez far-left resulted in the realization of something that seems to be heresy on Wikipedia: news outlets, however trusted their name is, are not infallible when discussing something as subjective as how fringe someone is or is not, and we need to have editorial judgment in deciding whether or not to include these labels. There were in fact a handful of sources from various outlets that labeled social democrats like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders as "far leftists", and there were also sources that declared Steve Bannon to be "far right." However, there's an obvious question that needs to be raised here: What does InfoWars believe in? That's a question that I'm starting to believe literally doesn't even have an answer. There was a time when Jones at least appeared to be leaning towards the libertarian right-wing of the United States, supposedly being against interventionism and at least appearing to be against NSA spying. This is no longer the case. The rhetoric of Alex Jones consists of rants about literal demons and blood-sucking vampires. Where does that fall on the political spectrum? It doesn't. It's clear that he's not on the left because of how he regularly does segments dedicated to opposing various left politicians and he's a steadfast supporter of Trump, but based on what can we say he's far right? What, if anything, has he said that falls under the far right wing end of the spectrum, when it's almost unheard of for InfoWars to provide anything coherent enough to fall anywhere on the political spectrum at all? Conclusion: Continue to identify Jones as a conspiracy theorist, don't bother trying to identify their political stance. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Levin, Sam; Solon, Olivia (18 Jul 2018). "Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 August 2018. Facebook's decision to allow the far-right conspiracy theory website Infowars to continue using the platform, saying the social network would try to 'reduce the distribution of that content', but would not censor the page. (Emphasis mine.) —PaleoNeonate – 00:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, extremely well-cited. Most of the objections above smack of editors bringing their own WP:OR takes on political positions to the table; but we have to go with what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I base my oppose !vote on previous discussions regarding whether to call Steve Bannon far right or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez far left. It's an exercise in editorial judgment, a practice that should not be confused with original research. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is how it is described in the majority of non-partisan reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes podcasts following suit

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45083684

The lead section can have the iTunes/podcast info added in the corresponding lead section Edaham (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018

Please change conspiracy theorist and fake news to real news and anti propaganda news from main stream fake news media Please change The site has regularly published fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims to This site is always accused by the fake news main stream media of publishing fake news stories but the fake news media never show any evidence they only show bogus law suits against Alex Jones which is always thrown out of court Please change was accused of discrimination and sexually harassing employees to has never been accused of discrimination and sexually harassing employees

Everything you libtards are saying about him is false, pull your head out from your arse Wernersunkel (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please seek consensus before posting an edit request. Also, you get more bees with honey than with vinegar.- MrX 🖋 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

This morning Alex Jones and Infowars was banned on almost every major social media platform[1][2]. I use the word censorship because according to Merriam-Webster censorship means "the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively"[3] which is exactly what happened to him and his network. Spotify gave the reason as “hate content”[4] despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of "hate speech". I have never heard him even mention anything hateful before except for anti-islam which isn't really hate considering the fact that islam promotes the killing of homosexuals[5][6][7]. All of the companies have an extreme liberal bias[8][9][10][11][12][13] further supporting the argument that this was censorship of political ideas. Based off the reasoning given on his banning it sounds like he was banned for some "outrageous" things he has said in the past. Alex Jones is playing a character in most of his viral and "controversial" video clips.[14] I do believe that he does believe a lot of what he say but he is a salesman and the more news outlets that report on "this crazy conspiracy theorist nut" the more money he makes. He was clearly banned because of the upcoming election the United States[15] and that his political options directly counteracted these companies' opinions. As he is or "was" friends with president Trump this might add fire to the investigation into social media censorship of anything not extremely left of center on the political spectrum.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Even if you believe "huge" private companies that boarder on monopolies[28][29] have the right to censor who ever they want, which is a valid debate that has and will happen in the U.S. very soon, I feel this should be added to the infowars wikipedia page because this will be extremely important in the history of infowars and maybe even the political debates on current laws and regulations.[30]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Microbe (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/08/06/facebook-youtube-ban-alex-jones-infowars-over-hate-speech.amp.html
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6032037/Apple-Facebook-delete-content-US-conspiracy-theorist-Alex-Jones.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490
  3. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-removes-podcasts-infowars-alex-jones
  5. ^ https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspx
  6. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/the-islamic-states-shocking-war-on-homosexuals/?utm_term=.149948f63634
  7. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/opinion/mustafa-akyol-what-does-islam-say-about-being-gay.html
  8. ^ https://ntknetwork.com/apple-hires-editor-of-liberal-new-york-magazine-for-apple-news/
  9. ^ http://fortune.com/2016/07/29/apple-cook-hillary-clinton/
  10. ^ https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/apple-offers-pay-to-play-in-exchange-for-hillarys-support-on-encryption
  11. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/11/sen-ted-cruz-facebook-has-been-censoring-or-suppressing-conservative-speech-for-years.html
  12. ^ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/10/senate-investigate-claims-facebook-censor-conservative-news/
  13. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603345/Conservative-activist-Lauren-Southern-banned-Facebook-mentioning-censorship.html
  14. ^ http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/17/alex-jones-performance-artist-attorney-says-texas-child-custody-case
  15. ^ https://www.politico.com/news/2018-elections
  16. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/congress-released-mark-zuckerbergs-prepared-testimony-ahead-of-wednesdays-hearing.html
  17. ^ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/facebook-censor-alex-jones-705766/amp/
  18. ^ https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-youtube-ban-infowars-but-invite-new-headaches/amp
  19. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/congress-released-mark-zuckerbergs-prepared-testimony-ahead-of-wednesdays-hearing.html
  20. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/alex-jones-trump-call.html
  21. ^ https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-thanked-alex-jones-231329
  22. ^ http://politics.blog.mystatesman.com/2016/11/14/donald-trump-thanks-alex-jones-i-just-called-the-king-of-saudi-arabia-queen-of-england-now-im-moving-on-to-you/
  23. ^ https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/apple-facebook-youtube-spotify-bans-infowars-a-conspiracy-theorists-dream/
  24. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/03/gop-leader-mccarthy-wants-twitter-ceo-to-testify-on-censorship-conservatives.amp.html
  25. ^ https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/can-we-trust-facebook-and-twitter-1533074266
  26. ^ https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/721A2A9F-A92A-4DC3-A787-92CF75C75706
  27. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/06/reuters-america-update-5-facebook-apple-youtube-and-spotify-take-down-alex-jones-content.html
  28. ^ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/6/facebook-suspends-four-alex-jones-and-infowars-pag/
  29. ^ https://www.wired.com/story/playing-monopoly-what-zuck-can-learn-from-bill-gates/amp
  30. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/congress-released-mark-zuckerbergs-prepared-testimony-ahead-of-wednesdays-hearing.html
The article already mentions this. It however cannot be transformed into a conspiracy theory piece; there were valid reasons for material to be removed that violated the policies of those sites. —PaleoNeonate – 23:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are a policy-based encyclopedia. For Wikipedia to say, in its own voice, that Alex Jones has been "censored" would require multiple high quality reliable sources all explicitly calling it censorship. A talk page argument comprised of WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:SYNTHESIS isn't how editorial decisions are accomplished here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex Microbe, did you really say "...despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of "hate speech". I have never heard him even mention anything hateful before except for anti-islam which isn't really hate considering the fact that islam promotes the killing of homosexuals"? So, first of all, because you didn't hear hate speech there was no hate speech, and hate speech against Islam isn't hate speech because Islam etc.? Where to start? Your original research is unacceptable, as are your unwanted generalizations against a religion. I wonder why you are here. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's still on youtube here:
  • The Alex Jones Show (Redacted)
175.156.30.195 (talk)
I half expected that to be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ this link. Instead it's just one of many unauthorized repost accounts which plague Youtube, and is a WP:COPYVIO that shouldn't be linked here per WP:ELNEVER. One obvious red flag is that the channel claims "fair use". Jones doesn't need to claim fair use on his own content, because he already owns the copyright to it. This is not an example of fair use, regardless. Grayfell (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

Wikipedia's use of the words "hate speech" is dangerous as it allows those who decide what "hate" is to determine what is harmful. Many involved in this attack on hate speech typically do not use the same terms with organizations that are politically aligned with themselves. ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter, for example are rarely considered as engaging in "hate speech". As of this date, the assignment of the term has had a devastating impact as Facebook (also aligned with the thinkers of wikipedia) has pulle Jones's pages yet allowed ANTIFA pages and Black Lives Matters pages intact. bot have engaged in actual violence and terrorism while Alex Jones has been engaged solely in broadcast and voice. 68.229.220.149 (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Reliable sources describe Infowars' rhetoric as hate speech. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Comparisons to other topics are irrelevant, and also false equivalence. Wikipedia is not responsible for other sites, such as Facebook. Do not reopen this request without making a specific request based on reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate and verifiable to call InfoWars a "fake news" site/source etc.

WP:SNOW consensus to describe as "fake news" in lead. THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 04:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following a slew of POV edits, warring and subsequent blockings on the article space, It might be reasonable to have a consensus forming thread on the talk page, both for naysayers to attempt to adequately explain themselves, where at all possible, and to have something to point to when reverting. It has been requested (and ignored) that users wishing to edit the lead use the talk page to establish consensus. Possibly the effort of starting a new thread was too much.

The question for which consensus is required is: Should the term "fake news" be used in the lead of this article to describe the subject and it's published material?

Like, I get that we're doing this just to reaffirm the obvious, so that we can say that all proper processes have been gone through -- and I do think it's a good idea and want to thank Edaham for starting this thread -- but I cannot emphasize enough that trying to downplay or censor the fake news aspect of InfoWars suggests a user has a "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention" in editing, and any such attempts should be treated as vandalism. Yes, we should explain and warn on the off-chance we're dealing with someone who is only accidentally ignorant of the facts instead of willfully delusional, but we don't need to let the willfully delusional bludgeon us with process. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yet again sources for far right

[2], [3], [4]. Will; three suffice? Now any RS that say it is not far right?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Infowars&oldid=853853826"