Jump to content

Talk:Infowars

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 205.155.143.66 (talk) at 23:25, 4 October 2019 (Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2019: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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



Let's review, shall we?

Let's review for our newly-arrived Infowars/Newswars/Prison Planet minions, shall we? Alex Jones claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is why I give maybe two warnings (if that) before blocking anyone who tries to defend InfoWars as an RS on grounds of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows the slave colony is on planet Invisibilia that the New World Order has blocked from view with light-bending technology. The rest is probably true. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was on Nibiru? Guy (Help!) 20:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You would say that, wouldn't you? (mocking) Nibaru! What an obvious false flag to hide THE TRUTH! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
InfoWars defenders are why I no longer have a button to email me on my user page. Words cannot describe how bizarre their messages are, but they seemed to figure out that emailing editors instead of posting directly on user talk pages lets them get away with harassment. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the content of the article. Specifically, we are discussing the validity of the constant string of requests that we remove "conspiracy theory and fake news website". No comments about specific users have been made. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing those words is a valid request. You're saying that because some stories are absurd or proven false, that all of their content is false. That is misleading. If you decide to keep "conspiracy theory and fake news website" in the text, I formally request you do the same for CNN's page, MSNBC's, and FOX New's page, as they have also had numerous stories that have been proven false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madscientwist (talkcontribs) 21:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the number of flaws that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX may have, it's a false equivalence to say their news as as fake and conspiratorial as an outlet that warns of an imminent "invasion by South American walruses" (yes InfoWars actually reported that) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to this[1] and compare it with this.[2] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment and antisemitism claims?

I think this part belongs to article about Alex Jones, not article about Infowar since the examples are all about Jones. Mariogoods (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that should be in both, if they were carried out against employees that is a company issue, if they were carried out by Jones that is a personal issue.Slatersteven (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infowars Returns to YouTube... No, wait! It's gone again.

Infowars Returns to YouTube After CEO Said It Will Allow ‘Offensive’ Content -- Update: Shortly after this story was published, YouTube deleted Infowars' War Room channel. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in removal from platforms.

It says Facebbok rather than Facebook. The very last sentence of first paragraph in the Removal from Platforms section. Mandrilltiger (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Good catch! I am doubling the amount of pay you get for editing Wikipedia. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proves that Alex Jones is a far-right

I've checked many sources in this articles, web pages which even doesn't have author of the article specified. Where's the prove that he is far right? Since when conspiracies is considered to be a far right activity? Far-right means basically only one - nazism, not else. A hate aimed towards exact nation, and that hate usually should be backed up with actions only. Any hate without actions, can't be considered far-right. I'm not even from USA in here and I just see huge generalisation in this article just because someone has different opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.15.181.121 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia just summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. It does not engage in original research.
The first source cited is titled Dozens of leading brands pull ads from far right conspiracy site InfoWars' YouTube channel. Second cited source starts with the line "Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist behind the far-right site Infowars,". one is about the "far-right website InfoWars and its founder, notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones". Fourth says "far-right news site InfoWars and its leader Alex Jones". And so on and so on... The academic sources (such as Sandlin's Paranoid Pedagogies) likewise describe him as right-wing.
Even if we were going to ignore sources, Jones is fiscally conservative, socially conservative, but still wants a government strong enough to take care of the things he imagines are problems (any desire for lack of gov't interference in his life is not truly a principle of liberalism).
Also, the idea that "hate without actions, can't be considered far-right" is ridiculous bullshit. By that reasoning, Joseph Goebbels was completely innocent. Propaganda inspires actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first RS that says it [3], want more?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From A German far right without Nazi ties':
  • "Right in the heart of Germany itself, the ascendant new Alternative for Deutschland party, AfD for short, has launched an initiative to attract more Jews. With its new 'Jews in the AfD' section, debuting soon, the party aims to capitalize on what it sees as a historically monumental threat to European civilization posed by Islam."
From Far-right politics#Definition:
  • "As they view their community in a state of decay facilitated by the ruling elites, far-right members portray themselves as a natural, sane and alternative elite, with the redemptive mission of saving society from its promised doom. The current political order is presented as needing to be abandoned or purged of impurity, so that the 'redemptive community' can leave the phase of liminal crisis to usher in the new era."
The far right does contain traditional Nazis, but to insist that this is all that the far right contains does not match what the sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

"Fake News" is subjective, reliable sources is ALWAYS subjective! and rationally cannot be "proven" if alex jones is in fact correct about his theory therefore, logic dictates that you suspend the page entirely because it is by law slander against Jones and his staff which also mentions sexual topics that are jones was not convicted of. 205.155.143.66 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]