Talk:Jimmy Dore

2017

Deleted Edits Restored?

A bit surprised to see edits that were deleted after extensive discussion suddenly re-appear. As with our discussions in September, 2017, we are once again left with a page containing several violations of the WP:BLP, including Neutral PoV (especially Undue Weight) and Notability.

Specifically, I'm referring to the re-inclusion of quotes from Dave Weigel's and Tommy Christopher's attack pieces, minor policy articles that happen to mention Dore, and quote-mining of his videos that seem intended to paint Dore in the worst possible light.

Also added is a reference to a CNN smear piece that Jimmy took great exception to going so far as threatening to sue CNN on his premium channel (reference behind a pay wall). Other progressive journalists called out CNN and the piece has since been taken down.

Since these edits have already been discussed and determined to violate policy, I'm going to remove the offending (re)additions so we can get back to a neutral representation of Dore's work. My hope is that further edits to this page will better conform to the WP:BLP. Gnocchi (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore as conspiracy theorist and historical revisionist

There are many references to this, but in this wiki these aspects seem to be edited and surpressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.209.136.245 (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's because his psychotic fanboys are always watching this article, Removing almost anything that paints him in a negative light, Saying you can't use his videos as a source when he says something crazy, Gnocchi doxxed me on Rationalwiki and was banned there, Most of the fanboys on here are banned from Rationalwiki due to constant vandalism. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Please provide specifics and references to this pointed POV claim, " conspiracy theorist and historical revisionist."Dogru144 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced rubbish + whitewashing of RS content

This article has a huge problem: it's full of content that is unsourced, primary sourced and sourced to non-RS. Another problem is that the text in this article does not adhere to the few reliable sources that are actually cited in the article.

I made an edit which (1) removed the poorly sourced rubbish and (2) added text that actually adhered to what RS say. This was promptly reverted by an editor without explanation. My edit should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but your addition to the lede of "a far-left show known for promoting conspiracy theories" is a wildly undue WP:BLP violation which justified the rollback.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a RS description of the show. And if that was the sole problem, you could have removed that one thing, not restored a gazillion poorly sourced sentences and removed a bunch of RS content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There was no RS following this statement in the lede, and given it is a BLP constituted a violation in my estimation, turning the lede of the article into a hatchet job against the individual the article is about. My mistake rolling back the whole article and not just removing this part from the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This is sourced in the body. Furthermore, RS in the body note that he's promoted conspiracy theories about Syria and Seth Rich. The shows has also pushed other delusional conspiracy theories, such as running segments about how Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's[3][4] (but this has not been covered by RS so it's not directly relevant). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Although the issue remains that the article is still heavily skewed against its subject, and given it is a BLP could be problematic. Keeping what I objected to in the lede would have made the article even worse in that regard. WP:CHERRY seems to be an issue with these recent edits, and this apparently has been a problem for a few years now, as evidenced by User:Trackinfo's post above at 18:43, 18 September 2017.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There is zero cherry-picking. If that user has RS up his sleeve, he can show them to us. And to call Jimmy Dore's segments about Syria, Seth Rich and Hillary having Parkinson's "comedy" is stretching it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The problems continue. As evidenced in the most recent sequence of edits, I quoted Dore's reaction, that it was in CNN's commercial interest to call him a "conspiracy theorist." I sourced both the quote and the coverage of the quote by medium and TYT, only to see it immediately removed, first by Snooganssnoogans and then by another user. There is a serious WP:BLP violating WP:AGENDA going on here deliberately to Dore's detriment. Trackinfo (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps since it is nearly impossible to add any rebuttal to the CNN article without triggering an edit conflict (the TYT coverage seemed reasonable to me, but I digress), perhaps the disputed content should be appropriately tagged to show readers it is disputed?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The notion that CNN has some kind of "commercial interest" in smearing "The Jimmy Dore Show" (or accurately describing this show as the far-left conspiracy show that it is) is absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

So the all knowing Snooganssnoogans has made his pronouncement and the world cannot hear of this story ever again. I didn't understand that was how wikipedia works. Trackinfo (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever CNN's motives may or may not be, Mr Dore is an RS for his own opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

On a point of accuracy, when citing articles that have named authors, we should cite the authors, in this case "Paul P. Murphy, Kaya Yurieff and Gianluca Mezzofiore writing in CNN Business accused the Jimmy Dore Channel of a being a far-left YouTube channel...."

In similar cases, where groups and individuals are accused of being far right, we generally use an authoritative source such as peer-reviewed literature or university textbooks. According to the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, p. 5, the left-right specturm "places the most militant anarchists and Communists on the far left; socialists and democratic conservatives occupy the mainstream left and right respectively; while the centre is held by 'moderate' social democrats, liberals and Christian Democrats....[The far right] view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left."[5] That's an extraordinary claim to make against the Jimmy Dore channel and requires better soruces. TFD (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point. I suggest that if the allegations from the CNN article are to remain, then the rebuttal from Dore/TYT should also be restored. As the article exists now it is largely a hatchet job. It isn't even mentioned that Dore has had on his show individuals such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is now one of the most famous (or infamous depending on perspective) politicians in the country. The article gives the impression he's a raging leftist extremist who does nothing but float dangerous conspiracy theories, a notion which Cenk rebutted forcefully in the TYT clip of his rebuttal of the CNN article (6:20 min in), noting how Dore has promoted Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage and other popular progressive policies. This is also absent from the article. I think a neutrality template might be in order as well.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

[[Slatersteven} That is the most illogical thing i've ever heard, By that logic if he claims to be the pope then it must be true. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Dore responded with a segment explaining how the CNN "report" was geared at "getting advertising off their competitor's platform. Dore responding, claiming, saying . . . is Dore's opinion. If he had said he was the Pope, we would express it the same way, as it being his opinion. Another ludicrous argument that appears too frequent on this talk page.Trackinfo (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

2020

RfC: "a far-left show known for promoting conspiracy theories"

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 lede describe 'The Jimmy Dore Show' as a "a far-left show known for promoting conspiracy theories"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - CNN[6] says it's "a far-left YouTube channel that peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes". The Washington Post[7][8] has covered his promotion of Seth Rich conspiracy theories. He has run segments[9][10] about how Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Really dude, you can't added yourself to pulling a "automatic" guilty verdict already, until other Users has said on your question??? Chad The Goatman (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

    The comment that you responded to is not a "verdict", and an editor who starts an RfC is allowed to express their opinion in the RfC. An uninvolved editor will eventually close this RfC. — Newslinger talk 07:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just because one crappy and obviously biased CNN article says this does not make it notable for the lede of this WP:BLP. Any such inclusion of something so inflammatory would constitute a BLP violation by my estimation and should be immediately removed or at the very least followed by a strong rebuttal from other sources.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin:Okay, I'll bite; what makes it a "crappy and biased article" from CNN? I'm dyin' to hear this (yeah, I am challenging your assertion, if I was at all unclear). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a crappy and biased article because only at the tail end of the article do the authors, in one sentence mind you (some analysis), and based on no sourcing whatsoever, attempt to lump Dore in with far-right fanatics, promoters of racial hatred and other nefarious characters. The assertion that Dore is a far-left extremist is wrong, as User:TFD discusses below. It's a smear, and a really bad one. A far more accurate and fair analysis, albeit brief as well, comes from a piece of scholarship on fake news. And as the TYT clip on the subject point out (6 min in), Jimmy Dore spends a good portion of his air time promoting medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage and an end to endless wars, along with other progressive ideas and policies. Funny how that was omitted from this one-sentence hit job on Dore.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Partial oppose. I wouldn't go as far as C.J. Griffin does, at least without seeing the contradicting sources first. However I don't see enough to merit including "conspiracy theories" in the lead section. The "far-left" label belongs in the lead to describe Dore's Youtube channel, per the source. Unless there are contradicting sources. R2 (bleep) 21:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. He has a history of promoting and supporting conspiracy nonsense, Such as idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes"[11] and Seth Rich conspiracy theories[12][13][14]. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The United Nations did not assess blame for the Douma attack. But you can assess with absolute certainty that Dore is "promoting and supporting conspiracy" for being skeptical?Trackinfo (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per comments below. TFD (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:LEAD should summarize only the most salient facts about a subject. The bar should be extremely high to dismiss a subject as an extreme conspiracy theorist in the lede sentence. He fails the Alex Jones test.LM2000 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is there an actual Alex Jones test? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure but perhaps there should be. It may be worth mentioning in biographies that Dore, or others, have supported conspiracies in the past, but putting these things in the lede should only be reserved for people who are best known for pushing such material. I'm not convinced Dore fits in that same box, which Jones or David Icke inhabit. I tend to avoid Sean Hannity; he's a partisan commentator who pushed for the Iraq War, among other issues, for years. That's not mentioned in his lede but his comments on the Seth Rich conspiracy are. Inclusion of this material in ledes puts Icke, Jones, Hannity and potentially Dore in the same box and that's a disservice to readers.LM2000 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment and probably Leaning opposed As a semi-regular viewer of his channel; He may or not belong on that camp, along I thinking him as a Left-wing YouTuber/Comedian with lesser known supposedly 'Conspiracy theorist'-like views. But as the others said is needed more sources to referencing him as such. Besides the so-called "Left-wing" Pro-Democrat CNN reference? Chad The Goatman (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose alternatively he can be called sceptic in my opinion, what is proposed looks like BLP violation.Sourcerery (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This user has been blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Disruptive_editing. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per C.J. Griffin and Sourcerery. Jusdafax (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per C.J. Griffin, LM2000 and Sourcerery.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. - If there are a plethora of references from legitimate sources (and CNN is legitimate, you gun-toting Trump monkey), then it should go in, as we can only use sourced evaluations. We don't get to make them ourselves. Seriously though, who let the Alt-Righter in here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per C.J. Griffin, LM2000 and Sourcerery. Trackinfo (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Also per C.J. Griffin, LM2000 and Sourcerery. Gerntrash (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Hello? CNN? --Calton | Talk 03:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment is anyone going to cowboy up and address the fact that someone just tried to TrumpRoll CNN as an unreliable source? I am sorry, but did IQ's drop sharply while I was away? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Per sources presented by Snooganssnoogans. CNN might not be the best of sources, but WaPo certainly is still in the gold plated zone for journalism. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose such details can fit in the article body but adding them to the lead will give them undeserved weight. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The subject's devotion to a conspiracy theory makes him a conspiracy theorist. He isn't known for much else outside of the Tinfoil Hate Brigade. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• This^ account, ColumbiaXY, was created today. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You make a poor non-point trying to defend the lack of proper arguments for why the "known for promoting conspiracy theories" smear should be added to the lede. Jimmy Dore has been active for moree than 10 years, has more 3300 video on his youtube channel and a small number of them are a bit conntroversial. Nobody says The New York York Times is known for promoting conspiracy theories just because they had a few articles in the past supporting the Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction conspiracy theory. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

And yet, that 10 years of activity and 3300 videos garnered him not a lick of attention. The moment he started playing up the deep state nonsense, he became popular with the MAGA- and tinfoil- hat brigade. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

We should always keep this in mind when trying to keep these articles neutral. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• NoteHe himself admits he is a conspiracy theorist, despite the negative connotations of such. Elsewhere he defines a conspiracy theorist as "start(ing) at a conclusion and then...find(ing) the facts to back it up"; he later states his belief that "assume gov is lying and work back from there"^[15]. He can be more than one thing, but there isn't a shadow of a doubt that one of those things is a conspiracy theorist. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

He is clearly saying that in jest and making the point that if you question official narratives in any way, even on something like the Gulf of Tonkin or the justification for the Iraq war, you could be branded as such. And as one of the other hosts points out, "conspiracy theorist" is too broad a term with unbelievable negative connotations, and one which could include someone who believes corporate money has corrupted US politics to those who believe all our government officials are space aliens. The former is certainly something any reasonable observer of current events could conclude. What you seek to do is use the label to smear him as something akin to the latter, as some nut who believes in crazy shit like aliens hijacked our government. This is exactly why calling him a conspiracy theorist in the lede, and especially without the context I just elaborated on, is WP:UNDUE for this WP:BLP.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"He is clearly saying that in jest" You know that's your opinion, right? We write articles to give an overview of a subject; it isn't exhaustive, as you well know. Keeping that in mind, if people want to ascertain to what degree he is a conspiracy theorist, they can follow the references or the links. For the time being, we have others calling him a conspiracy theorist, and he admits as such, so we say that. This is not and should not be a proxy fight over the dep state conspiracy theory's value. That argument belongs elsewhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Support for including a mention of conspiracy theories in the lead. Searching a few major news sites, this does seem to make up about half of his mentions and dedicated coverage, and as it's quite a short article it's fair enough to summarise points like that in the lead. However, Oppose the specific phrasing for now out. I'd favour something like "He has been criticised for promoting conspiracy theories around ...". (For the record, whatever its other faults, we do consider CNN a generally reliable source.) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC)

The opinion expressed in the CNN source should be attributed to the authors rather than to CNN itself and is a passing reference which competent editors would not normally use as a source. The term "far left" is itself misleading. I assume they mean progressive while the normal usage is for revolutionary groups like the Weather Underground or the Red Brigade.

There's a better description of the show in Critical Media Literacy and Fake News in Post-Truth America, Brill Academic Publishers (2018), eds. Christian Z. Goering, Paul L. Thomas, p. 63: 'Fighting "Fake News" in an Age of Digital Disorientation.'[16] "Dore has a [progressive] point of view, but he also promotes the free and open exchange of ideas, as well as tackling the Deep State, US imperialism, war, class warfare, and national politics in a way that is refreshing and stimulating."

TFD (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This should be added to the article. Good find, TFD.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Not a good source, It's a self published book by a fringe source that fails WP:RS and WP:OR. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Huh? The book was published by Brill Academic Publishers in 2018, meaning it's an academic source, not a self-published one. Ergo, it qualifies as WP:RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. OR refers to analysis or synthesis by editors. TFD (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the passage you quoted above, per WP:DUE.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

And I've removed it. Its kinda what discussion is all about. Adding it wa a bold move; as per WP:BRD, now we can discuss its inclusion. We don't include fringe rantings to counterbalance reasoned criticism. I mean, the author uses the term 'deep state' as if it were a real thing and not the conservative wacko conspiracy theory it actually is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an academic source, not something from the blogosphere, and IMO WP:DUE material. It served to balance a WP:BLP article that is increasingly biased against its subject. I think a neutrality template is in order until this gets revolved. EDIT: Even liberal journalist Bill Moyers has discussed the concept of the 'deep state' on PBS, so you can't use that as a justification to purge reliably sourced, academic materials.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

With respect, it is your opinion that is of concern. You've suggested that "there is a lot (of) objections on (sic) CNN articles across the board". Its CNN. It's a legitimate, outstanding source; the only folk objecting to it tend to be Flat Earthers and folk who vote for rapey, reality show hosts. So, its really hard to give your opinions weight, CJ. The source of the BLP has been labeled as a conspiracy theorist by several reliable sources. So that is what he is. If someone wraps themselves in a blanket of manure and a legitimate source notes the stink, we note the stink and list the source. It is not biased to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That the article is biased against its subject is the opinion of more than a few here by my estimation. The issue at this moment is not so much the CNN article, but the removal of reliable sources which present a more neutral picture of the subject (which was the basis for adding the template), rather than the one sentence opinion of three CNN writers in one article. You have no grounds for its removal, especially given your justification, that the concept of the deep state is discussed, is also elaborated upon across the political spectrum, including by respected journalists like Bill Moyers (noted above). And your continued political attacks, which are completely baseless given you know nothing of my politics (this is laughably obvious), I find quite annoying.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this again, CJ:

Fact: the 'deep state' is considered a conspiracy theory by almost every legitimate source. Unless proven otherwise (which a good conspiracy theory cannot), it remains a conspiracy theory and therefore subject to WP:FRINGE treatment.

Fact: the subject of the article makes his bread and butter arguing about the existence of aforementioned conspiracy theory.

Fact: the source that was removed is a book - curiously enough - also discussing the aforementioned conspiracy theory and has nothing but glowing praise for Dore.

Observation: the determination with which the legitimization of Dore's theories are being jack-hammered into the article suggest that the neutrality tag you added (plus your comments) was indeed necessary, though not for the reasons you thought.

Conclusion: We don't add sources to "balance out" the fringe nature of a BIO subject.

Additional conclusion: this is not a proxy fight over the legitimacy of the deep state conspiracy theory. That dog won't hunt, as they say.

Final conclusion: If the BIO subject wants to defend a conspiracy theory, we let him. We don't protect him from it, as it is not neutral to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What's notable here is that you completely ignore the fact that the concept is discussed in mainstream media and by respected journalists (noted above), and instead insert your own opinions on it without any sourcing whatsoever. The book you removed was an academic source, which you also fail to mention, making it a WP:RS, whether you personally agree with its content or not. But I'm not so much interested in this 'deep state' concept, just that you use it as a reason to delete sourced materials, which I believe is groundless for the reasons stated previously.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

CJ, its discussed yes, in much the same vein as Santa Claus or Obama's Kenyan Birth; they are all fantasies, concocted by people who want a Big Bad to blame for their problems. It is a topic of discussion in media because of its myth status, like the JFK Assassination or Alien Autopsies. I am kinda done arguing this topic with you. Let's let other people talk about it now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, your assertions are not backed up by the sources, or the facts. If you clicked on the PBS link I provided, you'd see that the discourse is NOT in the same context as discussing Santi Claus, or Obams's Kenyn birth or conspiracy theories - not even CLOSE. It's actually the subject of serious discussion. Based on your postulations this far, I'd say you have not justified removal of academic material, and I'm considering reverting, but will let others weigh in before doing so.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dude, that's just what I said. How about you stop the whole PEBKAC situation, and let others weigh in, greatfine. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, there is lot objections on CNN articles across the board. Think WP:DEPS should be considered.Sourcerery (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait, @Sourcery:, did you just suggest that CNN falls under the deprecated source banner? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Past discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard consider both CNN (RSP entry) and The Washington Post (RSP entry) generally reliable for news. The specific CNN Business and Post articles listed in this RfC are also reliable, although reputable academic sources are usually considered higher-quality than news sources. If asked in a noticeboard RfC, there would almost certainly be consensus against deprecating CNN as a source. — Newslinger talk 07:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, speaking of flat earthers, that's exactly what you are when you declare that academic sources are unreliable because you know the world is flat whatever the pointy-headed intellectuals say. While the term deep state can be used by conspiracy theorists, it is used in reliable sources. See for example the book, The Deep State, Greenhaven Press (2018). Also called the administrative state, It is merely the permanent civil service that continues through various administrations.

And while CNN is a reliable source for news, I prefer to get my analysis of issues in social scientists from academic sources written by people who have degrees in the subjects and teach at reputable institutions of higher learning. The same applies to natural sciences. I wouldn't re-write articles on articles on climate science or cancer cures or drinking celery juice because of something a CNN reporter said.

TFD (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you addressing my comment directly, TFD, but I think you misinterpreted my comment. CNN is a reliable source because they utilize the same sources that you claim to; unlike places like Faux News or InfoWars, they tend to write stories based upon the "Who, Wht, When, Were, why and how" mantra of journalism. You will note the distinct absence of 'feelz' in that, since how a subject feels is immaterial to journalism. Is CNN perfectly neutral? No; no one is perfectly neutral. But in a new, post Trump reality, what passes for news is often a frighteningly fluid concept. CNN, I believe is trying to pull harder on the rope of those in the tug-of-war between those who aim for the more unsupportable points of view; if that makes them seem a little more leftist, I can live with that.

Now, with that out of the way, let's take a gander at the source you thoughtfully provided: a book about the Deep State, entitled The Deep State. Do you think that, perhaps, the editor might have an invested interest in legitimizing their book, seeing as its called "The Deep State"? Might an editor of a book about the Aquatic ape hypothesis have a similar investment to their book being taken seriously (as being taken seriously directly translates into sales of the book)?

Add to that the fact that the book you listed isn't on Amazon (which means is isn't even for sale yet and not available for the sort of scrutiny and reference that a secondary source could provide), which suggests that you - as an editor - are arguing that the book is a legitimate source confirming the deep state as an actual "Thing" (something we are specifically explicitly prohibited from doing). This is something that not even the publisher opines:

"This fascinating and informative volume presents a variety of perspectives that helps readers to decide whether a deep state is something to fear or simply a conspiracy theory."¹

As well, your argument that "Also called the administrative state, It is merely the permanent civil service that continues through various administrations"² is an editorial falsehood. They are not interchangeable things, as an administrative state is indistinguishable from a bureaucracy (as per Dwight Waldo's book, The Administrative State, considered the standard text for students of Public Administration since its publication in 1948). Administrative state refers to a bureaucracy, a real thing. A deep state refers toa conspiracy theory, not a real thing. People talk about Santa and the Easter bunny all the time. Talking about a thing does not not make it a real thing. It does not legitimize that thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think TFD makes some great points here, in particular that an academic source which specializes in the subject is far superior to the CNN article, which has just one throwaway sentence on the subject of this BLP. Looking over that one-sentence again, I would say that the writers certainly are not utilizing the same sources if that is all they came up with. I doubt very much they looked into Dore and his show much at all quite frankly. If they had, their analysis (if you could even call it that) would have been a bit different, instead of a one-sentence hatchet job comparing Dore's program to those of Nazis and others on the far right. This whole discussion of the use of "deep State" is irrelevant, as the term has different meanings to different folks depending on where they fall on the political spectrum. The discussion of the term on Bill Moyers program linked above, is very different from those who throw it around in alt-right circles. This is actually explained in another piece from Bill Moyers Website. It should be fairly obvious that a serious piece of scholarship would not be using the term in the same way the alt-right uses it. I believe the passage should be restored.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, your voiced opinion regarding CNN as "fake news" is well-known. I know my post was a little bit long, but focusing on what I wrote might have saved you a little time. CNN uses the same sources that TFD notes, as well as others; that's why they are CNN and not Faux News or some other, conservative example of yellow journalism. What you believe or doubt are immaterial, buddy; they are the source, and your opinion - quite bluntly - is not.

Please don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, CJ. This entire section has been a proxy fight to legitimize the deep state as a "Thing" and not the conspiracy theory that it is (your own edit proves my point). This is Dore's stock and trade; it is what made him famous, so yeah - we're going to mention it as part of his bio, and sourced content that calls it what it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't know that CNN uses this source. This is pure speculation on your part and you know it, because they don't cite any sources in that piece whatsoever. And the idea that this is some "proxy fight" to legitimize this "deep state" is largely a figment of your imagination, because you are the one fixated on this concept. You are the one who justified purging academic sources simply because it contained the term. It wasn't even a subject of discussion here till you brought it up. Oh, and I never said CNN was "fake news", not once did I utter those words. You really do presume too much. EDIT: I never even bothered to look up the article Deep State in the United States (and honestly didn't even know it existed) until the discussion here, and felt that the analysis from liberal journalists associated with Moyers & Company might be helpful to readers to show that the term has been used long before Trump and the alt-right co-opted it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot focus on what you are saying because you are still peeing on my leg and noting how it looks like it might rain. Go argue your innocence elsewhere, buddy - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on the response above, I suggest you click here: Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, CJ, but AGF is not a suicide pact, especially when you have shown that your words and actions illustrate two different points of view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There you go again with the snide insinuations like you know my views on politics, ideology or anything else when you clearly do not. It is laughable but please stop it. This is not a forum so the personal views of editors should not be the topic of discussion here anyway. The purpose of the talk page is to resolve disputes, not level personal attacks against other editors you disagree with regarding article content. You are clearly not winning anyone over here in terms of your deletion of reliably-sourced materials.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel personally attacked, CJ. Perhaps if you stated less obviously-conflicting statements, I would not feel obliged to point them out. I am and have always been addressing content: Dore has been cited as a conspiracy theorist. He himself admits he is a conspiracy theorist. Why are you seemingly trying to whitewash the article? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian:, these are frivolous objections. No one would complain that a book with United States in its title was unreliable because obviously the editors held a position on whether or not the United States actually existed. While I have never heard of the Amazon rule, in fact the book is available on Amazon, in paperback![17]

The first contributor, John Light, is cited in discussion about the deep state in Media, Ideology and Hegemony (Brill Publishers (2018)). Brill is an academic publisher and the series editor is David Fasenfest, and there is an editorial board of 12 academics.
Pseudo-scientific theories such as the aquatic ape theory don't get published in peer-reviewed sources. You are providing a false equivalency between what is appears in academic sources and what appears in the non-academic popular press. The reliable sources guideline holds that facts written in academic sources are reliable, while books defending the aquatic ape theory are not.
For your source, we must consider "Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." So instead of google seaching "Jimmy Dore"+[random negative word], try googling "Jimmy Dore" at google books and select books that are reliable sources and see if they make more than passing mention of him, then add that information to the article. And don't worry if what they say is good or bad. We are not here to evaluate subjects but to ensure articles "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." TFD (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That is so odd that you were able to find the book, when my search within Amazon failed to turn up similar results. I wonder why.

I think your presumption was that I only did a cursory search of "Jimmy Dore + [random negative word]" (that you considered the term negative is quite telling in itself, btw) is pretty off; yes, Jimmy Dore is mentioned in Google books, and no, not always as a conspiracy theorist. Could we use more of that? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean that his well-earned and public views about a 'deep state' (a conspiracy theory) are to be avoided or ignored? Not a chance. We do evaluate our references to make sure they aren't fringe views or offer undue weight to an article. Noting that a conspiracy theorist is a conspiracy theorist is not undue weight, nor is it a fringe theory that Dore is such. We have sourcing that note that despite whatever else - he is a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean we make it the most important part of the article, but we note it, like we note that Mancow Muller is a shock jock or that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist (note that "conspiracy theorist" is cited no less than six times; such is the movement to purge the term from any article).

In short, we can point out that Dore is also known for other things, but he is famous for his political conspiracy theories. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You are drawing a false conclusion that because there are conspiracy theories about the deep state, that the deep state itself is a conspiracy theory. There are conspiracy theories about the CIA, CFR, etc., but that does not mean none of those organizations actually exist. There are indeed career civil servants who continue regardless of the administration. Now can you please provide a reliable source that says Dore is known for political conspiracy theories. It seems to me you may be confusing stuff you disagree with as a conspiracy theory. Like the fact that Joe Biden supported the 1998 crime bill, or Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Republican, or Trump did not conspire with Russia.

What pray tell is telling about my considering the term "conspiracy theory" or "far left" to be negative terms? Are those terms you would be happy for people to use in your description? What exactly does far left mean in this instance other than a pejorative?

Your approach reminds how things are proved on Fox News Channel: "I am right, you are wrong, he is a conspiracy theorist."

TFD (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Like I originally said, this had very little to do with Dore, and muchly to do with trying to legitimize a conspiracy theory. There is likely a fuqton of sources that note the modern American interpretation of the super-secret deep state is a conspiracy theory. You might want to consider taking this little tete a tete on over the the deep state article instead. We have sources that say Dore is a conspiracy theorist. We have Dore himself saying he is a conspiracy theorist. Ergo, the fellow is a conspiracy theorist. It isn't like he's saying he's a fire truck. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the fact that there are conspiracy theories about U.S. intelligence agencies such as the CIA does not mean there are no U.S. intelligence agencies. I have presented a reliable source written by experts and cited by other experts, and you have responded that you reject those sources because they don't follow your opinions based on your original research. But let's agree to disagree because it it not that vital to the discussion.

One guideline that you are blatantly ignoring is Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." Instead of looking for the best sources and reflecting what they say, you are looking for sources that support your personal views. You're welcome to go elsewhere and write articles about why you hate Jimmy Dore or why you think the CIA doesn't exist, but that's not how this article should be written. TFD (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have cited numerous examples where Dore has presented information or espoused beliefs that are considered by almost every other legitimate source to be conspiracy theories. We are not here to discuss the validity of those conspiracy theories, and any argument attempting to do so will get pimp-slapped for the distraction that it is. We are here, instead, to evaluate whether Dore's endorsement of these ideas makes him - among other things - a conspiracy theorist. I posit here (as before) that he is.

Prove to me that he is not, and this discussion turns from the fringe-y arguing as to whether 'deep state' or 'chemtrails' are legitimate to whether Dore should be called a conspiracy theorist because of his stated belief in these things. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Okay, let's address a couple of your points. First of all, yes, there are conspiracy theories about the CIA, NSA, and Nabisco. The difference that you seem to be trying desperately to overlook is that while the aforementioned are all real entities (ie. places you can go and see), the deep state is not. It doesn't exist, but you desperately want it to. I get it, as much as I get how much you think it is a real thing. But it is not. Books and pundits (the legitimate ones, not the Tinfoil Hate Brigade) who talk about it compare it to a boogeyman that might come if we aren't careful.

This is not what Dore does. He argues that it does in fact exist, despite every reasonable source saying it does not. It is a conspiracy theory. He admits to being a conspiracy theorist. Ergo, Dore - while he might be other things, is a conspiracy theorist. He does not make money based on the fact that he is a comedian. He is famous enough to have a Wikipedia page because of his fame as a conspiracy theorist.

So, I am not "blatantly ignoring" context, TFD. I am saying that we have sources - reliably sources - that state that the subject (one by his own words) is a conspiracy theorist. 'ANY argument about the validity of his conspiracy theory is fucking moot. I totally get that you see this as a proxy fight for validation of that theory, but it is not, and its the primary reason you are running into a wall with me. Repeatedly. Its an argument that will go precisely nowhere with me. The place to argue that shit is somewhere else. End of story.

The sole issue at hand is whether we call Jimmy Dore a conspiracy theorist - ie. someone who theorizes that a specific theory is genuine. There is zero doubt that this is what he does. We have two sources that say he does, and his own words admitting such provide the context of one of those sources. You have provided zero sources that say Jimmy Dore is not a conspiracy theorist. You and others have instead thrown buckets of sources that argue the existence of a deep state.

It's a Leprechaun-shaped peg that won't fit in a reality-sized hole. This article will not serve as a proxy fight over the existence of the deep state. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The sole issue at hand in this particular discussion is your deletion of a reliable source because it mentions "deep state", which is obviously some kind of trigger for you. It's just thrown in as one of the topics tackled on Dore's show, along with US imperialism, class warfare and war. You could just as easily say "This article will not serve as a proxy fight over the existence of US imperialism". The problem here is your fixation with the use of deep state in the source. Debate over the existence of the deep state is not even the point of the passage. The point made is that Dore promotes a free change of ideas on a range of controversial topics that he has a strong point of view on. This is clearly WP:DUE material for this BLP. You seem to be the only one here arguing against the inclusion of this material. TFD, although he has not stated it explicitly, appears to be in favor of its inclusion, at least as far as I can tell. I'll give it a few more days to allow others to opine on the issue before I restore it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to initiate a new survey, feel absolutely free to do so, CJ; I'd urge you to avoid trying to manhandle the article to your preferred version. You wouldn't like the end-result of that.

As for your attempt to reframe the discussion, you are - again - wrong. I am saying that, as Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist, we note that. He speaks of the deep state as a real thing which, of course, it is not. Now before you start yelling about all the sources who talk about the deep state, note that lots of sources talk about Santa Claus. Not really sure what you are spending your time arguing the validity of the deep state argument. It has zilch to do with this article, apart from Dore's belief in it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The source is "Exclusive: YouTube ran ads from hundreds of brands on extremist channels" in CNN Business. Its last sentence is "Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes."

Context matters clearly applies: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." The principle topic is not Jimmy Dore, who is mentioned in passing, but Youtube advertising.

Jimmy Dore is not an extremist or far left as those terms are normally understood. There are no calls for violent revolution or to remodel the U.S. along the lines of North Korea.

I don't know why you continue to argue about the deep state. See for example "The Deep State Is Real But it might not be what you think" by Michael Crowley, currently White House correspondent for the New York Times. Or perhaps you think the New York Times hires conspiracy theorists.

TFD (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the response sanity, TFD; its appreciated.

Last bit first, whether the "deep state" exists is immaterial, except that the American version of it is widely considered a conspiracy theory. I could toss in at least a dozen different RS citations that qualify it as such. Therefore, that the "deep state" is considered to be a conspiracy theory is indisputable.

Because it is considered a conspiracy theory, those who use it as a deus ex machina or key to explain something is themselves a conspiracy theorist. Note that this is very different than discussing the existence of a "deep state." Jimmy Dore talks about the "deep state" a lot, much more than the three videos that someone else (maybe yourself) opined. He gets followers and revenue dollars from talking about these topics. As such, this makes him a conspiracy theorist, though he plays down the descriptor because of its negative connotations. The "deep state" isn't his only conspiracy theory; he also pushes the murder of Seth Rich¹, various 9/11 theories², Assad's gassing of his citizens³ and even the JFK Assassination⁴. The sheer amount of back and forth in this discussion by others should suggest that, for them, Dore is less important than legitimizing the "deep state," and take offense at its classification as a conspiracy theory. That was what I referred to as the 'proxy fight' in the article discussion.

So, Dore makes a living as a conspiracy theorist. That is largely indisputable, as well. Conspiracy theorists aren't necessarily partisan. They don't always call for revolution or remodeling of the "U.S. along the lines of North Korea" (no idea where that came from). Most conspiracy theories only point out a problem, not how to solve the problem. They focus on recognition of the problem, not solutions to the problem. Ergo, your definition of what defines a conspiracy theorist is deeply, deeply flawed.

You make a point that 'context matters,' and I absolutely agree. However, this is not Youtube advertising, this is Dore's own, recorded words - over and over again - presumably being used by CNN to evaluate Dore as a conspiracy theorist. CNN didn't pull the evaluation out of thin air; it came from Dore's own words.

I hope that addresses your points, TFD. Please feel free to note any argument of yours that I overlooked. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Just stepping in for a moment: "So, Dore makes a living as a conspiracy theorist. Are you out of your mind? Do you ever see the content Dore produces. Several hours a week. And you pick on a couple of minor subjects he has mentioned mostly in the distant past and use that as a basis for a blanket statement. Last time I paid attention to this argument, we were discussing the possible inclusion of the phrase, which I think is out of line. Now you have perverted your argument to the point of making it the crux of his existence. Go back and read WP:BLP. We don't do this kind of character assassination on wikipedia. Go somewhere else. Trackinfo (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So, 'go back to where you came from' is your ta-ta?

First of all, these aren't "minor subjects he mentioned in the distant past." He rails on about his many, many conspiracy theories - not on the "distant past" but less than four months ago:

From RT America {1):

"Brigida Santos: Israel's alleged crimes against Palestinian civilians are being exposed here and yet it’s still taboo for people like Ilhan Omar to call out Israel in America. Why is that?

"Dore: Why is it? It’s because same reason why you can’t mention why Phil Donahue was fired from MSNBC on MSNBC. The reason is because the Israeli lobby controls our Congress and our politicians. Just look what happened to Ilhan Omar recently. All she did was just mention it and instead of us talking about the control that the AIPAC lobby has on our politics in the United States we ended up talking about her and whether she was anti-Semitic for pointing out that lobbying groups use money to control politicians, which is a fact. Which is a fact that the Wall Street Journal agrees with. Which is a fact that AIPAC brags about. So why is that? It’s because they own our politicians and if you mention that fact you’re called anti-Semitic in the United States because if you want to know who rules over you just find out who you’re not allowed to criticise."

He's known because he stirs up shit; its that attention that pays his bills; lets call it what it is. Is a conspiracy theorist all he is? No. He is famlus because he speaks so stirringly of the conspiracy theories he espouses. Furthermore, there are plenty of references from RS that consider him a conspiracy theorist. Because the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, we can verify that he is considered a conspiracy theorist. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

The Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees

It is one persons opinion that this is a pro Assad lobby group, and to imply this is a fact is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The way it is written is highly POV and further skews the article against its subject. I think a neutrality tag might be in order.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right. WP:UNDUE POV-pushing and WP:BLP smear. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

From an article about Denis Kucinich ;

'Kucinich, currently running for Ohio governor, has revealed that he received $20,000 from “a group sympathetic to the Syrian government,” Cleveland.com reported Tuesday. New ethics filings show that the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, a group tied to the pro-Assad Syria Solidarity Movement, paid Kucinich for 2017 speeches.' Its not 'one persons opinion'. When the OPCW JIM has said the attack on Khan Shaykun was regime action, its a bit tortured to say the article is 'skew'ed against this man Jimmy Dore. If expert analysis is against him the wikipedia article should show that I should think. Wikipedia is not under an obligation I take it to assert the evenness of the opinion of this bought hack , and the OPCW JIM, on CW attacks 78.147.47.103 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources say it is a "a pro-Assad lobbying group", as our article does. Nor do any of those sources imply Dore was paid to give a pro Assad message. It is a serious accusation that needs more then one Journos opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

According to a recent RfC, Bellingcat is a RS. Furthermore, Bellingcat has a stellar reputation on matters related to the Syrian Civil War. It does not need to be attributed, but if is to be attributed, then it should be attributed to Bellingcat, not "one man". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the RSN discussion said something about attribution. But I have no issue with changing from the author to Bellingcat.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah: generally reliable, attribution preferred. I don't have any problem with attributing the statement to Bellingcat here, although it seems like this is not just the opinion of one journalist: local press (12) and Politifact both described the group in similar terms when reporting on the Kucinich story. Nblund ^talk 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the implication he said what he said because he was paid as much as the accusation they are an advocacy group.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which came first, (lobbyists tend to target people that already agree with them) but that implication is consistent with the source. Nblund ^talk 13:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not disputing that, I am saying it is too serious an allegation to be stated as fact when it only has a single source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I don't see it as all that serious: it's sort of the point of lobbying. Are you saying we need more than the current in text attribution? Nblund ^talk 14:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no such implication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Then what relevance does what he went on to say have, either it is linked or it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That he take money from a pro-Assad lobby group and that pro-Assad lobby groups feel that he's worthy of money are both pertinent info, as demonstrated by the RS coverage. Usually, people turn away money from unsavoury groups, and when they don't, that's notable. That unsavoury groups decide to reward certain people is also notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

One RS covered this. Thus the whole thing needs attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

But it has attribution, right? I'm a little unclear on what's being suggested here that would differ from the current version. Nblund ^talk 15:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I am also wondering that, I am not the one arguing against the current version.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

When I read it, it sounded like to me it was implying his opinion was based on the donation. It mentions his view, then talks about the donation, and then says "That same year..." this alone makes it sound like his opinion is based on the donation. Some of you seem to be suggesting that instead, this group donated to someone who has the same opinion as them. In any case, we need to make it very clear what we're trying to say, and there is definitely some confusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:6A09:300:C51A:AA9D:9277:4C5 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No we are reporting what RS have said, we cannot analyse that and come to nay conclusions, only RS can do that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Trackinfo apparently doesn't like this group being called "pro-Assad", and is removing the reference, claiming the something called "Influence Watch" says otherwise.

• "Influence Watch" says nothing -- nil, nada, fuck-all -- about whether the organization is "pro-Assad", or anti-Assad, or Assad-less, or any other Assad things. There's nothing for be to "accepted" about this reference because it is entirely irrelevant, and Influence Watch is a source for nothing except the organization's mailing address, really.
• The source of the "pro-Assad" characterization is the Bellingcat reference. Don't like it? It's not Wikipedia's or Trackinfo's place to contradict a source just because he doesn't like it.
• Despite his being wrong from the start and it not being necessary, I gave him another source anyways. So he was wrong both on the sourcing and on the straight facts, and he reverted anyways. Accuracy clearly is not his concern here, and someone needs to revert back. --Calton | Talk 12:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: Influence Watch notes if any organization has a bias or "Influence" get it? Its in the name. Its what they do. They mention Palestinians but do not mention Assad. If there was an influence by Assad, it would be their job to note it. Instead you quote from hit pieces and repeat from hit pieces. You and your like have turned this article about a guy doing a political comedy podcast out of his garage into character assassination. You might read about WP:BLP. Trashing a guy on his own BLP is not what wikipedia should be used for. If the conspiracy theories were what made him famous, maybe, but they aren't. (Not the that is WP:UNDUE at its core) You have completely lost the essence of his character or his show. I don't know who sent you to wikipedia, but before you edit any more, read a little about WP:NPOV. Trackinfo (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

...get it?

Yes, I'd forgotten that Influence Watch is the ONLY source in the world -- the only one! -- that documents influence, and if something isn't mentioned on its site it doesn't exist. So your logic is that when a reliable source says a thing exists, while another source -- which may or may not be reliable, come to think -- says absolutely nothing the thing, you go with "the thing doesn't exist".

Stick to track and field statistics, because basic logic seems to elude you.

Trashing a guy on his own BLP is not what wikipedia should be used for

Nobody is "trashing" someone, Wikipedia is documenting what a reliable source says. Both you and Apeholder don't like what it says -- Apeholder just straight up lied, claiming that the statement that AIPAC is pro-Assad is sourced from the paragraph that LITERALLY SOURCES IT, INCLUDING IN THE HEADLINE. Somebody -- somebodies -- needs a read of WP:NPOV, but it ain't me.

I don't know who sent you to wikipedia...

I've been here 15 years, genius, five years longer than you have. So, who sent YOU here? --Calton | Talk 04:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly you've been on wikipedia longer, by 29 months almost to the day. Whatever math brought you to 5 years might reflect on your own credibility. I was referring to you, snooogans and the other IPs arriving at editing this article within days of each other, all pushing the slime added to a previously innocuous article that I have been watching and occasionally contributing to for several years. When these things happen, some outside force caused it. Did you get a directive or inspired from another site? You had to look for this stuff, or get shown. None of these "conspiracy theorist" accusations show up in the first 10 pages of a google search on Dore even now. It is not what he is about. Its not why he has a half a million subscribers. Its obscure stuff from obscure sources you've dug up. Go back 9 months, it was not previously on his page. You had to be directed to find it but now its front line content you are pushing to have on his wikipedia page. While you have a CNN story leading it, Dore's rebuttal is not. I added it. Snoogans removed it. That rebuttal is; CNN is a commercial competitor and a frequent target of Dore. Discrediting Dore (that is what all of this is about) was a clear mission of CNN Money's story about advertising. It was a clear commercial effort, maybe even a directive from management, to discredit nontraditional online advertising destinations. Look at all these horrible people and organizations your advertising dollars are supporting; where your message is appearing. And in that article, Dore's left wing ideas were grouped and labeled, along with Nazis, White Supremacists and other right wing nutballs. CNN had a clear message to advertisers. You can't trust putting your dollars into online advertising, spend it on CNN where you won't be advertising adjacent to any radical ideas. Since that was added, you've gone further, pushing this point; that he has accepted a $2500 contribution. Now Dore is promoting crazy conspiracy theories. See, $2500. Dore can't be trusted. That is the ridiculous premise you are promoting by adding this content. This is an agenda. Yours? Someone else? Are you the player or getting played? Whichever, this stuff doesn't belong in a BLP. Trackinfo (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Twitter vs Rolling Stone Magazine

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "remove positions randomly plucked out of interview." I think it is relevant and should be included. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Personally I see no issue with it, he is an RS (as long as it is attributed) for what he says. If he denies a claim BLP means we should include said denial.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The positions are plucked out an 1-hr interview. There is nothing to substantiate that they are DUE or that they accurately reflect where he truly stands on these issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As for the Tweet, that seems to be a response to RS characterizations of him, so it seems to fulfill the exception carved out for self-sourced content on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur. It is reliably sourced material and was placed in the appropriate section/paragraph. It should be restored.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain how it's "reliably sourced material". It's a podcast interview. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Your contention is that podcasts hosted on platforms by RS are also RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure. If this were posted/published on some users personal blog or something similar then that would be a different story. And the data retrieved is hardly controversial, and that is part of the issue I think. It seems pretty obvious to me that's what is going on here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"It seems pretty obvious to me that's what is going on here." Good grief, it's all a grand conspiracy, isn't it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Making the observation that more than a few here seek to include only the most inflammatory and controversial content in this BLP, and at the same time remove material which is not, hardly makes one a conspiracy theorist.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thus far, I've sought to include RS content and exclude non-RS content in a way consistent with how I've edited as a seasoned editor across Wikipedia pages, whereas you have in a unprincipled fashion randomly chosen to exclude RS content when it doesn't fit your POV and sought to pluck random quotes from a hour-long interview when it does fit your POV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"whereas you have in a unprincipled fashion randomly chosen to exclude RS content when it doesn't fit your POV". The pot calling the kettle black.[18], [19] -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the RS noticeboard.[20] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat sourced content

Seriously, there is a dubious claim on here from the Bellingcat "investigative journalism" outlet. I seriously hope this site is not taken as a credible source on WP? This outlet is funded by The National Endowment for Democracy - a right-wing corporate think tank who essentially help the CIA and other western nations to overthrow other countries that don't allow themselves to be bullied by the WTO and IMF. A diabolical organisation and anyone accepting funding from them has seriously tainted any credibility they already had. Here's an e.g. from Consortium News (the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal before someone automatically assumes "they can't be credible because I've never heard of them")
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/28/the-dirty-hand-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-in-venezuela/ Or Der Speigel calling out their analysis of military aerial footage: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html Apeholder (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you don't describe a crackpot conspiracy website founded in 1995 as "the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal" and misleadingly claim that Der Spiegel has criticized Bcat when the only thing Der Spiegel did was interview someone who criticized Bcat. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

:The latest RfC at RSN found that bellingcat was generally reliable. Whether or not that is a correct assessment, we would need another RfC to challenge it. It is plausible that the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees contributed $3500 to Dore's program. Lots of people contribute to his show for different reasons. My concern is whether it includes weight for inclusion. The article was not about Dore and I don't see any coverage of the story in other sources. I have never added information from an investigative report to any article for that reason. So unless someone can show the story meets weight, it should be removed. Incidentally, the word implies a quid pro quo although there is no evidence for that. TFD (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Given this is a BLP, it should be removed or at the very least the section tagged.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for what? Using RS to bring information to readers on Dores views? The section lays out Dores views as expressed by Dore on Twitter etc , and a response in a RS. Whats the problem. The article isn't exactly overbearingly long, I'm sure readers can cope with these few sentences. If Dore thinks stories of cw attacks are part of some conspiracy, and has no time for OPCW -JIM reports, thats important isn't it? WP:NOT CENSORED. (As for TFD saying its not had wide coverage , that is because Dore is not very notable at all as it is, so cutting away what little there is in RS is the opposite of helpful and furthers ignorance about the subjects views. Not what WP is supposed to be doing is it really ).Bulldog Antz (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for being questionable. The whole issue here, which were unnecessarily opposed by @Snooganssnoogans: is that it is apparently reasonable to consider JD's views as questionable due to his receipt of funds from a think-tank. Conversely, it is apparently totally unreasonable to also consider the Bellingcat source as compromised even though they have MUCH more questionable financiers that are pure propaganda e.g. National Endowment For Democracy. Why is it okay to say someone isn't being honest because of their receipt of funds, when another person is given a free pass? The usual WP Russiagate hypocrisy here. I'm going to add a 'better source needed' tag and I really hope it will remain until one appears. WP will continue to decline if we don't hold the same accountability across the board. Apeholder (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for being WP:UNDUE per TFD above. I am all for citing RS to make sure readers get accurate and DUE information on Dore and his POV. I added material on Dore's views months ago from a far superior source than Bellingcat (published by Brill Academic Publishers), but it was deleted by another editor.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The Brill book quote did not address his views on cw attacks in Syria so really I think you are totally missing the point. Your animus against Bellingcat is superseded by the numerous RS that regard Bellingcat in a quite different light. Bellingcat lays out all its evidence for its conclusions, open source investigations, and is open about the sources of its money. Bellingcat's authors have won numerous accolades and awards. Apart from the essay you cite, what has Rob Williams written ? ( o.k. I looked up his essay and it seems he is a journalist in Vermont for a 'radical news journal'. 'far superior' to Bellingcat as a source? Ho, and indeed, hum.) Bulldog Antz (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So, it went from "Using RS to bring information to readers on Dores views" to "The Brill book quote did not address his views on cw attacks in Syria so really I think you are totally missing the point". I think this gets to the crux of the problem here. It's less about giving DUE weight to his political views as a leftist progressive (such a description was in the lede until it was purged), and more about giving UNDUE weight to a very narrow selection of controversial views, such as the Seth Rich case and the cw attacks in Syria (and especially the insinuation he is being paid off to promote a certain view on the latter), that can be used to paint the subject of the article as nothing but a conspiracy theorist. His views on class warfare and US imperialism, as discussed in the materials added from Brill book, which again is an academic publisher (making it WP:RS), have been removed, even though proper attribution was applied to the author of that work. Likewise, his views on universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, the US-backed Saudi war in Yemen, etc., have also been removed over the last year or so. If you are going to include the Bellingcat material, fine. But why purge reliably sourced content describing Dore's views with proper attribution such as the Brill book? This is why the article as it exists now should be tagged for neutrality, at least IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

He rails against the dark money behind the news, so he thinks the money thing is important. Bulldog Antz (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so that's why it's also important to question the dark-money behind Bellingcat, as the National Endowment For Democracy are very clear about their actions assisting the CIA to overthrow and undermine foreign governments. Straight up propaganda and they don't even try to hide it. So, as I said above, it makes no sense to say "this guy is compromised by his dark-money", but also "don't question the dark-money behind the news outlet questioning his dark-money". Where is the logic behind that?? So yes, it really needs a neutrality tag because all of his general views have been gradually removed as the guy above says, and in typically biased WP style, only the possibly questionable comments left up. Entirely biased censorship and totally against the principles of Wikipedia. Apeholder (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bellingcat WP article addresses its sources of money. Bulldog Antz (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans and Calton: Jimmy Dore is mentioned in a Bellingcat article criticizing the Serena Shim Award.^[21] –84.46.52.75 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bellingcat article says the United Nations has confirmed that the Syrian government, the only party to the conflict known to possess the Sarin and an air force, was responsible. As I sourced above[22], the United Nations itself says The report does not assign blame for the likely use of chlorine gas, and found no grounds or evidence, to support an assertion from the Syrian Government that rebel fighters in Douma had use a local facility, to manufacture chemical weapons. The Bellingcat article is reporting a fact about the UN that is diametrically opposed to what the UN says. That, my friends, is a lie. It means Bellingcat is not only not a reliable source, but is in fact a fraud. All of this is, as I accused above, a smear against Jimmy Dore in a BLP. Accordingly, I will remove the smears in this article attributed to Bellingcat. Trackinfo (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The RS noticeboard has concluded that Bellingcat is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

So we are expected to follow RS noticeboard and their eminent research team (that doesn't exist) or now that I have proven a reason NOT to believe Bellingcat we'll just override our lying eyes? Trackinfo (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Other than the distant analysis of a poorly informed RD noticeboard, nobody has produced a good reason to believe Bellingcat after I proved they are deliberately lying. But the slime was restored to the article, including removing the contradicting source, the UN itself. There is some artificial force pushing the directive to discredit Dore, fast. This is a BLP. This stuff doesn't belong here. Somebody please revert this. Trackinfo (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

1RR now applied to the article

Please be mindful, everyone. Thanks. El_C 01:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You may find this pertinent Snooganssnoogans Apeholder (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

El_C - can you please link to the exact part of BLP you're referring to re: the Podesta email quote? Apeholder (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. El_C 02:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the edit in question brought up the quote by citing WikiLeaks directly. However, it has also appeared in an RS source. If we include the context, I don't there is a BLP issue. Only a question of whether Dore calling out Podesta is notable. Connor Behan (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RS content

After reading BLP, is it agreeable that JD's own YT videos, Twitter, etc. are all good sources to detail his views on a subject? This article needs more balance and NPOV has clearly not been followed. I just wanted a consensus here before any edits are immediately reverted Apeholder (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, because interpretation would be required. A lot of the negative material could be removed however if we followed content policies, such as WP:REDFLAG, using sources that merely mention Dore in passing and presenting opinions as facts. TFD (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

But what about when the statement is clear cut e.g. "...and this is why we need medicare for all" after doing a segment about the high cost of healthcare for instance? As for RF, yes I will have a look at that link Apeholder (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It's only clear to you because you are familiar with the program. I can get quotes of Democrats supporting medicare for all who have since backtracked or by medicare for all mean something different from what most people would understand. TFD (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Then it would be reasonable to show how a Democrat was once for M4A, but then also include a further quote showing how their opinion has changed. There's no reason why something can't be kept up to date without having to be 10 pages long Apeholder (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That's original research. In order to do that effectively, you would need to know what the discussion was and how it evolved over time. For example the public option was championed by progressives in 2008, but isn't today. Progressives actually voted for the Affordable Care Act. You would also need to study Dore's postings over the years to see how this views have or have not evolved. While it could be informative, it goes beyond what is expected for an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no, we can use them (as far as I am concerned) for his opinions (As long as they are stated as opinions) and as long as they clearly say that. But it has to be his last word on the subject we use, unless we say "in..." to make it clear this is a snap shot view.Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

His views , as reported on by himself, how are we sure they are of sufficient interest/weight to include. I think once his views are picked up , and commented on, by RS, then his views and the comment generated thereon, could be included. Otherwise whats to stop the article becoming like an election leaflet ' Jimmy Dore is for good affordable housing, free healthcare, he is anti-war, 'all wars are bullshit', ' etc etc etc. Who fucking cares about his sophomoric geopolitical b/s. Wait for RS to pick up on the comedians views, don't just lay them all out there on a wikipedia page. He has his own shows for that. Bulldog Antz (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

With that in mind, then why have all his views been removed from this page except ones that make him look a conspiracy theory loon? We are having real issues keeping this article NPOV TBH. Maybe ALL his views should be removed to keep it neutral then Apeholder (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no, if we mention his views then his views on that should be included. We cannot claim (in our voice) something he denies saying or thinking. BUt his views are not automatically notable on any topic.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Then why have all his views except been removed from this page except ones that make him look a conspiracy theory loon? We are having real issues keeping this article NPOV TBH. Maybe ALL his views should be removed to keep it neutral then Apeholder (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If his views are covered by RS that is different form using him for his views.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. Imagine JD makes a controversial statement, gets lots of press and then it's covered on here. An article from say the Guardian would be okay, but a rebuttal he put out himself online would be removed as it's from himself and not RS? How does any of that make sense? Apeholder (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No, a rebuttal to something we say here would be OK.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please archive yrs-old discussions

There's no reason to keep 4-yr old discussions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Done! TFD (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Seth Rich

Mainstream media discussed the murder of Seth Rich and so did Jimmy Dore. We need a source that says there was something unusual about his coverage otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing conspiracy theories and promoting them. Both of the two cited RS cover it in the context of the latter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The Salon article is by Amanda Marcotte who is described as a "politics writer. "That's the the same Marcotte who argued for the guilt of the Duke lacrosse players even after they were exonerated. (See Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case.) It fails rs. David Weigel writing in the Washington Post at least is a journalist, although his writing contains facts and opinions. But all he says is "Briefly, before Wheeler recanted his story, the Young Turks network's “Jimmy Dore Show” chewed over the revelation that Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks....Dore's show has backed away from the story since Wednesday." In other words, he did exactly what network news did.

Note too that Marcotte's claim that "Dore cited a retracted Fox News story" is inconsistent with Weigel's statement that Dore discussed the story before it was retracted.

TFD (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No, Weigel is explicitly covering Dore's Seth Rich BS in the context of conspiracy theories and fake news (the title is literally "The Seth Rich conspiracy shows how fake news still works"), i.e. Dore as a conspiracy-peddler, not as someone "reporting on the controversy" as you are deceptively suggesting:

• "The theory that Rich was offended by these emails assumes that 1) he saw them, which is not suggested by any of the emails' headers, and that 2) he would have interpreted exasperated emails in May as proof of anti-Sanders perfidy that the world needed to see. This doesn't comport with reality — but it is attractive to the most die-hard progressive foes of Clinton. The Rich conspiracy thrived not just because fringe conservatives liked the idea of a break in the “Clinton body count” theory, but that the idea that someone would murder a leaker to cover up a conspiracy against Bernie Sanders would justify so much angst. Briefly, before Wheeler recanted his story, the Young Turks network's “Jimmy Dore Show” chewed over the revelation that Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks."[23]

Marcotti did not claim that Dore cited a retracted Fox story. She literally says, "When it was revealed that the source of much of the conspiracy theory, Rod Wheeler, is a fraud, Dore kept insisting about the existence of "a lot of red flags" and there "is probably something more to this story" around Rich's death."[24] In other words, Dore kept promoting the conspiracy theory even after he was shown that the conspiracy theory was baseless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note that article titles are not reliable sources and interpreting specific claims contained in an article based on our understanding of the context is original research: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." In any case your whole approach is contrary to policy. Instead of looking for sources that support your personal opinions, you should identity sources that are "directly related to the topic of the article," not articles that mention it in passing. And you still have not addressed the fact that your second source fails rs. Could you please remove it so that we can save time at RSN. TFD (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no interpretation. It's basic reading comprehension. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Where in the text about Dore does he say what you claim? To repeat, Weigel wrote, “Jimmy Dore Show” chewed over the revelation that Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks....Dore's show has backed away from the story since Wednesday." TFD (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archiving?

No need for 3-yr old comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, a bot will do this. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not yet fixed, new attempt, I'll figure this out, it worked elsewhere: 1 2 3. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, fresh observation, on Talk:Emma Blackery 12 sections survived a maximum of 10 (with default 2 threads to archive) for more than 12 hours, so maybe the bot simply enjoys a well-deserved WP:NORUSH wiki-break. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

JFTR, I've seen the talk page archive bot alive and kicking on WT:RFD today. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The syntax copied as is from Talk:Kim Iversen was okay, the bot is just busy after its wiki-break. I'll reset the usual "keep ten sections" + "archive at least two" when this page was processed, it's no high traffic talk page. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The syntax was also fine on Talk:The Gateway Pundit, I've reset it here. On Talk:Emma Blackery my count was wrong, the bot doesn't see the transcluded Talk:Emma Blackery/GA1 as section (=thread), nothing to do for only 11 threads with "keep 10, archive at least 2". –84.46.53.30 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Things to check: do all threads contain at least one valid timestamp; is there any unbalanced markup (opening brackets without closing brackets, opening tags without closing tags). This edit should have nothing to do with it: archiving bots don't care what's already on the archive page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the patience + time for that and used a hammer for 2016 + 2017, manual archiving, with some luck the bug was in this part. There was a blacklisted EL refusing to be archived by an IP, I disabled it. Talk pages as of 2006 are charming, but everybody should seriously consider to support WP:FLOW. It's not perfect, but a clear case of 2016 better than 2006. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)