Talk:Infowars

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infowars article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning InfoWars and Alex Jones.

To view an explanation of the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is this article biased?

A1: Wikipedia follows the consensus view of reliable independent sources. Sometimes, as with InfoWars, the dominant view is negative. Wikipedia avoids false balance and does not accord undue weight to fringe views.

Q2: Should the article describe InfoWars as "fake news"?

A2: Yes. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars routinely publishes entirely fabricated stories, otherwise known as fake news.

Q3: Should the article describe InfoWars as far-right or alt-right?

A3: Both. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars's political stance aligns with the far right and alt-right.

Q4: Should the article describe InfoWars as promoting conspiracy theories?

A4: Yes. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars promotes conspiracies, most notably the false claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a false-flag operation.

Q5: Does the number of editors who complain about bias on the talk page, or the frequency of complaints, matter?

A5: No. WP:CONSENSUS does not work that way. Please refer to Q1 for more information on the requirements for a post to merit consideration. It should cite reliable sources that contradict the status quo. Single purpose accounts are often recognized as not being here to build the encyclopedia, a valid block reason. Editing is a privilege to work on the project where free speech does not apply. Posts considered to violate policies (including WP:NOTFORUM) may be ignored, collapsed or deleted (WP:TPO).

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Podcasting Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Hanna Kozlowska (4 April 2018). "Facebook has introduced another half-baked effort to fight fake news". Quartz. Archived from the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 21 May 2021. It's also unclear which outlets get the "i" icon, and which do not. For example, InfoWars, a media company that is a well-known purveyor of conspiracy theories, does not appear to have the icon on its posts. That means the user would have to leave Facebook to determine the source's trustworthiness, which defeats the purpose of the feature. Other right-wing conspiracy sites, like Gateway Pundit, also do not have an "i" icon. Both of these sites have Wikipedia pages.
Samantha Cole (October 2, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts (Including InfoWars)". Motherboard. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Alex Jones' InfoWars and the far-right media outlet Breitbart can't be used as a source of fact in Wikipedia articles anymore, "due to its unreliability."
Adam Smith (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Breitbart as Source of Fact (Including InfoWars)". PC Magazine. The right-wing site will still be a source for opinion-related content, but all other citations will be removed. Wikipedia did the same with British newspaper The Daily Mail.
Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news (Including InfoWars)". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Wikipedia, the internet's crowd-sourced encyclopedia, has declared "fake news" on far-right site Breitbart, deeming the outlet an unreliable source for facts.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Requested move 11 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InfoWars → Infowars – The lowercase W is the term most preferred by news sources, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NBC News, and Infowars figures, including Alex Jones. In a request to the Supreme Court to stay the judgment in the lawsuit brought against Jones by the parents of Sandy Hook victims, Jones' lawyers name the company as "Infowars" and the company appears to be legally registered as "Infowars". While there are a few instances of "InfoWars" in other lawsuits, it is clear that the website itself is "Infowars", not "InfoWars". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons stated. Also on its website (now archived) the organisation refers to itself as Infowars.

Gatepainter (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Carguychris (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support as most of the material I could find did not used the uppercase W. The trademark filing for "INFOWARS" also had specimen documents[1][2] showing it as "Infowars" in all instances where it was in plaintext, rather than "InfoWars". $Jayhawker6$ 【💬】 20:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pizzagate Consequences

Can someone add that a gunman with an AR-15 actually went to Comet Ping Pong to "investigate" the Pizzagate claims as it says in the NYTimes and Washington Post? I don't think that the "death threats" the article mentions does this justice.

PotatoKugel (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PotatoKugel, the obvious issue with this suggestion is that we need a WP:RELIABLE source that positively and unequivocally ties Welch's actions to Infowars. I can't read the entire WaPo article due to a paywall, but the NYT article definitely doesn't say that. Without a source, tying them together is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Carguychris (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need that or can we simply say that Infowars promoted the Pizzagate claim which led to the gunman?

Technically, the Wikipedia article as it is written now does not source the death threats and all that to the fact that Infowars particularly spread the claim. I thought the way to read the article was that Infowars spread the claim and the claim led to death threats and all that, regardless of whether the people committing those acts found the claim because of Infowars. PotatoKugel (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PotatoKugel: ...can we simply say that Infowars promoted the Pizzagate claim which led to the gunman? No, that is WP:SYNTH. Crucial point was brought up by @Slatersteven: ...infowars was not the only source for that lie. The rumors spread all over the place. Pizzagate and the assault by Welch predated (and arguably precipitated) the major tightening of controls on misinformation on popular social media. In order to say what you're suggesting, there needs to be clear WP:RELIABLE evidence that the gunman was inspired directly by Infowars, preferably in the form of a well-attributed statement he made. Carguychris (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris, the article right now mentions "threatening phone calls, online harassment, and death threats". Technically, how do we know that anything particular is directly because of InfoWars? None of the sources in the article right now make the link for anything particular. Why doesn't this also violate WP:SYNTH? (To clarify, I don't think that this line should be removed. I am just trying to get clear why the line discussing the "threatening phone calls, online harassment, and death threats" is not a violation of WP:SYNTH and the gunman incident is.) PotatoKugel (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By going by what courts (for example) say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that. Do you think the article needs to source some of the court rulings? PotatoKugel (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No as we can also use other sources, and as far as I know nothing here is unsourced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see any of the sources attribute any specific incident to Infowars. Can you point out which source does this? PotatoKugel (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alex-jones-and-infowars-ordered-to-pay-dollar100k-in-court-costs-for-sandy-hook-case/ Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can you put this source into the article? Because none of the sources in the article now directly attribute anything to Infowars PotatoKugel (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is, I copy and pasted it from our article. It might be a good idea if you read the article before telling us what is wrong with it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the article because of a paywall, but it seems that this article is referring to the Sandy Hook incident. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that none of the sources directly link any of the harassment associated with Comet Ping Pong and the Pizzagate conspiracy to Infowars. I wasn't referring to any of the other activities of Infowars. Do you know if any sources link any of the negative ramifications in Pizzagate to Infowars? As of now, none of the sources in the article do this. PotatoKugel (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to read our article, as to the rest. Yes that is what we are saying, there is not evidence that Pissagate was unduly linked to Infowars, which is why your suggestion cannot be acted upon. So I am unsure what you are now arguing for. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand why the harassment claims by the Comet Ping Pong employees due to Pizzagate which don't seem to have a source that directly links them to Infowars is being linked to Infowars in the article, but the gunman is not being linked to Infowars. That is all I am trying to understand. PotatoKugel (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am wondering why the gunman is not being linked to Infowars in the article as opposed to the harassment of the Comet Ping Pong employees due to Pizzagate which is being linked to Infowars in the article despite the fact that as of right now, the article doesn't have a source making this link for either consequence. PotatoKugel (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PotatoKugel, a key difference is that the Pizzagate assault was perpetrated by an outside party who could have been inspired by numerous other online sources, and as far as I know, there is no well-attributed statement that he was inspired by any particular one. Additionally, Infowars promptly issued a retraction. In contrast, the Sandy Hook false flag lies were largely an Infowars creation, and when Infowars was asked (relatively politely) to issue a retraction, Jones initially doubled down. In other words, Infowars was clearly the instigator, and this is very well documented. Carguychris (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying about the difference between Pizzagate and the Sandy Hook Hoax. I was just wondering about the difference between the threatening phone calls, online harassment, and death threats caused by Pizzagate, and the gunman, caused by Pizzagate. PotatoKugel (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have an apology from Jones for doing it. As well as one other example linked to Pizaa gate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Here is the Alex Jones apology:

"I want our viewers and listeners to know that we regret any negative impact our commentaries may have had on Mr. Alefantis, Comet Ping Pong, or its employees. We apologize to the extent our commentaries could be construed as negative statements about Mr. Alefantis or Comet Ping Pong, and we hope that anyone else involved in commenting on Pizzagate will do the same thing." (from the NPR article)

He doesn't mention any specific consequence. He can be referring to the harassment or the gunman.

What did you mean by: "As well as one other example linked to Pizaa gate"? PotatoKugel (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PotatoKugel, sources have attributed the generalized harassment of Comet Ping Pong and Pizzagate figures to Infowars, which is reasonable considering that these acts were perpetrated by many people and Infowars was one of the most prominent outlets for the story. Attributing a specific act by one particular person to Infowars requires much more solid proof. Carguychris (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know the rules well. That is considered enough not to be violating WP:SYNTH? Meaning, even though no source directly attributes the negative consequences to Infowars, it is reasonable to assume that at least some were because of Infowars.

Also, the NPR article does specifically mention that the shooter was a fan of Infowars and that he regularly listened to Infowars. Is this enough not to be considered WP:SYNTH? PotatoKugel (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to see better sourcing, as infowars was not the only source for that lie. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]