Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Add in label of "anti semite" to Alex Jones?

Alex Jones recently claimed that Charlottesville protesters were really “just Jewish actors”, I was wondering whether new label of anti semite should be added into the article heading to describe Alex Jones.

Alex Jones: Charlottesville protesters are really “just Jewish actors” http://www.salon.com/2017/08/14/alex-jones-charlottesville-protesters-are-really-just-jewish-actors/ 175.156.2.214 (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

WE are disusing this above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not even remotely quoted in context. He was referring to actual plants or hoaxes committed by Jewish people, such as the recent JCC bomb threats where the suspect turned out to be a Jew.72.80.143.187 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

This edit request to Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add descriptor "political commentator" ahead of "radio host" and potential change page name as such. DanKasich (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please get consensus before asking to change the lead. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake News?

The opening paragraph contains a statement with sources that Info Wars is a "fake news site". However, CNN and Buzzfeed are two other news sources that have been caught (with undoubtable evidence) creating fake stories and news scenarios, yet their articles and their reporters articles do not state in such a bold manner that they are "fake news sources". This makes wikipedia look biased. Shouldn't this be altered? Smcc1112 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources called CNN and Buzzfeed "fake news" as a defining trait, you could, hypothetically, propose that be added to those articles. Those sources, as far as I know, do not exist, while they do for InfoWars. Wikipedia covers things in proportion to WP:DUE, not through balance (which inevitably degrades into false balance). In this regard, Wikipedia definitely has a bias towards mainstream scholarship. I don't really see the problem with that, but regardless, this talk page isn't the place to challenge it. Grayfell (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough point, although there is evidence of both CNN ^[1] and Buzzfeed faking news. Smcc1112 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No. There's a world of difference between a major industry player like CNN publishing a story with falsehoods in it (and then issuing a retraction) once in a blue moon and a minor website run by a noted conspiracy theorists that regularly publishes almost entirely fictional stories on an daily basis and repeatedly doubling down on it when called out. This is an extraordinarily uninformed comparison.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

02:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There is evidence of them faking news. CNN has been caught staging what they attempted to report on ^[1] and Buzzfeed has so many news articles that defy basic science you could easily describe them the way you have described Info Wars, as the ratio of real to fake news they publish is so overwhelmingly weighted towards fake I don't even need to provide examples, as a simple glance at a majority of their top articles does more damage to their credibility than I ever could. It's quite obvious who truly is uninformed here, CNN could be argued as reliable, sure, but for Buzzfeed to be listed as reliable is laughable at best. I stand by my original proposal to remove the "fake news" remark from the opening paragraph. Wikipedia can not call itself an educational website with such blatant bias and lack of attention to detail displayed in a situation where Buzzfeed is considered more reliable than Info Wars, when both sites are equally "fake" and report from behind the most extreme values of the left and right political wings respectively. Smcc1112 (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, if reliable sources call either of these fake news as a defining characteristic, bring them forth. A pearl-clutching article in a tabloid about a single overblown incident doesn't cut it. WP:RS calls for "a reputation for accuracy and fact checking". Daily Mail doesn't have that reputation.

Oh, and yes, Buzzfeed publishes a lot of pure garbage, but they also differentiate between journalism (for which they have a good reputation) and entertainment content (or clicklbait, which is indeed unreliable). This is something that InfoWars doesn't, while Daily Mail merely does poorly. In this regard, Buzzfeed News is dramatically more reliable as an outlet than either. Grayfell (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. Personally I still don't agree that the "fake news" statement should be there but I understand you and the sites position on it. Thanks for your time. Smcc1112 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to create a drinking game where I take a shot every time some IP, new user, or account who has less than 50 edits despite being registered for more than 5 years accuses WP of having a "[adjective] bias" based on some extraordinarily uninformed claims and even more extraordinarily poor logic. I'm going to get SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO drunk... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Might I just add, MPants, that your maturity level is astoundingly high. You really are making this site a better place with that attitude, and acting like this will definitely attract new contributors. :) Smcc1112 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm mature enough to see through the bullshit in "CNN is fake news!!1!1" ;) But seriously; if you can't even be bothered to acknowledge where I and Greyfell have pointed out a number of fatal flaws in your argument, you really don't have any business here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's like they're reading from a script. First accuse Wikipedia of bias. Then complain about what reliable sources say. Then try to pretend that an established source is really just as bad as some shitty ass garbage source. Then pontificate about how Wikipedia has gone down hill and how by not letting them stock the article full of their bullshit the editors here are "driving away contributors". Every. Single. Of. These. Accounts. Does that. And yes, it's always "IP, new user, or account who has less than 50 edits despite being registered for more than 5 years". Volunteer Marek 15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You forgot "and finally start attacking those who disagree with them". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4573882/Fake-news-row-Muslim-protesters-TV-crews.html

Russia

I removed the description of being an alleged pro-Russia propagandist from the lead. It was cited from Accuracy in Media, which as you can read is basically a carbon copy of Infowars itself: anti-UN, climate change denialist and believing in a liberal conspiracy. You shouldn't include the allegations of a group like this in any biography of a living person. I have no qualms for allegations of being a propagandist being re-inserted if the sources are stronger Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants do you even know who AIM are when you reverted me? They more frequently make these allegations against liberals, who they believe control the media. If someone put one of their allegations on an article about a liberal, you would, like your profile says, rightly call them a POV pushing charlatan. Why is it acceptable here? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Read the article on them, look at their website. Maybe you had a case of mistaken identity but if you still think they're reliable or non partisan I will be amazed Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

[1] it's an organisation which thinks Fox News swung to the left because they aired a piece reiterating the scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made. So was my edit summary correct or incorrect? You can't just answer like a six year old and say "no it's not" Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

if you revert me again I will go to ANI because it's very troubling that an experienced user does this Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether Fox thinks them left wing is irrelevant. As to Accuracy in Media has this source been disused at RSN?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, they've never been discussed at RSN because Anarcho is the first editor to ever question their reliability, as far as I can tell. @Anarcho-authoritarian: you can run off to ANI if you want. Here's a link: WP:ANI. I will revert you again if you don't stop and discuss. If you can make a case better than "They're biased" I would be open to listening, but so far, all you've done is repeat the same old canards dozens of brand-new editors have had shot down hundreds of times before.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

15:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:Sorry, Slater, that last wasn't directed at you, and I didn't intend to make it look like it was.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

15:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven I never said Fox calls them left wing, the opposite. This is a right-wing think tank that thinks all news is a liberal conspiracy, including Fox. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So far, you've offered a completely unsupported assertion by saying it "...is basically a carbon copy of Infowars...", you've cast aspersions by implying that I'm a POV pusher, you've demonstrated a battleground mentality by referring to my edit summary as being "...like a six year old...", you've offered the same exact sort of argument that gets shot down constantly on political pages by saying that since they're biased, they're unreliable and you've threatened to go to ANI over a content dispute.

So you've raised just about every single red flag that you could possibly raise to indicate that you are here for POV pushing. Assuming that you're not, please try to make a coherent case (with evidence) that AIM is unreliable either in general or for this particular claim. If you can make such a case, I'm certainly open to it. But if all you have is the rhetoric you've used thus far; you're not going to convince anyone.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

18:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolute bollocks. You don't even know, or refuse to acknowledge, that the source is run by a guy monitored by the SPLC, if you're not a POV pusher you're WP:INCOMPETENT or can't read Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you read any of the sources on the AIM page, or do your own research on stuff like this? You'd be the first to revert if I added any of their smears of liberals onto a BLP article. You're just being stubborn. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. Do you have Accuracy in Media's statement, or are we going to rely on what someone has said they said? Also the bias of a source does not render it non RS, only its reputation for accuracy. I think this needs to go to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid revels in attacking the 'liberal' press. But he reserves a special loathing for homosexuals

− − Cliff Kincaid is one of the American far right's most energetic and obsessive propagandists. For more than 30 years at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing outfit opposed to the "liberal" media, Kincaid has cranked out reams of material — rife with innuendo and speculation but light on facts —aimed at buttressing his far-right, xenophobic and homophobic views."

− − You may as well use Alex Jones himself as source on other articles Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As there is an ANI over this now lets allow that to run it's coarse.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A careful reading of the AIM piece shows that they do not call Jones a pro-Russia propagandist, but make a much vaguer claim about his possibly regurgitating "information" which began as Russian propaganda. These are not the same things, as being a propagandist implies intent, which repeating propaganda requires nothing more than gullibility and a lack of fact-checking. As such, I have removed the statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones Political Party

I removed republican from Alex Jones political party. I put libertarian and got several reverts on it and was going to push to have a dispute resolution. However, after reviewing archived discussions, it had been agreed to with review from 'admins' that Alex Jones's Political party can't be decided. As he has political document showing different parties by different legitimate sources including records for past times he ran for office. After reviewing this information from the archives I decided to go with their original decision to leave it out and note it here. Contentcreator (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What "review from 'admins'", can you link to the discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Missed the response several discussion took place see Jones's political party affiliation for a summary. See [This edit request] for intervention from an admin.

Contentcreator (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Is an Qwyrxian admin? Also a situation can change, at least one of these if over 5 years old. But it needs msourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is somewhat irrelevant on the length of time unless we have sources his party changed in those past few year. People do not change parties often. If you look though in the archives the point is that there are too many contradictory sources on this. It seems to be the most discussed point looking through the archives and it always ends the same way with party just being removed. Here are is a more recent [conversation] I found that decided the same. Contentcreator (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Austin Community College

Did he graduate from this two-year junior college and, if so, in what field? Some clarification seems necessary. If not, has he established his media empire merely on the basis of a high school diploma? 61.92.8.220 (talk)

Michael Dell didn't graduate from college and I'd submit his empire is bigger. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are college drop-outs with bigger "media empires" than Jones. So what makes this so special? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Assuming

1.) Alex Jones children were not taken from him. That's a fucking lie.

2.) He is Libertarian, he even says it. I'm guessing the person who wrote this doesn't watch his videos.

3.) Wiki does a shit ton of assuming and doesn't really try to get the facts. I'm not just talking about Jones either. Maybe a full review of your employees should happen because there seems to be a lot of opinions on this website. Probably why nobody trusts it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18d:8c80:c2ec:ddf2:f866:ba44:9695 (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't disagree with either of these first two points, suggesting that you didn't read it very carefully. Articles are almost never written by employees. If you want to know Alex Jones' view of the world, you already know where to go. This article is a document of expert commentary about Jones, not an outlet for Jones' public relations. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

One seems very hostile. Don't get excited if you have a source and more detail please post.For two, it is listed as he describes himself as a libertarian. If you can show he is a member of the party please post that. I won't address three.Contentcreator (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Infowars needs to be also described as a conspiracy website too

Saw that infowars was not described as conspiracy which seems to be overlooked among this "fake news" warring going on. Got a revert when I added conspiracy to Alex Jones website to describe it asking for a "consensus' first. Alex Jones is labeled as a conspiracy theorist here and the website which is described 'his' is clearly is outlet for his theories. This is well-know and well documented as numerous sources throughout the article describe it as such. I can go into more detail if needed. Does anyone have anything to add or discuss about this? Contentcreator (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw that the line I wanted to changed is listed twice word for word. Once in the introduction and the other in "Radio, websites and mail-order business". It also feels awkward and out of place in the second entry. This feels like bad writing. I think it should be removed or expanded in the second part. Line below. :

"His website, InfoWars.com, is a fake news website"

Contentcreator (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I considered on the expansion part and a few news site have listed Infowars's view. It is listed in one area here as having 7.6m unique vistors 1 during a period in of time from Mar-Apr which is consistent with quantcast now 2 at 7m and it has an 85% us based audience. So we could list descriptive info about his website to remove the repetitiveness. Contentcreator (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well RS say it is, so no reason for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I added it in and added the Alexa ranking from the Southern Poverty citation.Contentcreator (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Everything in the lead should be repeated in the body of the article, although not necessarily word-for-word. See WP:LEAD. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree as I said word for word felt off. I would also like to know what sentence you are referring to and not making sense. I just see a white space change on your typo commit on the sentence "Which he uses to push his conspiracy theories" I was considering re-writing this part but want to make sure you are referring to this or if it is the sentence I just added to.Contentcreator (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Which he uses to push his conspiracy theories and which has (itself) been described as a conspiracy website or of promoting conspiracy theories." It's not a complete sentence, so that needs to be fixed. But what makes it incomprehensible is that I can't tell what either "he" or "which" refers to. "He" is most likely Watson. But "which" is probably not Infowars, since we've already said Infowars is a conspiracy web site, and can't be either "his conspiracy theories" or "Jones' radio program" because neither of those is a web site. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok citation 54 only mentions Paul Jones Watson as a "personality" and being retweeted by the President. I don't think the source represents what the sentence states though I agree by connection with the stories he talks are described as conspiracy theories. Also, if we don't list the website as being "accused" or "described" as Fake News then we don't need to include these last two parts? "which has (itself) been described as a conspiracy website or of promoting conspiracy theories" To improve for clarity until others have weighed in how about this.

"Infowars editor-at-large is Paul Joseph Watson, who also occasionally guest hosts or co-hosts Jones' radio program uses Jones's outlets to push his conspiracy theories. InfoWars (itself) has been described as a conspiracy website or of promoting conspiracy theories"Contentcreator (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the redundant final sentence and made a couple minor fixes, but the source certainly does not support the Watson sentence. I suggest we take it out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Stylization of Infowars.com

Twice in the article, Infowars.com is stylized as InfoWars.com, which is incorrect, according to multiple sources, including Infowars itself. Whenever I try to edit this, my edits are reverted by TheValeyard (talk). Please notify the user that the site is actually known as Infowars.com and not to revert any edits which make the W lowercase. Every875 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You should provide an edit summary. When you don't, people tend to assume you're a vandal. Unexplained edits often just get reverted. It's not our job to read your mind.

The text on the Infowars web site is mostly upper case, and I can't find an "about" page, but on the "contact" page [2] the name is given twice in mixed case, and both times it's initial caps, not camel case. We have four sources for it being fake news. Two of them use initial caps and two use camel case. So I think initial caps is correct. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Several sources capitalize the I and the W, some do not. When your edit was challenged, your first course of action should have been to come make your case here, not edit war. TheValeyard (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A problem, as it does not seem to be able to make up its mind what the correct form is. I think keep as is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If the reliable sources disagree, I think it's reasonable to use the style prefered by the web site itself. I do not think we should keep it as-is. I think we should pick one style or the other and stick with it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is the website contradicts itself.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Where? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Page name INFOWARS (top and bottom of the page), then we have Infowars (3 times), so is it INFOWARS or Infowars?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Since no one is arguing in favor of camel case, I'm changing those to initial caps. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please restore label of "far right" and "businessman" to Alex Jones

Someone vandalised the page and removed the "far right" and "businessman" label, please restore the labels. Thank you. The user who removed the labels had no right to remove them from the heading without proper discussion here. 175.156.9.11 (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Was Alex Jones far right when he opposed the Bush administration? Ktm4391 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

What did he oppose about it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked into this and have found only a couple sources. I have found numerous more sources that refer to him as 'right-wing' 1,2,3. There is a wide-consensus he is on the right but few that he is on the far-right. Objectively far-right parties are nazi or fascist like parties of which Jones is not a member of. Does Alex Jones hold extremist views? Yes as the content here shows. Are these extremist views right-wing? Nothing posted here suggest that. The extremist view points he holds are conspiracy related and many of them attack political figures indiscriminate of political party.

There is no consensus that he is far-right and this blatantly violates of Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS. This is confusing to a reader who sees the far-right label and sees mostly organizations which are far right and a few people who were/are associated far-right political parties.Contentcreator (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

One need not be a card-carrying member of a far right group to be considered as such, so there's your first error in judgement. Reliable sources refer to Jones as far right, thus this article follows suit. TheValeyard (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You did not link the other sources. I have found only two as I stated. Far more sources, I listed three only refer to him as right wing. You also did not seem to read anything other than that by mentioning 'card-carrying member of a far right group'. Please refer to ideological view points I mentioned because this article does not establish them and also please refer to the far-right label as Alex Jones hardly seems to fit in with the people mentioned here. Contentcreator (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also you seem to be confused on what the rules are for "reliable source" since you didn't link them. Just because it is from a known and popular news website with editorial standards doesn't make it reliable for a particular statement of 'fact' which on the source I have seen loosely uses it to describe Alex Jones. Please refer to WP:NEWSORG which states, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." Contentcreator (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not confused by anything, really, nor are other editors who have reverted the changes made by you over time. You pop up on this talk page, make the same arguments that fail to gain consensus, then disappear. What do you have to offer today that is different from 2 October, 30 September, or 24 Sept? TheValeyard (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I can easily address your inflammatory and false statements but what does this have to do with that is being discussed with adding back the label.Making personal attacks in the talk page is not appropriate and against wiki rules. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Contentcreator (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that I have made no personal attacks, but YMMV. You have returned to this talk page several times over the course of a month or so with the same argument, I believe it is a fair question to ask if you're bringing anything to the table today that hasn't already been rejected in the past. Also, can you explain exactly what you're trying to say in this edit? "His website, InfoWars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website.", with conspiracy linked to conspiracy theory. "His website is a conspiracy theory" does not seem to be grammatically coherent. TheValeyard (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, this of which I do not know what you are referring to has nothing to do with this discussion. Page names don't always make sense to the sentence hence why I have an anchor. See "Jacinda Ardern "New Zealand to have a referendum on whether recreational marijuana should be legalised" which page name is "New Zealand cannabis referendum" which would make the sentence ""New Zealand to have a referendum on New Zealand cannabis referendum". You can change it if want. I have a talk page which you can post details of this or the other things as I don't know what you are referring to. As for personal attacks, I reported this incident at notice board. Please keep the discussion on track. Contentcreator (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is quite on-track; reliable sources describe Jones as far right, so the Wikipedia article follows suit. This isn't hard to understand. And there have been no personal attacks. Again, you bring up the same points week after week, and at some point that becomes a sanctionable action per WP:DISRUPT. Going to the admin board with this joke of a complaint is probably not wise, as it may turn a light on to your own activity. TheValeyard (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Week after week? From the times you listed almost it was 9 days on one issue and then I came back 19 days later. The only joke is someone not discussing the subject and constantly making the same point without example to back them up and the fact you actually think the page name needs to be grammatically correct when an anchor is used.Contentcreator (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You have looked in this talk page's archives to see where "far right" has been discussed already, right? TheValeyard (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No I looked into the archive pages to see if Alex Jones was a part of the republican or libertarian political party. There was no consensus I just noted I couldn't find any documentation to prove he was a member of either party and why I chose not to pursue my original edit. Contentcreator (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

http://www.newsweek.com/alex-jones-infowars-supplements-tainted-lead-687019

Update Newsweek is reporting that some of Alex Jones Supplements contain lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-health-watchdog-finds-lead-in-Infowars-12288916.php

San Francisco Chronicle is saying the same stuff here that Jones products have lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry claimed by Jones in helping start 1835 Texas Revolution

Hi Slatersteven, as discussed on my talk page. The piece I thought would read nicely next to his other claimed ancestry was this:

Jones has declared ancestry "at the core on both sides" of his family, starting the 1835 Texas Revolution against General Santa Anna.^[1]^[2]

Using CNN and Australian Catholic University as sources on the claim. What are your thoughts? Mdmadden (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

^ "CNN's Piers Morgan talks to Alex Jones, the radio host behind the petition to deport him, over his gun control views" (PDF). Piers Morgan Tonight. Australian Catholic University.
^ "CNN - Gun Control Debate". Piers Morgan Tonight. CNN. January 12, 2013.

That is not what the source says, and has been edited down to read in a way that not only seems to alter what he said (drastically) but reads like he is claiming that his claims about his ancestry started the Texan revolution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be ok with saying "Alex says XYZ about his ancestry", attributing it to him. In this case, the subject is so ridiculously unreliable, that I can't even call him a RS on himself. The man has admitted that he says things he doesn't even believe. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue with talking about his ancestry (though fail to see why we do it in his early life section), the problem is the quote has been altered with out any indication. As well as it reading in a very odd way (which might have been solved if the truncation had been noted).Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair point Niteshift36, we could just keep it as "Jones claims to have etc." then, I guess. Mdmadden (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Infowars from its side accuses other media bringing fake news themselves

Now honestly, tell me, why can that not be added? I provided sources for it! Actually I know this is a lost battle because Wikipedia is not a neutral source. But just for amusement, tell me.AntonHogervorst (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well for a start the lead is for a summery of what we have in the article, and we did not have this in the body so it had no place in the lead. I will let others explain the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What can I say? I am not trying to be counter productive here, but frankly, you are right, I've lost faith. So, just let it be. AntonHogervorst (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, since they are a fake news site, why would their allegations have any weight at all? Second, even if it belonged anywhere in this article, it surely would not belong in the lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a circle reasoning, and you know it. Like said above, I could say the same thing about other media. The Washington Post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoi0xGew594 And if I listen to that, it seems very reliable what they are saying, so Washington Post is fake news. (Note: I am not saying that, I just follow your logic but now applied to another source.) Now if the Washington Post would say Infowars spreads fake news, it would be reliable, but the other way around not? Same goes for so called reliable sources. Many of those accepted as reliable sources have an opinion that is just as biased. Furthermore, if possible. Read the Wikipedia articles about Infowars in other languages. I have read the Dutch, German, Spanish and French ones. Compare the voice of writing. You will conclude how horrifically not neutral this article is. Now I know I am Don Quixote fighting windmills here. You have the power. But I just want to say it again, because I read it dozens of times through the talk of article. This article is biased. AntonHogervorst (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No you are not following anyone's logic, because Wikipedia has something called RS WP:RS it also a fact that the lead should contain no information that is not in the body MOS:LAYOUT.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It has something called RS. Of course. Don't you think I know that? But for some reason all these Reliable Sources are, anti Trump, anti alt-right, etcetera. So every article on Wikipedia about these kind of subjects has a certain colour in it, lately. (Sorry that I talk in general here, I know you are going to say I should only talk about this article.) And reliable as they may be in the sense of established, they most often do not have a neutral point of view. Like said, look at other articles in other languages that rely less on English Reliable Sources, and you will find a different voice there. Now if you just refuse to see that, I have done my best, and this is just the way the English Wikipedia is going now. Maybe in due time it will repair itself. AntonHogervorst (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And article talk pages are for discussing the article, not what other articles do, or wider issues with Wikipedia polices.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Well just tell me where I can address that. Because yes, I do think this is a more general issue. Wikipedia was always somewhat left leaning, but neutral enough. Nowadays, sometimes it becomes part of a sort of 'resistance movement' in the US. AntonHogervorst (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"But for some reason all these Reliable Sources are, anti Trump, anti alt-right, etcetera." So, one group of people and another group of people disagree, and you blame one of those groups. Did you consider the idea that maybe the other group is at fault? The one that has not, over the years, passed Wikipedia's rigorous reliability test? That you should try to actually find out who is more reliable by looking at the details of who said what and where he got it, instead of just deciding to trust one group? You know, the way smart people would tackle that sort of problem? Just saying.

To answer your question: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard is a better place than this page, but still not quite right. I suggest you go there and ask for a place where you can secrete a rant about Wikipedia using reliable sources instead of sources you want to rely on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand. InfoWars is a fake site. While an actual reliable source may report that they made a claim, we have no reason to give it weight.This is like 2 boys on the playground going "You're dumb." "No, you're dumb." Second, this article is about JONES, not the InfoWars website. Trying to publish some sort of rebuttal allegation in this article is going to be questionable since this article is about JONES, not the site. We mention it and move on. Third, this does smell like a rebuttal, not an attempt to balance the tone of this article. Lastly, the lead should not dive that deep into any issue, let alone the details of a subject that has its own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Sure. Anyway 'details of a subject that has its own article': As far as I know Infowars.com does not have its own article. If it has, then searching for it in the index puts me on the wrong page. That is if you are referring to infowars.com as being the subject with the own article. AntonHogervorst (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought it still did. I forgot about it being a redirect. That still doesn't change my opposition to this being in the lead. None of that reason changed. Nor do I see substantial enough coverage to start including the "no you're dumb" schoolyard response. If it becomes a topic getting significant coverage, we can reexamine it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, “is a fake news website” is too nonsensical a statement for an encyclopedia. Saying his site “has been described as a fake news” is more factually correct. These days, the term “fake news” has been used to describe almost every news source – it’s a form of imprecise criticism. There is absolutely no accepted standard for what constitutes a “fake news website” or “fake news source.” For example, does simply printing one inaccurate article make a source “fake news” or does it have to be 50% of the content?

I vote for removal of both “is a fake news website” and removal of “Infowars has accused others of being fake news.” Neither belong up top in the first paragraph. Instead, “has been described as a fake news website” should be placed in “controversies.” I support a sentence similar to the one Anton tried to include being added to the controversies section (not the first paragraph) and see no logical argument against it. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be re-worded to say "is an entertainment website that has been shown to knowing publishes hoaxes and to promote false news stories." That I think reflects the situation better.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that wording. It can be removed from the lead, as long as the lead doesn't mention the site at all. If it does retain the mention of infowars, the description should stay. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We’ll need to tone down the “has been shown” language though. The sources are opinion pieces, not establishers of absolute fact. One source refers to a fake news source list (which Infowars appeared on) created by a college professor, who actually took down her list after receiving complaints. Making it “has been described as a fake news website” is more to the point, and allows us to keep the sources, and stay in a neutral tone with the rest of the article. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I placed a modified sentence about Infowars being described as fake news in the controversies section, and kept all the sources we had previously. I removed this sentence from the lead, and as suggested, did not mention Infowars at all in the lead. I also removed the same sentence from the radio businesses section – the wording was exactly the same as what was in the lead, so it’s redundant. I did not add any disagreement from Jones (in controversies) about whether or not his site is fake news, but would be open to the idea if the information is well sourced and the claim is addressed directly.

It might make sense to simply mention in the lead something to the effect that he operates Infowars.com – but not discuss its veracity in any way. For now though, I’m keeping it out. Any questions let me know. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "is an entertainment website" should not be included. It's certainly not treated as an entertainment website, it doesn't portray itself as such, it's not described as such as by reliable sources. And yes, "is a fake news website" most certainly belongs in the lede, in the first sentence, as that is the most notable aspect about this site. It's not just opinion pieces either. The original wording was fine, and this has been discussed previously. Volunteer Marek 16:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If this were an article about the Infowars.com website, that might be the most notable part. But since this is a BIOGRAPHY of a notable person, the (lack of) truthfulness of a website he runs doesn't belong in the first sentence. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it's not a "in the lede OR the body" kind of situation. If it's in the body and if it's important then it ALSO needs to be in the lede. The lede summarizes the body. Volunteer Marek 16:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Many important things are in the body but not the lead. Everything can't go in the lead. For example, much of the Kennedy aura started with his incident on the PT-109 (there was even a hit song about it), but that isn't mentioned in the lead of the article. It just mentions that he commanded PT boats. I wonder if part of this is because you're thinking of a lede and we use a lead? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's that important it should be summarized in lede too. But the difference here is between a summary (his website is this and that) and a specific piece of info (Kennedy auro). So actually we got it right. The general stuff in the lede, the specifics in the text. Volunteer Marek 19:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I gently tried to prod you to this. You missed or ignored it. This article doesn't have a LEDE, it has a LEAD. Per the MOS "The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." I think it's an important distinction and I'd ask you to please stop confusing the issue by using incorrect terminology. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Tell me then, what exactly constitutes a fake news website? There is no universal agreement about what one is. Imagine if CNN said “Alex Jones is an idiot.” We wouldn’t be reporting “it has been shown that Jones is an idiot,” we’d be saying he was “described by CNN as an ‘idiot’” or was “referred to by CNN as an ‘idiot.’” Technically speaking, there’s very little differentiation between being called “fake news” and some basic imprecise insult. If Infowars is criticized by sources of some repute (as appears to be the case), we should have it in the article, but can’t treat it as absolute fact. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no universal agreement that the earth is round either, so what? If only CNN wrote "Jones is XYZ" we would write "according to CNN, Jones is XYZ". If a multitude of reliable sources said "Jones is XYZ" we would write "Jones is XYZ". A fake news website for our purposes is a website that is described as "fake news" by reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

And come on, it's basically impossible to argue in good faith that they don't publish lots of fake shit. Volunteer Marek 16:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There's much more agreement on the earth being round than what a fake news website is. The former has been discussed for hundreds of years - we are still coming to terms with exactly what constitutes fake news, so that's a poor comparison. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We discus what RES say, not what anyone else says. I suggested an edit that makes the position clear, it says why infowars is called a fake news site.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

And who is arguing in good faith that they don't as you say, "publish fake shit?" I merely dispute the wording of the sentence, and it's appearance in the first paragraph. It is nonsensical. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So hold on, you do not disagree they publish fake stories, and yet disagree we should say they do?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not necessarily disagree they publish stories without factual basis, but definitively describing something as "fake news" in the modern milieu is imprecise. Exactly what that is hasn't been established. It makes far more sense to say that certain sources have described it as fake news, rather than saying it IS fake news. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No it is not [3], it is pretty clear what it means.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

By that standard, just about everything in the world today is "fake news." That wording is extremely imprecise, and proves my point. So if a news source has a single "false ... sensational," story "disseminated under the guise of news reporting" in their entire history, that makes them "fake news?" Then we've got lots of work to do my friend. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's clear we've got to maintain NPOV. By definitively saying something IS fake news, we're creating definitions ourselves. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. Info wars does not publish the off false story accidentally and then issues a retraction when it turns out to be fake, not is it historical, they are doing it now. This is why they are a fake news site (rather then "occasionally the publisher of fake news"). No (by the way) we are not masking up definitions, we are using it as applied by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

" we're creating definitions ourselves" - no, we're not. We're relying on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 19:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

But if we use the dictionary definition you provided, all of this isn't stated. Once again, seems like we're creating definitions where one doesn't exist. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, we're not. Volunteer Marek 19:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Are there any RS that dispute infowars in not a fake news site, if not NPOV does not require us to represent a viewpoint that no RS holds.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read my description of the edits above - "I did not add any disagreement from Jones (in controversies) about whether or not his site is fake news, but would be open to the idea if the information is well sourced and the claim is addressed directly." I don't personally know of good sources that dispute this characterization of fake news, but if they are discovered, I am open to the possibility of them being added, as should you. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So you have no reason then to say it is wrong that Infowars is a fake news site (not that you are, you just want us to imply it might not be true by a choice of words that reflect a non existent controversy), because you have not seen any RS disputing the fact they are called one. We do not represent minority or fringe views that are not reported in RS.

There is no consensus for your suggested edit, please do not revert to it again.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That is utter nonsense - saying "sources describe Infowars as fake news" as opposed to "Infowars is fake news" IN NO WAY implies that Infowars is not fake news. Don't threaten me. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

And I had agreement with one other user as well as yourself that it could be changed. What exactly are we arguing about? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What did I agree to being noted?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You provided a possible word change in the sentence, and the other user agreed it should not be in the first paragraph. I moved it from the first paragraph, and came up with my own word change which I felt was more direct and to the point. Seems like a pretty minor issue... Tidewater 2014 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So I did not agree with the text you added, nor to it not being in the lead. No it is not a minor issue to claim I agreed to wording that is significantly different to what I suggested (but is fairly close to what I have opposed) and claim I agreed to it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My word change was actually much closer to the original (as it reads now) than yours, and in my opinion, your sentence was far too wordy. The attached sources are not establishers of absolute fact of what "fake news" is - they are opinion pieces. It's pretty obvious that "fake news" is a term bandied about in the media by both the left and the right, often applied to something with which one side does not agree, regardless of its merit. Almost every article and news source has a "spin." The US News article has Infowars on a "fake news list," and does not cite any particular articles or stories that fit that description. If we're saying something IS fake news based on that, it's a problem. If we're saying something has been described as fake news, it's not a problem. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

An agreement is when person A makes an offer and person B accepts, it is not when person A makes an offer Person B makes a counter offer and person A acts as if person B agree to person A's unmade offer. I did not agree to your edit, and to claim I did is misleading. You do not have consensus so drop it now please. We say what RS say, we do not analyse why they say it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am dropping out if this now as totally unproductive, we are just going round in circles (note this means I will not comment any further not that this means I agree to anything).Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. You agreed it could be changed - I did not say you agreed with my exact edit. Just so you're aware, not everyone on wikipedia asks for exact detailed confirmation when making minor changes such as this one. You should discuss it here - quite frankly, nothing you've offered has been a particularly strong argument, and is a lot more "unproductive." Tidewater 2014 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks please. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Just stating facts - I don't curse unlike some others. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, you're making personal attacks ("Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding"). Using grown up words is not making personal attacks. Volunteer Marek 19:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue. He totally misrepresented what I said, and I have a right to say so. The two of you represent the worst facet of wikipedia - the inability to have a civil debate on an issue. Please stick to the article at hand, not this petty nonsense. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You accused him of, quote "astounding lack of reading comprehension". That's not the same thing you're saying now. You have a right to criticize, to disagree, to discuss. But not the right to attack others. And you really shouldn't double down on personal attacks by making more personal attacks ("The two of you represent the worst facet of wikipedia "), especially after being notified of discretionary sanctions in this topic area. Volunteer Marek 20:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That's because I don't accept another user deliberately misrepresenting my statements, and neither should anyone else. Don't threaten me - if you have something to discuss about the article, go ahead. You haven't addressed any of the logic of my arguments other than giving extremely short answers. I'm as dedicated as anyone to a NPOV policy, but clearly not everyone editing this page is, and I'm far from the only user to voice this concern over the last couple years. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the logic of my arguments other than giving extremely short answers". Yes I have. See above. Volunteer Marek 22:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Answers like "No, we're not" make that abundantly clear. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting to end up anywhere like this today, but when I casually stumbled across the page for Alex Jones because I was curious whether Wikipedia had a picture of Owen Shroyer, about whom I'm editing a news blog post after his visit here to Texas State University in response to the controversial racial article in our campus newspaper, I was taken aback by the brash statement of "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website." The biggest problem I have is the word "is" with no qualifier, but that is not the only problem. The other problem is that the four sources which are cited for the claim don't explicitly say that InfoWars is a fake news site.

1. The U.S. News & World Report article Avoid These Fake News Sites at All Costs by Rachel Dicker, Associate Editor, Social Media, references http://www.fakenewswatch.com/. On Fake News Watch, InfoWars is labeled as a "clickbait" site, which it defines as "sites that take bits of true stories but insinuate and make up other details to sew fear." InfoWars is not in the list of Fake/Hoax sites, which is what most people think of when they hear the term "fake news." Dicker, in the chart accompanying her article, labeled InfoWars a "propaganda" site. I can find nothing to indicate that this label came from anywhere or anyone other than Dicker herself. Regardless, it is ridiculous to use Dicker's article as a source in this case anyway because the information that is being used was pulled from another, primary source, the link for which is available right there in the article.

2. The Los Angeles Times article Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid by Jessica Roy, is again, just like above, a source that is a rehash of the primary source. In this case, the primary source is no longer even available. In this article, InfoWars is not actually labeled "fake news" unless your going by the title. The preceding paragraph reads "Many of the sites on the list are aggregators – they take news stories from other sources and rewrite them with more inflammatory headlines and without contextual facts." That would lend more credence to Dicker's label of "propaganda" than it would to "fake news."

3. The Washington Times article Infowars’ Alex Jones appeals to Trump for aid over fears of ‘fake news’ crackdown by Andrew Blake does not explicitly call InfoWars a fake news site. It reports that Jones is petitioning Trump to protect him against the supposed threat of a "government-led shut down." Jones himself used the term "fake news" to describe how other publications were labelling him, then suggesting that they would use this label as a way to somehow shut down his website through legal or legislative means. This was shortly after Hillary Clinton voiced support for some sort of legislative action in congress to combat fake news in response to the whole "Pizzagate" debacle.

4. The Mother Jones article PizzaGate Shooter Read Alex Jones. Here Are Some Other Fans Who Perpetrated Violent Acts. by Stephanie Mencimer describes InfoWars as "conspiratorial website that often publishes fake news," a wording which is far better than that which is currently being used in the lead of this Wikipedia article.

Mencimer's article comes closest to outright calling InfoWars a "fake news" website. Two of the articles are secondary sources, and at least one of those has no reason to be there in place of the primary resource which is still available.

I have pointed out the problems with the sources and will add that I do believe that the current wording of this article violates NPOV. There is no doubt that InfoWars publishes fake news. However, it is not a fake news website in the way most people think of when they hear the term "fake news" (i.e. sites like ABCnews.com.co). InfoWars doesn't try to pretend to be something it isn't or masquerade as a well-known news source. InfoWars actually has editors, staff writers, reporters and correspondents. That they spin the news they report on doesn't make that news fake.VladJ92 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Clickbait, satire, hoax all just varieties of "fake news". US News & World Report's inclusion of Infowars on their Fake News list, cited to fakenewswatch.com, is entirely accurate. There's really no reason to evaluate the rest if you'r already misrepesenting source #1. TheValeyard (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This response to the analysis of VladJ92 shows how difficult it is to make improvements to the article. A lengthy analysis of the sources followed by dismissive, incorrect and simplistic reply. US News cites another source for reason to put it on a "Fake News List" and the source they cite, surprise, has it in a different category. Per numerous dictionary definitions, the term "clickbait" is not synonymous with "fake news." This is a perfectly legitimate point and calls into question the quality of the article. However, it is legitimately on the "fake news list" in this US News article, so by that standard, I do not oppose using the source. But saying something "is" fake news based on this article is extreme and problematic. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The way it was presented was disingenuous, WHO says it is a 'fake news website', the way it was originally presented made it seem like the US government or an official body designates it. But that is clearly not the case. I added "is labelled as a fake news website by the main stream media", since it is just a label and not an official designation by anyone who has that power. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And you were, rightfully, reverted. It is not a point of contention when reliable sources are pretty universal in their description of it as "fake news". TheValeyard (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct, the term "clickbait" doesn't make something false. It also doesn't keep infowars from being a fake news site. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Break

Alex Jones and Infowars are described as peddlers of conspiracy theories and fake news by a plethora of reliable sources. What Alex Jones thinks of those reliable sources is not relevant. That is the beginning and the end of the discussion, and IMO way too much time has been devoted to repeating the same rebuttal to editors hell-bent on edit-warring to introduce fringe viewpoints. TheValeyard (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% - they are "described" as fake news and it should be acknowledged as such in the article. What I object to is an encyclopedia saying it "is" fake news. It's not NPOV. There are problems with the term, and so many back and forth arguments from the left and right. Also, if there are legitimate sources that disagree with Infowars being fake news, I'm not against them being introduced, but my purpose was not necessarily to argue for their inclusion. I have yet to explore any such sources, and wasn't actually planning to. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There comes a tipping point when the coverage is so thorough that we can move from having to say "so-and-so-characterized such-and-such as XYZ..." to "so-and-so is XYZ". Alex Jones and Infowars passed that point long ago, probably around the time of the Sandy Hook humiliation. TheValeyard (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m confused, so are you saying it has been described as such, or “is” fake news? There is no threshold to pass because the term itself is flawed. In today’s heated political climate, we should tread far more carefully before referring to ANY source as definitely being "fake news." What exactly makes a source definitely “fake news?” Having one (or more than one) source on one end of the political spectrum describe one from the other end as “fake news” is not enough due to the problem of the imprecise definition of what a “fake news website” actually is. The present language is problematic.

Isn’t it telling that over time so many have pointed out flaws in neutrality, and it’s the same response every time by the same handful of editors? The wording needs to change – if you acknowledged this, the article wouldn’t have to deal with a barrage of complaints with regard to its neutrality. My suggestions are the most reasonable yet, but oddly there seems to be a deliberate attempt to misinterpret my comments as supporting the introduction of fringe viewpoints. It’s either that, or the editors aren’t reading carefully – take your pick. Changing the sentence from “is” to “described as” certainly does nothing to absolve Infowars of a possible negative reputation – the wording is simply more accurate and encyclopedic. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It is described as a purveyor of fake news because it is a purveyor of fake news. Hopefully your confusion is now remedied. TheValeyard (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, there's no absolute arbiter of what a "fake news website" is. Please demonstrate how my wording makes the article worse. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing that is strange is; it's described as the following, in the Controversies section: "His website, Infowars.com, has been described by critics as a conspiracy and fake news website." That type of statement, whilst damning, is likely to draw less attention and acrimony from the community, as it acknowledges that there is, and never can be, an absolute arbiter of what is deliberate 'fake news', as an aside from media outlet retractions, of which there are thousands every year. Thanks Mdmadden (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's hard to understand the opposition to this wording. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree, Tidewater 2014, it seems that a select few editors are going out of their way to stem your reasonable wording change. I support your idea. Cchap88 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Unambiguous topic ban violation

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

Also agree w/ Tidewater 2014. The idea of having a working definition of "fake news site" to the point of putting in WP's voice about Infowars.com is absurd. (CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Wash Post, all consistently publish anti-Trump-slanted "news" on a daily basis as they are all political special interest group organizations creating & publishing propaganda to fulfill their owner-management anti-Trump political agendas, so by defintion none of those sources are "reliable" when it comes to this, because of said bias. There's no doubt in my mind those "news" outlets have fans/audiences, who agree w/ said bias, and no doubt that includes some WP editors using those "sources" to keep this article slanted. This problem is systemic to WP, this is just one front. The political battles against anything Trump permeate MSM & social media, so to believe it does not also filter to here is absurd. Sorry but "policy" discussions don't cut it when the force of political bias and anti-Trump hatred is the determinant force.) --IHTS (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: This is a violation of your topic ban. - Mr X 03:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Wash Post" are all considered reliable sources by this project. If you decide to edit articles in this project with the mindset that they are "propaganda", I can virtually guarantee that your stay here will be unhappily brief. When reliable sources overwhelmingly describe a website as fake news, then our articles will follow suit and characterize them as fake news. That is, as they say, that. TheValeyard (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest RfC be initiated

Given the contentiousness of this material, I suggest a formal RfC process be started before any changes are made to the article: (1) "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website" and (2) "His website, Infowars.com, has been described as a conspiracy and fake news website" being the 2 choices. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m not against considering such a motion at some point, but there are also other issues at play. I support the complete removal of the sentence in the first paragraph in the article, and to just leave it how it presently stands in the Controversies section. The exact quotation in Controversies reads “His website, Infowars.com, has been described by critics as a conspiracy and fake news website.” Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I support having it in the lede and don't think I'm alone in that, which is precisely why we need an RfC. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The "by critics" is pure original research and also bad writing. But that's on top of this phrasing being POV given how widely the website is described as such. Volunteer Marek 17:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a perfectly coherent sentence, unlike the mistake-ridden jumble offered earlier. There are four sources there - surely it's not original research. If it's original research after my change, it was original research before. And how on earth is saying "described as" not NPOV? That doesn't make any sense. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's crappy writing for the simple reason that who else but "critics" is gonna describe it as a "conspiracy website"? You're trying to beat the reader over the head with the not so subtle yet false suggestion that it's "bad people" who call it "conspiracy website" (whereas in fact it's pretty much everyone with half a brain) that you're writing convoluted sophomoric sentences. And yes, it's original research. Show me the sources that say that only "his critics" call it a conspiracy website. Volunteer Marek 19:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, you're reading far too much into the sentence. No one said or implied these sources are "bad people." You're also contradicting yourself. First you say "who else is it but his critics" and then you say "prove to me it's his critics." Keep in mind also that we're talking about a website, not a person. And what "convoluted sophomoric sentences" am I writing? My contribution to the article was to change the wording of a single existing sentence. I didn't even write a single sentence for the article. You don't seem qualified to have this discussion. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to adding anything like "... has been described by critics..." for reasons explained by Volunteer Marek.- Mr X 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What reasons, MrX? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Pure original research and also bad writing"- Mr X 21:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Explain. I responded to his statements relating to those charges. They seem to be empty. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No one is obligated to explain things to you again and again. This is why an rfc is probably a good idea, as everyone gets to have their say and then walk away. TheValeyard (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No one has explained anything to me "again and again." No one has to explain anything to anyone, but when I come to a debate, make a number of counter points to some very basic opposition, and am repeatedly met with those same basic answers with no elaboration, I have no qualms in calling this out. It's obvious a few folks here have an agenda, and don't particularly care about NPOV. Your name should be "TheVeilyard." Tidewater 2014 (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, it would be in your best interests to not mock the usernames of editors; it falls into ad hominem territory as well as project policy on [[WP:NPA|personal attacks. Consider yourself warned. Now, yes, many people have explained it to you, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but that's just how discussions go around here. Not everyone gets to be happy. Your suggestion weakens what that passage is saying. Neither I nor anyone else can make that point any clearer. TheValeyard (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Tidewater 2014, read this link as you clearly don't understand the importance of indentation while having a discussion on the talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets not rehash it, I support an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Tidewater, read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Volunteer Marek 16:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Just start the #$*&% RfC already. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fake news website"?

sorry but this is a joke I thought Wikipedia would only have truth and not be actual fake news themselves I love how fake this article is. this has opened my eyes to Wikipedia you have really shown how fake and how pouty grown men and women can be. the only people fooled by this deceptive article production are people just like you people writing this fake garbage. What manner of business does Wikipedia have in asserting an opinionated statement in the opening paragraph? You don't see the articles on Hitler saying "he is reported to be a bad guy" with 15 different citations, or Bush saying "is considered one of the worst presidents in history". This is clearly intentional and designed distort the rest of the article to the author of this claim's perspective. Allow the merits of what this man does to stand on its own. --Lunatic, Esquire (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, as you pointed out yourself, there are 15 reliable sources calling Infowars a fake news site. So find 15 reliable sources saying it's not a fake news site, and we have something to discuss. Oh, and cross your fingers that no other editors find even more RSes claiming it's a fake news site, because I guarantee you that there are dozens more.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

02:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, we have had to do this because (as with the above thread about Jones not being far right) someone will fetch up and go "But you only have 2 RS saying this". So we end up with a long list of RS saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You two clowns are doing a great job making sure that nobody with half-a-brain believes anything on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work!!! 50.4.213.130 (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a PA, please strike it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that this claim is based on there being reliable sources describing info wars as such, but it doesn't strike me as right. If you actually follow the link for "fakes news websites", it describes them as "Internet websites that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news". Perhaps I'm taking "deliberately" too narrowly, but doesn't that imply an awareness that Alex Jones doesn't have? I don't think he's trying to mislead anyone. Infowars publishes news that is false, but I think Alex Jones believes it.

Then again, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia places reliable sources above internal consistency. WilliamLehnsherr (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Shame then about what his lawyer said in the court case about it being an act.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a little ridiculous to pretend lawyers not wanting a shock jock's radio show to be admitted as evidence in a custody trial = "fake news website".72.80.143.187 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamLehnsherr:Erm didn't Jones' own lawyer admit that "He’s playing a character" and "He is a performance artist"?1 2 3 Bennv3771 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. I always figured he was exaggerating or playing up some of his views, but I never thought he wasn't a genuine conspiracy theorist. He may not act or talk in real life the way he does on his show, but I doubt he's playing a character the way, say, Stephen Colbert did. WilliamLehnsherr (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. I'll rather trust what the reliable sources and Jones' own lawyer say than a random person on the internet. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If he plays up some of his views (I.E. exaggerates) then he is knowingly being untruthful.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Jones presented the argument his bombastic character on the program was an act because he was in a custody battle. It was a credible legal defense to help him retain rights to his children. This can be presented in the article but to sum up his message as being entirely fictitious and knowingly so is disingenuous.

It is obvious to me the powers that be wish to maintain a certain visage with this article and my input is not appreciated. I will not press the matter. -- Lunatic, Esquire (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually he did not, his lawyers did (he then contradicted them). It was another users who suggested he played a character. Either way his legal team said it was an act. If this was a lie to win a custody battle that means...he lies in order the create an impression. Also no one said we can use this in the article to prove he is a liar. What we have said is that RS say infowars is fake new, so do we. Appeals to Jones's integrity however fall due to the fact he is a proven liar.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a lie. Alex Jones is basically a pundit. All pundits are "actors" in a sense. The idea that you can take someone's punditry and use it as a character smear in a court case is obviously, palpably absurd and this motive adequately explains the lawyer's actions and statements + is backed up by the RS's. 72.80.143.187 (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

HIS lawyers swear trying to smear him?Slatersteven (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is the proof that this infowars is a fake news website? - MyllaPenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyllaLane (talk • contribs) 11:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please not put new question at them top of threads (I have taken the liberty of moving it). You want evidence it repeats fake news? How about the claim that a yogurt company "supports 'migrant rapists'"?Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You understand Steven that his site also carries opinion pieces right? If you want evidence that he doesn't solely spread fake news I can grab you a list of at least 15 reports that the site got right. To say it is entirely fake news is wrong.

216.118.132.115 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No one is saying that his site is solely or entirely fake news...I'm sure the site gets one of two things right every now and then. The definition of "fake news" doesn't claim that as the definition either. The current basis for labeling infowars as fake news is that reliable sources label it as such too. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Occasionally reports technically accurate information". Persuasive. Sometimes fake news gets it right, and sometimes reliable outlets get it wrong. We don't count score, we go by what sources say. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources also label CNN, FOX and other's as fake. The whole sentence should be taken out. Simplesim (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Simplesim: Please provide links of these reliable sources labeling CNN et al as fake. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if this is true, that is not a reason to take out the line, but one to add it to other articles.Slatersteven (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A lot of sources might label it as fake news site, but the whole concept of something being a "fake news" site refers to intent, which is really difficult to establish. I want to suggest that the sentence gets rephrased form "His website, InfoWars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website" to "His website, InfoWars.com, is a conspiracy website. Many also view it as fake news website because some of the news reported turned out to be false." and then include the same references Openbaringen (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So do you have any RS saying this is not deliberate?Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ostensibly it is hypocritical that InfoWars is described as a 'fake news website', whereas networks such as the Huffing Post, BuzzFeed, and the Guardian - each of which verifiably publishes a far higher rate of stories that are not reflective of reality than InfoWars does - are not described thusly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:855f:1:e53f:6c22:49e9:d87e (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2017‎

Maybe, but until RS describe them so that is the way it is.Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, even many of the there cited references do NOT claim that it is a fake news website - just that it is accused of being one. I will correct the text accordingly, to correctly match the sources. Harald88 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The first two sources call it a fake news site, if the other sources do not remove them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, NONE of them calls them a fake news website. It is bunch of a FALSE citations to push an agenda. Thus we must remove ALL of them or keep the correction that I made. Harald88 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

First source "Avoid These Fake News Sites at All Costs" how is that not calling it a fake news site?Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone provided a RS that says it is NOT a fake news site? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry, you are right, we can indeed cite one other news site as making that claim. Harald88 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thus usnews does make that claim. Is according to Wikipedia everything that usnews says true? Harald88 (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, but as there are no RS saying it is not true then we have no reason to assume they are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And so becomes an unverified blacklist by a not-so-reliable source (just a journalist of a newspaper) a statement of fact in Wikipedia - talking about "fake news"! Not that I consider Infowars to be reliable, but with this kind[4] of self-discrediting "facts", Wikipedia can not be taken serious. It was an interesting experiment though, and it remains useful for references. Harald88 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well Harald, Wikipedia is self-aware enough to not allow itself to be used as a reliable source. Think on that one for a moment. But yes, I can see how an edit by a troll, 12 years ago, is really useful to this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What link did you attempt to add? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Opps.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If this website is called a fake news site, why do not you say *that*: This website is accused of bringing fake news. Or: this webs site is called a fake news website by ... It now says THIS == FAKE. And that in the very first few sentences. That *is* using Wikipedia as an anti right wing platform. And Frankly since the election of Trump it seems that Wikipedia has become an anti right wing platform. In fact Infowars is accusing from its side Washington Post of creating fake news. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoi0xGew594) To put it to an extreme, I can now also start an edit war and put in the first lines of the description of the Washington Post that it is a bringer of fake news, referring to InfoWars. Now I won't start an edit war, but I see this in all kind of articles nowadays. Loads of wikipedia editors have an anti Trump/populist/rightwing agenda in their mind when creating articles. AntonHogervorst (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A, this page is for talking about this article, not other articles/Wikipedia or other media.

B, It is about the preponderance of the "accusation", so no info war on it's own would not be enough to make a claim fact. If every RS said it it would be. To include a list of all the RS that have called Infowars fake news would take up far too much space.

C, assume good faith and do not cast aspersions about other editors bias.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"C, assume good faith and do not cast aspersions about other editors bias". Sure I will admit, I have lost that faith the past few months. I do no longer consider Wikipedia an independent neutral source. You just confirmed that to me again. Nevertheless I won't spend more time on it. AntonHogervorst (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding: I know this is not a nice thing to say. And no I do not want to get into some hostilities. But.. it is just the truth. I have lost my believe in Wikipedia. I am very sorry. It is just the way it is. My apologies. AntonHogervorst (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

How come Wikipedia cites Infowars as a fake news website and not CNN?? What's the neutrality in that? Peeps will say the accusation of Infowars being fake news is "sourced". Well, the source for CNN being fake news is the President of the United States! Are you saying journalists and corporate media editors are more reliable sources than the country's Chief of State?? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wisdomtooth32: Yes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the laugh button? :D. Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[unreliable-1] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4573882/Fake-news-row-Muslim-protesters-TV-crews.html

[2] "CNN's Piers Morgan talks to Alex Jones, the radio host behind the petition to deport him, over his gun control views" (PDF). Piers Morgan Tonight. Australian Catholic University.

[3] "CNN - Gun Control Debate". Piers Morgan Tonight. CNN. January 12, 2013.

[1]

[1]

[2]