Talk:Ben Swann/Archives/2017/August

2012/2013 comments

Ben Swann provided a unique investigation into a journalistic hoax that has been the source of a political controversy in two Presidential campaigns.

The section was unsourced and the controversy is currently covered at James Kirchick. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

.... in which case, per WP:1E, this should be a redirect, not speedy deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion due to non-notability of Swann

I nominated this piece for deletion due to concerns regarding notability. Below is the nomination statement.

I nominate Ben Swann for deletion because he lacks WP:Notability. Swann is a journalist, or a "creative professional," and therefore the six relevant notability criteria can be found at WP:Creative. He doesn't meet any of these. In failing to meet criterion 1), he is not "widely cited by" notable peer journalists; in failing to meet 2), is not used as "an expert source by major news sources or publications" (and in fact, doesn't appear to be cited by virtually any reliable (much less notable) news sources apart from the local Fox Affiliate where he works); failing to meet 3), has not "originated a new concept/theory/technique"; failing to meet 4/5), has not been featured in a well known book/film/monument/exhibition; and has not won significant critical attention from notable sources for his work. (Criterion 6 does not apply to him, as it specifically relates to academics) Also, everything on his Wikipedia page appears to be primary source/OR. He seems to be a reliable and skillful local journalist (hence his winning some state of Texas journalist awards), but he's nowhere near notable. Indeed, the vast majority of his Internet/Facebook mentions appear to be libertarians who appreciate the fact that he used his platform as a newscaster to attempt to defend Ron Paul from allegations related to Ron Paul newsletters. (Interestingly, his Wikipedia page was January 13th, one and a half weeks after his January 4th story defending Ron Paul.) Deletion is, in my judgment, an easy call. Steeletrap (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ben Swann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130929045544/http://www.kfoxtv.com:80/news/news/ben-swann/nJ5LY/ to http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/ben-swann/nJ5LY/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130608064532/http://cincinnati.com:80/blogs/tv/2013/05/30/ben-swann-on-his-new-venture-leaving-fox-19-and-his-favorite-stories to http://cincinnati.com/blogs/tv/2013/05/30/ben-swann-on-his-new-venture-leaving-fox-19-and-his-favorite-stories/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate

Because I'm constrained by 3RR, here is my proposed text that should resolve the complaints presented by the editors who removed another version of the text:

• While working for a CBS affiliate, Ben Swann promoted "Pizzagate", a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle alleging that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring.

Supported by the following sources:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/18/cbs-affiliates-big-question-why-no-law-enforcement-investigation-of-pizzagate-allegations/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cbs-pizzagate-conspiracy_us_58803dfde4b00d44838d2576
• http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-hasnt-any-investigation-taken-place-cbs-host-defends-pizzagate-conspiracy/
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/18/meet-ben-swann-the-republican-pizzagate-truther-hosting-atlanta-s-cbs-nightly-news.html

That "Pizzagate" is "a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle alleging that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring" comes straight from the Pizzagate Wikipedia page. If we are going to mention Pizzagate, we should use the language agreed upon by consensus on the main article, no? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe all of the issues being complained about have already been hashed out at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory. For instance, there was an RFC there that was closed with a consensus that Pizzagate should be labeled as a conspiracy theory. I see no basis for recreating the wheel and possibly creating confusing inconsistencies among related articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the arguments above, however I think the paragraph makes no effort to cover anything but the criticisms of his piece, whilst ignoring what his segment actually said. I will add the point he made since it is a fact missing from Wikipedias coverage: no investigation has been done. That was I think the main takeaway from his piece and should at least be mentioned here. petrarchan47คุก 19:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems fair. It does still need to be mentioned, in line with discussions at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory, that Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that has been widely debunked. The reactions cited by Snooganssnoogans also ought to receive some content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you added some content. It seems neutral. I think we still need to cover the reactions though. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The pizzagate part should say that Ben was explaining the pizzagate consipracy hypothesis, as opposed to how it is now, which I would argue, says that pizzagate is his hypothesis. Ben says before the 1 minute of the video that there is no evidence for the hypothesis, so it is not his hypothesis. also, the sentence describing the hypothesis is long, and could be split into multiple sentences. -Steve 104.33.114.195 (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I edited the page to make clear what Ben was saying about the story. User:DrFleischman undid my edit for "non-neutral, undue emphasis, and BLP vio." I do not see how I am being at all non-neutral. I am not putting ANY opinion in. I am merely quoting Swann. If we can't quote Swann, or say what he was saying in his video what is the point of having this on the page, other than saying 'pizzagate is fake news, don't believe it. Ben Swann is fake news, don't believe him.' which I see as a bias against Ben Swann. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The claims are false, fabricated and utter nonsense. Because the claims make highly-defamatory and likely-actionably-libelous assertions about living people, they may not be discussed in the encyclopedia without explicitly stating their factual falsity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm saying that the page doesn't even say what Ben was saying in the video right now. it doesn't say WHY he's wrong, what he's wrong about, or the conspiracy hypothesis (which Ben says multiple times there's no evidence for) is wrong. it is just saying that the conspiracy hypothesis is a false claim, and it is debunked without saying what the argument being made for it is, and what it has to do with Ben Swann. Help me help you present your case. Its fine that you have an opinion. I just don't like how the page is trying to discredit Ben Swann himself, rather than his videos. Please contribute to the improving of the page, rather than vetoing all edits. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have 2 concerns to your proposed changes and comments beyond the concern articulated by NorthBySouthBaranof (the BLP concern). First, re WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't be devoting excessive space in our article to this one Pizzagate commentary as compared to Swann's other noteworthy commentaries. The amount of content currently in the article seems appropriate. If readers want to learn more about Pizzagate, then they can click through and read the relevant article. Second, it's not neutral or accurate to describe Swann's commentary as a mere "explanation" of the conspiracy theory. It started off that way but then turned into something closer to advocacy / promotion. This isn't just my analysis; it's the analysis of a variety of published commentaries. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

help me word a change that it doesn't devote excessive space in the article to this commentary. that is what I am asking you. this is not the pizzagate page, this is the Ben Swann page. the page should be focused on what Ben Swann says about pizzagate, and maybe if he's right or wrong, rather than if pizzagate is right or wrong. just like the page should not say that the flat earth hypothesis is wrong, unless Ben Swann has argued for it.

yes, it is neutral to describe Swann's commentary as "explanation." by the way, that was not what I said; I didn't say that he merely explained the hypothesis, I said that he explained the hypothesis, which he undeniably did. now you know what I was saying, and, acting in good faith, you won't put an extra word in my mouth. he says multiple times that there is no evidence. it is not his hypothesis. he says that with the weird stuff surrounding pizzagate, an investigation is warranted. you could critique the weird stuff used as a warrant in the page if you like. I, myself would like to see your critique of that, rather than your assertions that pizzagate is wrong, or your assertion that the flat earth hypothesis is wrong, or right.

the page should at least say that Ben is wrong (rather than pizzagate,) and what he's wrong about, because he does not believe in the pizzagate hypothesis. I have no interest in, and I bet Ben Swann has no interest in pizzagate, and I hope its not true. after watching Ben Swann's video I have not concluded that it is definitely true. I think it merits an investigation. ask yourself if you are being non neutral. being neutral involves listening to facts rather than your opinions. so far, I have not seen you talk about Ben Swann's warrant, which is the exactly what the section should be about. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to be inserting a great deal of your own opinion here. If you have a reliable secondary source, talk to that. Objective3000 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

a reliable secondary source to what? 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

To whatever you want to add. No one cares about your opinion or my opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

right. this is the Ben Swann page, not our pages. that's why I say the section should be about Ben's video and the opinions in it, rather than pizzagate, which he doesn't believe in. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what he believes in. I just care about reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

104.33.114.195, I'm trying to understand how you think our content should be improved, and my best understanding is that your goal is to have something that better describes what Swann said about Pizzagate. This is tricky because, according to the secondary sources, his message wasn't completely clear. It wasn't clearly just reporting and it wasn't clearly just advocacy. There is also a broad consensus at the Pizzagate article that we shouldn't be describing the Pizzagate theory in too much detail (based on our guideline on handling fringe theories). In any case, does this edit satisfy you? If not, can you please explain what specific information you think is missing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

yes, and no, and thank you for responding. remember Ben says there is NO evidence, multiple times. so he wasn't describing evidence, but suspicious, conjectural stuff. now I think we could remove the sentence right before the one you edited. if people want to know what pizzagate is, they should go to the page. that's why there is a main article link. you could, however, add criticisms of the segment after the sentence that says what the segment was about, if you want. like I said, I want to hear the criticisms. and I asked you to respond so that we could come to a consensus on how the page should be edited, rather than having it be edit, veto, edit, veto... 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Two things. First, it's not accurate to say he said there was no evidence. He said there was no "solid evidence," and then he proceeded to describe Podesta's e-mails and various symbols alleged to be associated with pedophilia. The implication was that there was no solid evidence, but there was a substantial amount of suspicious stuff. It doesn't matter whether you call that "evidence" or not; saying he said there was no evidence would be misleading and incomplete. Second, are you suggesting that we not say anything describing Pizzagate beyond that it was a debunked conspiracy theory? That would strike me as not right at all. They guy got on the evening news, went through suspicious stuff, and called for an investigation into whether some extremely high-profile public figures were involved in a pedophilia ring. We can't leave "pedophilia" out of it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

you guys tell me you're worried about legal liability, and then you use the word evidence, which implies the conspiracy hypothesis is true. whatever, I don't care, leave that word as it is, then.

I am suggesting that you not discuss pizzagate at all except if it has to do with Ben Swann. just like we don't have to say on every wikipedia page that the flat earth hypothesis is debunked. I think the sentence you edited says enough. you could discuss why he may be wrong with what he said on the subject, and I encourage that.

if you want to use the word pedophilia, it fits nicely in the sentence you edited (...why law enforcement hadn't investigated the pedophilia allegations.)

and I think your post is a nice summarization, and all that needs to go on the wiki. "They guy got on the evening news, went through suspicious stuff, and called for an investigation into whether some extremely high-profile public figures were involved in a pedophilia ring." well, except the word figures, plural. its just John Podesta, and his brother. Alefantis is just a pizza owner, apparently. the congressman wasn't implied to be involved, he was just mentioned to show who John Podesta is friends with. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am rather stuck since I'm still having trouble understanding exactly what you're looking for. We could talk and talk, but why don't you make another proposal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

what do you mean by "make another proposal?" 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean propose some specific language you think should be added or changed. You can post your proposed paragraph(s) here and then we can tinker with it. Or, make changes in the article and we can tinker with it (or revert if necessary). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I did. I suggested removing the sentence that talks about pizzagate, rather than Ben Swann. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I cannot accept that change. If we're going to say that Swann did a segment on Pizzagate, then we have to at least briefly explain what Pizzagate is/was. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we only have to say what Ben Swann was saying about it. if the detail require us to talk about pizzagate, then and only then should we discuss pizzagate. you yourself said that there is wikipedia policy to not discuss it because of legal / ethical issues. I see the page as being biased, pushing stances where it shouldn't. it calls the theory debunked where Ben Swann notes there hasn't been an investigation.

So you say "we have to at least briefly explain what Pizzagate is/was." we can do that by using Ben Swann's words, and criticism of Ben Swann's words. if this is actually your concern, it can be addressed in a way that adds to the amount of information on the page about Ben Swann. 104.33.114.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. You need to get consensus for your preferred approach. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

that's what I'm trying to do. or not even go with that approach, but come up with a way that satisfies you, and has the info on the page be about Ben Swann. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

We're at loggerheads on this particular issue. You're going to have to have to either wait for or bring in additional editors. See WP:DR. Also make sure you read WP:CANVAS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

are you saying that there is no way that we can give the context about pizzagate that you want using the words in the Ben Swann segment, or in critiques of it? 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's hypothetically possible, but I don't know how. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

ok well we can just start by kinda merging the sentences.

The segment described the theory that John Podesta was involved in a child sex trafficking ring, and the circumstantial evidence cited by its backers. Supporters of the conspiracy theory claimed that the WikiLeaks-published Podesta emails, and certain pizza restaurants, and music bands used coded messages referring to pedophilia. The Reality Check segment ended with Swann asking why law enforcement hadn't investigated the allegations.) How does that look to you? 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

For starters it doesn't say that the theory is false or debunked. That must be included per BLP. Second it uses "circumstantial" instead of "purported," which as you know Objective3000 and I disagree with. Third did Swann really talk about bands using coded messages? I can't remember. Fourth I honestly don't understand how this is any better than what we currently have. It sounds like your main beef is the use of the word "debunked," and that has to stay. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

no, I didn't know you had a problem with "circumstantial." I asked you and you didn't respond. why do you have a problem with circumstantial?

yes, he talked about Heavy Breathing and Sex Stains, who play at one of the pizza places. the former of which jokes about pedophilia, and latter of which had the boy lover symbol in their music video.

because it is specific to what Ben has to do with pizzagate. Ben is the focus. it makes it clear why the conspiracy is being talked about. yes, I do have an issue with the word debunked. if you truly believe it is debunked, then you should not be afraid of talk about the subject. the pizzagate wikipedia article is linked for people to read about. people shouldn't be quick to deny the story. they should be neutral, because if no investigation occurs, and the whole thing was true, then more kids will be victims. I don't want it to be true, but that doesn't mean it can't be. if you want to say why Ben is wrong about what he says, then for the millionth time, add why he is wrong. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I will respond about "circumstantial" in the subsection below. Ok on the bands. Do you mean why Swann was talking about the conspiracy, or why was the conspiracy being talked about more broadly? I don't know the answer to the former, and the latter isn't relevant to this article, as you suggest. Removing "debunked" is a non-starter because of two policies: WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS. It's a BLP violation because it is a debunked accusation of the crime. How do we know it's debunked? Because zillions of reliable sources say so. It's a consensus violation because this subject has been discussed ad nauseum here and at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory and there is an unmistakable consensus that we should say very clearly that the theory is debunked. Editors have been blocked by admins for violating the consensus. So that's that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean the way it is in the page right now, it goes off on a tangent about pizzagate, taking attention off Ben Swann, when it could say what it is saying, and making it about Ben Swann. so where are we? Is this ok with you?

The segment described the debunked (keep that word in, IDGAF) theory that John Podesta was involved in a child sex trafficking ring, and the circumstantial evidence cited by its backers. Supporters of the conspiracy theory claimed that the WikiLeaks-published Podesta emails, and certain pizza restaurants, and music bands used coded messages referring to pedophilia. The Reality Check segment ended with Swann asking why law enforcement hadn't investigated the allegations. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the missing word "purported," I don't have any particular problem with this. It doesn't seem like an improvement to me, but it doesn't seem like a step back either. It does need to have the last sentence re-included. ("After reporting on the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Swann closed his social media accounts.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Evidence

I just looked at the video. Yes, he says that there is no solid evidence. But, every time he says that, he follows it with an emphatic BUT, and then starts providing circumstantial “evidence”. Of course the evidence is totally absurd. But, he piles on more and more of it as the video continues, even suggesting guilt by association. Then, he says that no one has disproved Pizzagate, and asks why no one is investigating. Why would you ask for an investigation where there is no evidence of a crime? Clearly, in asking this question, he is suggesting that he has just provided the viewers with enough evidence to warrant an investigation of heinous crimes. Now, this is just my impression and I am not an RS. But, I don’t understand your insistence that he was simply explaining the conspiracy instead of suggesting possible validity. I also don’t understand what you’re looking for. Current wording looks good to me. Objective3000 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

you both are misunderstanding me. I am saying that the Ben Swann wikipedia page uses the word evidence, which implies the conspiracy hypothesis is true, when it should use a word like conjecture, which does not imply the conspiracy hypothesis is true.

investigations are what get us evidence of crimes, if there was a crime committed. conjecture / probable cause is what justifies / warrants an investigation. I am saying that Ben Swann doesn't believe in the conspiracy hypothesis, but he does believe an investigation is merited. based on what is in the video I say that an investigation is merited. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can draw any conclusions about what Swann did or didn't believe. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I also don't think that the existence of evidence (or the use of the word "evidence") implies that a conspiracy theory hypothesis is true, has probable cause, or merits investigation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, the word conjecture fits better, don't you think? (described the theory and the evidence conjecture cited by its backers) 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

He is laying out circumstantial evidence, as absurd as it is. The conjecture is that the evidence warrants an investigation. Objective3000 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

oh that's a good way of putting it. do have any objection to changing the sentence to the following? "The segment described the theory and the circumstantial evidence cited by its backers to ask for an investigation, and ended with Swann asking why law enforcement hadn't investigated the pedophilia allegations." 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The current version is more accurate. Objective3000 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Objective3000 - "conjecture" isn't the right word. Looking at how this was handled at Pizzagate conspiracy theory, in one place that article uses "purported evidence." I like that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Purported is good. Objective3000 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman please stop editing the page without getting consensus. that is just going to lead to change, veto, change veto. I don't like the word purported. Objective3000 called it circumstantial, and that's what it is. do you have any objections to changing it to circumstantial, Dr. Fleischman? 104.33.114.195 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I called it absurd, circumstantial evidence. Purported is better. We can't use words like absurd. Objective3000 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

is it purportedly true that the earth is round? or is it just true? if you want to disagree with anything Ben Swann said, then disagree with Ben Swann. put your rebuttal on the page, I encourage you to. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

104.33.114.195, I'll give you some candid, unsolicited advice since you're civil and articulate and I think you can be a really good contributor here. At some point discussions tend to peter out as editors become entrenched in their opinions. When that happens, either accept that you don't have consensus, or try to obtain consensus by bringing additional editors into the discussion via dispute resolution. Continuing to flog an issue without bringing anyone new in is unlikely to lead to a productive outcome. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I made an edit that was vetoed by you. I am talking to you so that we can come up with something we can both agree with. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no veto power here (except by the Wikimedia Foundation), but that's beside the point. I admire your effort to discuss. However most editors (including myself) don't have boundless time and/or energy to participate, especially when it appears unlikely that a consensus will form for whatever the proposed edits are. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

by veto power I mean reverting changes. you saying you don't have boundless time to participate, but you will disagree and revert changes is saying you don't want to contribute to the page, you want to protect the bias in the page. if this is not true, then you have a duty to talk about things and reach compromise. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

What bias?? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The page says the conspiracy hypothesis is debunked despite there having been no investigation done, as Ben Swann said. and your addition of "purported" is a downplayer of the circumstantial evidence. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would anyone investigate the claim of a “crime” where there are no complainants, no known victims, and the evidence is, frankly, nutso? Are you actually suggesting that there might exist a massive pedophilia ring in the basement of a pizza joint (that has no basement) which involves a large number of senior members of a political party? Seriously, this is a goofy, nonsensical, conspiracy theory. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a site for giving any credence to WP:fringe theories for WP:BLP reasons. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. We call it “debunked” because that’s what the WP:RS say it is. At this point, there is no reason to continue this discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

think about what you just said. why would there be no investigation of murder if the victim didn't complain? (he wasn't alive, to be complaining.) do you deny any of the stuff Ben Swann talked about? if so, say so. that there might be, yes. that there definitely is, no. and again, only John Podesta was talked about in the Ben Swann segment, not members, plural. if you're gonna take that stance, then completely remove the pizzagate segment from the Ben Swann page. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, and Objective3000 1) is it purportedly true, or is it just true that there are emails with pizza strangely worded? 2) is it purportedly true, or just true that Comet Pizza is referenced in the emails? 3) is it purportedly true, or just true that the Besta Pizza logo looks like the boy lover logo? 4) is it purportedly true, or just true that Heavy Breathing plays at Comet Pizza and has songs joking about pedophilia? 5) is it purportedly true, or just true that Sex Stains plays at Comet Pizza and has a music video with the boy lover symbol? 6) is it purportedly true, or just true that John Podesta talked in the emails about a close relationship with Dennis Hastert, who was sentenced jail time for abusing boys? 7) is it purportedly true, or just true that The Washington Post said Tony Podesta had in his bedroom pictures taken by Katy Grannan, who is known for taking pictures of naked teenagers? 104.33.114.195 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be revdeled as a BLP vio. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

what is the violation? 104.33.114.195 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

All of those may be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's evidence that Podesta was involved in a child sex ring. Hence the word "purported." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

you are not answering the question. they are all true, not purportedly true, just true. you want to say the conclusion that they lead to is the purported part fine. but that's now what your edit did. what your edit does is downplay each of these facts. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that they should be downplayed, because we don't have any reliable sources saying these facts are evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann is a reliable source to me. we should not downplay any facts. you should counter facts with other, more important facts. what the word does in that position is say these 7 facts are actually lies. the page should say, if it says anything is wrong, that the conclusion is wrong, rather than the facts. 104.33.114.195 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann is definitely not a reliable source, at least with respect to Pizzagate. But that's irrelevant. Describing these facts as "purported evidence" doesn't imply anything about their accuracy. It merely suggests that they might not support the hypothesis.

I am actually through arguing about this, as I have better things to do. I appreciate your civility and willingness to disucss. My position is that purported evidence is the appropriate phrase and that's not going to change at this point. If you manage to gather a consensus that supported removal of "purported," then that's fine, I will gladly abide by that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Dispute

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL EDITORS: this article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability (V), and no original research (NOR).

We must get this article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Because this article does not contain any inline citations supporting the claims that RT America (incorrectly referred to within the article as "Russia Today"), let alone inline citations to a reliable, published source, all references to RT or RT America as "propaganda" within this article will be removed without further discussion. This is in addition to the fact that referring to RT and RT America as propaganda outlets is inconsistent with Wikipedia's core policy of neutral point of view, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia's main articles on RT and RT America. If you believe that RT or RT America should be referred to as propaganda outlets, the proper venue for these discussions is the talk pages for RT or RT America's main articles on Wikipedia. Do not revert these changes. Doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing in accordance with the above-stated policy. END OF NOTICE (inserted by Jacobwsl (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC))

I have added an NPOV language tag to this article as well as an NPOV section tag to the section regarding Ben Swann's coverage of controversial issues. It seems that since the 18 January 2017 episode of Swann's Reality Check segment, which examined the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, this article has been edited with language that may not conform to Neutral Point of View guidelines. Language appearing in this article since 18 January 2017 may violate the following principles of NPOV: avoid stating opinions as facts, prefer nonjudgmental language, and present viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Examples include:

• "He has promoted conspiracy theories" (use of judgmental language/lack of impartial tone, not in reference to the use of the term "conspiracy theories" but the claim that he "promoted" them, as opposed to "reported on, "covered," or a similar nonjudgmental, impartial, and factual term)
• "Swann sought to minimize Ron Paul's newsletter scandal" (use of judgemental language/lack of impartial tone, specifically "sought to minimize")
• "Ben Swann dedicated a "Reality Check" segment to the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory ... The theory alleges that John Podesta's emails ... contain coded messages referring to human trafficking, and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring" (this subsection implies that Swann promoted unsubstantiated allegations: when he covered the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Swann was careful to remind viewers that there is no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, only that many media dismissed the allegations without further investigation)
• "In an appearance in 2015 on Russian propaganda outlet Russia Today" (this is an egregious statement of opinion as fact, it reveals Western/Anglo-American bias, and it misnames the TV network on which Swann appeared as "Russia Today" when in fact it has been named "RT" since 2009: see RT (TV network))
• "Swann speculated on Russia Today" (see above)
• "Vaccine denial" subsection title (imprecise, not impartial, and judgmental: it implies that Swann denies the efficacy or existence of vaccines, he does not: he covers vaccine-related controversies and adverse effects with a focus on vaccine safety--the subsection should be titled "Coverage of vaccine controversies" or something similar in order to meet NPOV guidelines.)

Please discuss. Do not remove the NPOV language and POV section tags until these issues have been resolved. --Jacobwsl (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There may be bits in there that are non-neutral, but it sounds like most of concerns surround the terms "conspiracy theory" and "Russian propaganda outlet." I'm not aware of any uses of these terms that aren't verifiable, i.e. supported by reliable sources. We don't whitewash verifiable facts, e.g., that Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory, as has been hashed out extensively at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory, just because those facts are controversial or offensive to some. That said, I agree that the heading "Vaccine denial" is non-neutral and should be renamed to "Vaccine controversy" to be consistent with Vaccine controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And I agree that the Ron Paul content improperly presented Wemple's opinion pieces as reliably sourced fact. This can't be fairly described as Swann's "controversial views" or "conspiracy theory." Is just a view that's been criticized by another journalist. I've removed the subsection. If the content can be re-written neutrally then it could be restored, as long as it's put in a separate section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and contribution, Dr. Fleischman. As I stated above, my concerns are not at all in regards to the use of the term "conspiracy theory," however I do have serious concerns about the potentially-libelous accusation that RT (TV network) is a "Russian propaganda outlet." Please see the Wikipedia article on RT. While referencing claims that RT publishes propaganda is fair game, it is unacceptable to label it as Russian propaganda outright. This is an egregious violation of the principles of NPOV, especially when one considers how often major U.S. media have been accused of publishing propaganda in both domestic and foreign major media. Not only is this characterization in clear violation of NPOV more broadly, it is also a specific and demonstrable example of Western/Anglo-American bias on Wikipedia and should be removed. --Jacobwsl (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The position that RT is a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin is extensively sourced, so our neutrality policy suggests that calling it otherwise would actually be non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The position that the New York Times and the Washington Post are propaganda outlets for the U.S. government, the national security establishment, or the West is also extensively sourced, both in credible domestic media and in foreign media. In fact, exactly as with RT, a former New York Times reporter has called the latter a propaganda outlet. There is a reason that RT, the New York Times, and the Washington Post are not called propaganda outlets on their respective Wikipedia pages, despite these allegations appearing in credible media. Please read our NPOV guidelines if there is confusion about this issue. Also see the Wikipedia article on RT. As with Pizzagate being called a "conspiracy theory" per the consensus on its main article, RT should be called a TV network and not a propaganda outlet, per the consensus on its main article. This is for both consistency across the encyclopedia and for reasons of neutrality. Snooganssnoogans is correct (below) in agreeing to refer to RT as "a publicly-funded Russian TV network," much like PBS and NPR are publicly-funded U.S. media outlets (although they are not specifically referred to as such in every article which references them, which is a point worth considering). --Jacobwsl (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of any reliable sources calling the Times or the Post propaganda outlets. But that's beside the point. A number of reliable sources say RT is a Russian propaganda outlet, and none do not. Therefore, per our policies on verifiability and neutrality, we can say RT is a Russian propaganda outlet. Your request that I "read our NPOV guidelines" is empty. I've read them many times and there's nothing in there supporting the view that controversial yet reliably sourced material must be removed. And then you go even further by saying that Snooganssnoogans said that it's "more accurate" to call RT a publicly-funded Russian TV network. That's falser than false. That's head-in-the-sand I-can't-hear-you false. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you are not aware of the reliable sources calling the New York Times and the Washington Post propaganda outlets is immaterial. But the comparison is not at all beside the point. It serves as a reminder that the encyclopedia strives to present as objective a view as possible, based on reliable sources (which, as it happens, are not exclusive to the U.S., U.K., or the West more broadly). This mission includes avoiding ethnic or national biases. The systemic Anglo-American bias on the encyclopedia is a problem we are actively confronting. In doing so, it is unacceptable to replace Anglo-American bias with some other ethnic or national bias (for example, by dismissing the PBS or the BBC as mere "state propaganda outlets"). Instead, we should strive to provide a neutral point of view. Your claim that no reliable sources do not say that RT is a Russian propaganda outlet is simply false. The reference to RT on this article should conform to and be consistent with the encyclopedia's main article on RT, which definitively does NOT say RT is a "Russian propaganda outlet." In any case, this article is not the place for such a debate: if you wish to make your case, you must do it on the main article on RT. On a different note, you are correct that I misquoted Snooganssnoogans, I have corrected my reference. As for "head-in-the-sand-I-can't-hear-you," it seems you are the one having trouble responding civilly and substantively to the issues I have raised, Dr. Fleischman. --Jacobwsl (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I could agree to calling RT "a network funded by the Russian government" if that's more palatable. There's plenty of reliable sources to support the notion that it's a propaganda network though. It would do the readers a disservice and be misleading if we were not describe RT for what it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. See my response to Dr. Fleischman above. --Jacobwsl (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't. That puts RT on a par with the BBC, which is highly misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No it does not. That is false equivalence. The phrasing only presents the inherently-neutral fact that RT is Russian, publicly-funded, and a media outlet, which is accurate and does not pass a value judgement. This is the standard that language used on Wikipedia must meet: to be nonjudgmental and factually accurate. We do not rate media outlets based on our subjective notions of what constitutes "propaganda." For something to be labeled propaganda, there must be a global (not an American, let alone an American "mainstream") consensus that it constitutes such. --Jacobwsl (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I can agree to renaming the Vaccine section: "Vaccine Controversy". The term "promoted" is accurate for how he addressed Pizzagate. Just "asking questions" or insisting that nobody has examined the conspiracy theory or that they are covering it up is a common tactic among conspiracy theorists. The Ron Paul content belongs. Wemple's views are attributed to him, so I don't see a problem. "Sought to minimize" seems like a fair description. Is there a more neutral term insisting that a scandal has been blown up or that it isn't as serious? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

When we say, "According to reporter X of newspaper Y," we imply that the attributed statement was reported as news and therefore was fact-checked. In this case it wasn't; it wasn't the WaPo newsroom talking, it was just Wemple himself. This can be made clear by using words like "opined" or "criticized." But, I still don't see how this can be lumped in with the other items in the list, in which Swann has promoted theories that are contrary to the reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why the section is also called 'controversial views'. But perhaps we can lump the newsletter bit into the career section or something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with that. I could also see it being moved into a new section called "Other criticism" or "Dispute with Eric Wemple" or something like that. It does seem like Wemple has really gone after the guy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, the heading "Controversial views" refers to the controversial views of Swann, not the controversial views of other journalists editorializing or criticizing him. You must not have noticed that Swann's coverage of the Ron Paul newsletter controversy is already mentioned in the article, and it had been long before the series of edits made after Swann's 18 January 2017 broadcast. In regards to your point about Swann's coverage of "Pizzagate," it may be that "just asking questions" is a "common tactic among conspiracy theorists," but Swann is a journalist and media critic and it is his job to report the facts and examine media coverage. No where in that broadcast did he ever speculate that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory was true, nor did he make any baseless claims or fabricate any information. He presented the reasons why Pizzagate emerged as a conspiracy theory, while also making sure to inform his viewers on the lack of solid evidence, and also noted that other media had failed to discuss or debunk the specific details of Pizzagate conspiracy theorists' allegations, instead dealing in broad strokes and innuendo. The original broadcast can still be found on YouTube if you care to check this for yourself. --Jacobwsl (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Snooganssnoogans offered to compromise by proposing to put the material in the career section. There's no point in biting them now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please limit your edits to useful contributions that address the issues raised, in keeping with our policy. Thanks, Jacobwsl (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Jacobwsl, please stop deleting the reliably sourced label of RT as a Russian propaganda outlet. You cite BLP, but the disputed content isn't about a person, it's about a company. You cite NPV, but you haven't identified anything in NPV that prohibits the inclusion of reliably sourced content. You cite consistency with RT (TV network), but that article confirms that RT is in fact a Russian propaganda outlet. Please do not cry BLP, and obtain consensus before deleting reliably sourced content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman it appears that you may be engaged in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering in your claim that "the disputed content isn't about a person, it's about a company." Claiming that Ben Swann worked for a Russian propaganda outlet is claim that must meet our BLP policy because it is a statement not only about a company but also about a living person. I quote from the BLP policy that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist" and also that "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." As for our NPV policy, I refer you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. You must fairly represent the view of many reliable sources that RT and RT America are not propaganda outlets. In regards to consistency with RT and RT America's main articles, you are misrepresenting them. Nowhere do they unequivocally state that RT or RT America are propaganda outlets; rather, these articles refer to claims that those media are propaganda outlets by their critics. This may seem to you to be a subtle distinction, but it is a crucial one. I am going to revert your edit, in accordance with BLP. --Martin Friedrichsen 03:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to reliable sources indicating that RT is not a Russian propaganda outlet? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we can try to avoid edit warring. I have re-added the content with the reliable sources, this time adding a {{pov-inline}} tag to reflect our dispute. Is this an acceptable temporary solution while you look for sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment, as I understand the funding arrangements of PBS, it is not funded or owned directly by the US Government. The BBC is certainly not owned or paid for directly by the UK Govt, therefore it is misleading to describe RT as 'publicly funded'. As I understand it, RT is only publicly funded in the same sense as the Russian Army is publicly funded, ie from public taxation through the Russian Govt, who are its funders, owners, and managers. Pincrete (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I take an issue with the current construction of the "Views and reports" section. Everything in the section, is mostly fine. However, the problem is what is not in it. He's won awards for reporting on RV fires and windstorms, it would seem we should include those. If he's reporting fringe CTer stuff, we should acknowledge that, too. However, this section - by selectively emphasizing the weird stuff and selectively excluding the mainstream and mundane - is basically a parade of horribles that sidesteps our general proscription against "Criticism" sections by disguising it in a legal fiction we're calling "Views and reports." DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's verifiable and noteworthy, then by all means add it, I'm not opposed. When I first came on this article that section was titled "Controversial views" or something like that, which almost guaranteed that it was going to be treated as a criticism ghetto. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: description of RT (TV network) in Ben Swann

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

---

Should the following sentence:

After leaving WXIX-TV in 2013, Swann regularly appeared on RT America, part of the publicly-funded Russian TV network RT...

Be changed to:

After leaving WXIX-TV in 2013, Swann regularly appeared on RT America, a division of Russian propaganda outlet RT...

citing the following sources (or others):

sources
Julia Ioffe,What Is Russia Today?, Columbia Journalism Review, September–October 2010. Beth Knobel "Russian News, English Accent: New Kremlin Show Spins Russia Westward", CBS News, December 12, 2005 Benjamin Bidder (August 13, 2013). "Putin Fights War of Images and Propaganda with Russia Today Channel". Spiegel Online. Retrieved August 14, 2013.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2017‎ (UTC)

• Yes. Amply supported by high-quality, cited sources, and necessary for the reader's understanding. The Ioffe article in Columbia Journalism Review is very clear on this point. "Publicly funded" is basically whitewashing; it misleads the reader into thinking that RT is analogous to, for example, the BBC. But that's simply not true; while the BBC and many other publicly funded media outlets are editorially independent of the government, RT is not: it's a government mouthpiece. If people wanted to use another phrase (e.g., "Kremlin-aligned," a descriptor used by the Washington Post), then that may be worth considering, but "publicly funded" is unacceptable. Neutrality^talk 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Public-funded is weasely. RS on RT is clear. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• No. Publicly-funded is certainly weasely and misleading (which public?), if that form of words is used then 'Russian-government funded' would be more accurate. However, regardless of how many people think it, 'propaganda' is inherently not factual and this is not a page about RT, where the accusations and opinions about the quality and neutrality of RT can be properly evaluated. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

What's inherently non-factual about "propaganda?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

'Propaganda' is an evaluation of intent, all news has its bias, when the bias is so apparent that presenting a certain political view or defending a certain political entity completely takes over from any notion of 'balanced' reporting, we call it 'propaganda', that is necessarily and inherently a judgement not a fact. However that isn't my main argument here, we might all agree that 'Daily Mail' is a sensationalist, unreliable, trivia-obsessed news outlet and might find tons of sources to endorse that judgement, but we wouldn't say that where the context didn't demand it. We would probably say 'British tabloid'. Even an indisputable claim, such as that "The Telegraph is a Conservative paper" (it says that of itself even), we would not put unless context demanded that we describe it as 'Conservative'. I agree that 'publicly funded' is misleading, I also happen to agree that RT is little better than Russian-government propaganda, but why does the context of a TV presenter changing job necessitate saying that when the link is the proper place to evaluate RT? Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If you agree that "publicly funded" is misleading, but don't support "propaganda"—what would you suggest as an alternative? Neutrality^talk 20:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I've suggested above 'Russian-government funded' or similar. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• No per Pincrete. Jusdafax 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes (as nom). Pincrete, here's why it's significant. There has been a lot of press recently about how Russian government has been running a disinformation campaign to erode confidence in western institutions such as the mainstream media by spreading fake news and promoting conspiracy theories, and RT has been an important part of that campaign. (I'll find reliable sources for this if you need them.) Part of what Swann is known for is questioning stories put out by the mainstream media and promoting conspiracy theories. The alignment between Russia's campaign and Swann's reporting might or might not be a coincidence, but it's an alignment that we shouldn't be obscuring by hiding the reliably sourced fact (not opinion) that RT is an instrumentality of the Russian government. This fact is based not just on a perception of bias, but on the Kremlin's actual control of the network's top-level personnel, statements by former employees, and shifts in coverage that have closely mirrored changes in the Kremlin's policies. Please read the Ioffe piece before concluding that this is the equivalent of calling The Daily Mail a "sensationalist, unreliable, trivia-obsessed" news outlet (which, btw, would be undue piling on) or calling The Telegraph conservative. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• No 1) RT is funded by the Russian government, but like the BBC, it is editorially and operationally independent. While some former RT journalists have accused the network of pro-Russian bias and several critics have labeled it a "propaganda outlet," the same is true of BBC and many, many other media outlets which are NOT referred to as as "state media" or "propaganda" on their respective WP main articles (let alone in every article where they are so much as mentioned. Many reliable news media, including independent and nonprofit news outlets and investigative journalists have rejected unmitigated claims that RT is "Kremlin propaganda" (I can provide sources). 2) For consistency with the main article, RT should not be called a "propaganda outlet" here. 3) This discussion should be taking place on the talk page for the main article for RT (TV network), not on the talk page for Ben Swann. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC) … … I'm striking this comment; the user had been blocked for sockpuppetry in this RfC. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobwsl. Neutrality^talk 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's just flat incorrect. RT is not "editorially independent" of the Russian government. The actual reputable sources firmly establish that RT is a mouthpiece by the Russian authorities. See The Economist (directly referring to RT as Russian propaganda and "Kremlin-financed media weapon"); Julia Ioffe, What Is Russia Today?: The Kremlin's propaganda outlet has an identity crisis, Columbia Journalism Review (Sept./Oct. 2010); John Besemeres, A Difficult Neighbourhood: Essays on Russia and East-Central Europe since World War II (Australian National University Press, 2016), pp. 359-60, 435 (repeatedly and explicitly describing RT as "Russian propaganda"); Daphne Skillen, Freedom of Speech in Russia: Politics and Media from Gorbachev to Putin (Routledge, 2016) ("... As the Kremlin's mouthpiece, RT ..."). Even Vladimir Putin himself has basically acknowledged this: "his unusually candid description of the network's pro-Kremlim coverage undercut RT's official description of itself as editorially independent." Neutrality^talk 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

RT asserts its editorial and operational independence. So does the BBC. Both have had their editorial independence questioned. Unsurprisingly, the independence of RT has been questioned more frequently in English-language media. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So you have nothing to say to substantively response to the multiple academic and journalistic sources I've presented. I think that says it all. (P.S.: That RT "asserts" something should have zero bearing at all.) Neutrality^talk 20:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• No per Pincrete and Martin Friedrichsen. This discussion should be happening on the talk page for the main article on RT. Also, please be aware that "publicly-funded" is not a weasel word/phrase. Claiming that "publicly-funded" implies U.S.-funding is also false and exposes a U.S. bias. For example, the BBC is also listed as "publicly-funded" on WP, see the list of publicly-funded broadcasters. TheWikiWatcher (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC) … … I'm striking this comment; the user had been blocked for sockpuppetry in this RfC. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobwsl. Neutrality^talk 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

— TheWikiWatcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This editor has two edits, including this one, and none to the main namespace. The closing administrator should disregard this comment. Neutrality^talk 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, I'll get to work ;) Thank you for assuming my good faith. Remember all editors have to start somewhere, sometimes that is in an article talk page. TheWikiWatcher (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

BBC is not owned or controlled or funded by UK govt. To the best of my knowledge, no govt owned and funded network is referred to as 'publicly funded', they are referred to as 'govt. owned'. It is misleading to say that RT is 'publicly funded'. Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, you are wrong. BBC is funded by the U.K. government through a tax levied on all TV viewers. Like RT, BBC maintains that it is editorially and operationally independent. Like RT, the editorial independence of BBC has been repeatedly questioned. Wikipedia is not the place to engage in innuendo. TheWikiWatcher (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

TheWikiWatcher, precisely, the UK Govt does not pay a single penny to the BBC and does not control its funding beyond every few years setting the rate that each TV-owning household will pay for a licence. The Govt. does not give to nor withhold money from the BBC ie it does not fund the BBC. The money does not even pass through the hands of the UK Govt, since the licence is purchased at a Post Office and passed on to the BBC. Are you saying that RT's funding is as distant from the Russian Govt as that? How are you saying RT is funded to justify 'publicly funded'. Where are the sources justifying this description ?

BTW, RT does not even broadcast to the Russian public who, it is implied, are so generously paying for it. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

nb At this point in the discussion, an alternative text was agreed as an interim measure "Swann regularly appeared on RT America, a division of the Russian Government funded network RT" Discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, per WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• No. "Propaganda" is a loaded term. The more-neutral wording already in the article is better. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. "publicly-funded Russian TV network" is clearly dishonest. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• YesNeither -- the proposed language works as an improvement to the current "publicly-funded" bullshit but am not real happy about "propaganda" as it will just be a lightening rod. Something like what is in the lead of the current RT article, like "RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy", would be better and more sustainable. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (thought about this more and not going to !vote for language i don't support. this was an RfC that offered no good options. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, a possible 3rd choice is the present interim compromise a division of the Russian Government funded network RT or as someone suggests below "Russian state owned network". I also think that "publicly funded" is pure BS, but am unhappy about "propaganda outlet" Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No, we cannot use the "division" or "Russian state owned" language because neither would be verifiable. I'm not aware of any sources saying RT is a government agency or is otherwise owned by the Russian government. It is a private company (at least on paper) that is funded and de facto controlled and used as a propaganda outlet by the government. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• No as per NewYorkActuary and MB298. Further, relying on media to comment on other media, as a method to ascertain the consensus of RS, is inherently problematic. There has been a wide selection of scholarly articles published on RT which correctly and accurately identify it as an external service, identical in purpose (if sometimes different in method) to Deutsche Welle, Voice of America, Press TV, NHK World, Radio Prague, etc. External services are public diplomacy vehicles designed to change foreign public opinion in favor of the sponsor state's agenda. This is a public relations activity which is fundamentally different from propaganda. (And, even though this is not the question, it bears noting that this fact doesn't make RT RS. RT is non-RS, but for the same reason a press release from McDonald's is not RS, not for the same reason Der Stürmer is not RS.) DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DarjeelingTea, can you please point to the sources you're referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm ... all of them? It's a challenging question because it's akin to asking me to point to "the sources" that refer to the sun as a star (obviously I don't have the capacity to cite the entire corpus of human knowledge since Copernicus). "External services" is just how we conventionally and typically refer to state O&O foreign-directed broadcasters. However, just to shoot off a few quick examples I have laying in front of me specifically referencing RT as an External Service -

• Panibratov, Andrei (2013). Russian Multinationals: From Regional Supremacy to Global Lead. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 1136474528.
• Auerbach, Jonathan (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Propaganda Studies. Oxford University Press. p. 215. ISBN 0199764417.
• Boyd, Oliver (2011). "Rethinking News Agencies, National Development and Information Imperialism". Economic and Political Weekly. 46 (13).

Now, I hesitated to do even that because there's essentially an infinite repository of academic sources that refer RT as an External Service (and virtually none that use "propaganda outlet") since this is the terminology that is always invoked outside of consumer media. We risk getting into a circle where you find a few more sources in Buzzfeed and Fox News that say "propaganda" and I find a few more in Public Opinion Quarterly and Journal of Media Studies that say "external service" and we spend all day going back and forth. So I think I'm going to leave it with these and move on to other articles, but I thank you very much for the discussion, as this is an area of special, offline interest for me and I always enjoy talking about it. Good luck! DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, since I don't have access to those sources, would you mind quoting the passages that identify RT as an "external source?" I'm not trying to be obstreperous, I'm just trying to make sure that we can all address the same information. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The term is "external service", not "external source". We actually have an entire category on Wikipedia devoted to it. But, no, unfortunately I don't provide transcription services. DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. Of course you don't have to oblige, but other editors are also free to write off assertions that you expect them to accept on faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, as best I can tell using Google, it appears the sources you listed do not describe RT as an external service. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• No. I agree with DarjeelingTea's comment below. -Steve 104.33.114.195 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I should have clarified in my !vote that I mean I don't like either "publicly-funded" or "propaganda" - I think it should be RT with no qualifications but a wikilink to the main RT article where people can learn more about its funding mechanism and editorial agenda. Our article on Brian Williams doesn't say "Brian Williams is an American journalist at Comcast-owned NBC News" nor does our article on Don Lemon say he "currently hosts CNN Tonight on CNN, whose top three advertisers are Exxon, Geico, and Chik-fil-A". We should stick to the customary construction of BLPs and have faith that wikilinks will do what they're designed to - allow the reader to quickly access more information. If we, as editors, try to respond to every single moral panic that arises by insisting that all the buckles are fastened on our readers intellectual life jackets before they dive-in, we end up with rambling, poorly constructed, Frankenstein articles instead of neat, concise, and accurate entries, which should be our primary goal. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Sources are clear.Casprings (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Following comments originally posted as a reply to above. Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, what you are telling me is that you want to 'make a point' about the job move or the alignment between Swann and RT's agenda. Fine, if it's RS'd and with due weight then say whatever the point is. Of course 'Conservative' is not on a par with 'propagandist', the point is we don't put any unnec adjectives as though they speak for themselves. We don't describe Hitler as 'evil' just because it's RS'd and almost universally agreed as true. The word would need to be necessary for understanding in context, and we would probably either say more or not use the word at all. I agree that present wording is 'weasel-ly' and misleading, I just think you should either be clearer about the point being made, or describe RT in purely neutral factual terms and let the RT page cover the rest. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Most people know who Hitler was. Most people do NOT know what RT is. I think the fact it is a propaganda arm is an important aspect to this mention. Objective3000 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That isn't the reason that 'evil' is redundant, it would be just as redundant describing a lesser known monster. It is redundant because it tells the reader what to think rather than supplying the info to make their own judgement. I agree that 'publicly funded' is misleading, especially as it implies US public. Also that the fact that RT is owned/funded by Russian govt is relevant and can be expressed in a few neutral words, I just think the RT page is the proper place to examine to what extent, and on what issues, RT is 'propagandist'. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just explaining why the reliably sourced fact that RT is a Russian propaganda outlet is noteworthy and highly relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll also point out that Swann has taken some surprising pro-Russian positions. Perhaps we should add those to the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I agree with you to the extent that 'publicly funded' is misleading (and probably unsourced), I just don't agree that 'propaganda outlet' is necessary or neutral on THIS page. Pincrete (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The following reliable sources reject that RT is simply "Russian propaganda":

sources
References

--Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This is pure static. None of these are reliable sources saying that RT is not a Russian propaganda outlet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And the only ones that refer to funding say "government-funded English-language outlet RT" and "RT, the Kremlin-funded English language news channel". So can we agree that RT is not generally described as 'publicly funded'? Not even by these sources criticising US media. Putin himself says "Certainly the channel is funded by the government", where does 'publicly funded' come from? This is some surreal form of Doublethink where Russian public=Russian government. Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Publicly funded?

Can we seperate two elements of this discussion? No one contributing so far has disputed that the Russian govt funds RT, most sources, inc Putin himself confirm that. No one has supplied any ref that describes RT as 'publicly funded', and it is even unclear what that means when the public who watch it do not fund it. Therefore, can we agree that 'publicly funded', is both inaccurate and unsourced?

Whether 'propaganda outlet' is apt, neutral and necessary is a separate subject. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what it should be called. But, publicly funded ain't it. Objective3000 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, Neutrality, Objective3000, Dr. Fleischman, Jus (naming all participants apart from master & sock). I know it is customary to not alter disputed text while an RfC is running, but as even the socks above acknowledged that RT is Govt funded, does anyone object to the text being altered to "After leaving WXIX-TV in 2013, Swann regularly appeared on RT America, a division of the Russian Government funded network RT"?

Sources above (including some supplied by banned users) support this description. It is then up to those who opened the RfC to decide whether they wish to pursue the "propaganda outlet" description. Pincrete (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no qualm against altering the language as you're proposing, reflecting an interim improvement while the RfC runs its course. (I've heard people talk about the "custom" to not alter disputed text while an RfC is running, and I don't agree with it. It invites editors to game the system by starting RfCs to "freeze" their preferred version.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Russian government-funded," as there is clear consensus that this is better than "publicly funded." That said, I want to make clear that this is only an incremental improvement. I don't think that "Russian government-funded" fairly represents the cited sources, which indicate not only that RT is funded by its government (like the BBC) but that it's controlled by it (unlike the BBC). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete: this change is fine with me; my views are that of Dr. Fleischman's above. Neutrality^talk 00:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with this change. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

State-owned is probably more accurate and more widely used. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I believe it would be less accurate. I'm not aware of any sources saying RT is state-owned. It is a private company (at least on paper) that is funded and de facto controlled and used as a propaganda outlet by the government. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"I'm not aware of any sources saying RT is state-owned." Here CNN [1], CNBC [2], ABC News [3], USA Today [4], and the Financial Times [5] all call it "state-owned" in just the last 60 days. It is not a private company. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The CNN source doesn't support it, but I stand corrected. Thank you. I support "state-owned" over "government-funded" (though I still prefer "propaganda outlet" over both). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Slippery slope

Stamping "propaganda" on RT, no matter how many RS refer to it as such, creates a slippery slope we should avoid. There are an almost infinite volume of RS we can find that refer to Voice of America as "propaganda" -

VOA

Castronovo, Russ (2014). Propaganda 1776: Secrets, Leaks, and Revolutionary Communications in Early America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199354928. Bond-Graham, Darwin (January 29, 2014). "U.S. Government Is Expanding Its War to Win Hearts and Minds into Facebook's Global Social Network". San Francisco Weekly. Retrieved March 17, 2017. Doctorow, Cory (February 25, 2017). "Three kinds of propaganda, and what to do about them". Boing Boing. Cranberg, Gil (1984). "Propaganda and the United States". ETC: A Review of General Semantics. 41 (2): 184–186. Uttaro, Ralph (1982). "The Voices of America in International Radio Propaganda". Law and Contemporary Problems. 45 (1): 103–122. Morrison, Pat (February 15, 2017). "Patt Morrison asks: Voice of America director Amanda Bennett on government-funded media in age of Trump". Los Angeles Times.

- but these are simple terms and I'm not convinced we, as an encyclopedia, should always default to simple terms understood by simple people (which is what the consumer press, by contrast, often needs to do). For an encyclopedia, we should use only the most accurate terms, even if they are sometimes esoteric. RT, like Radio Moscow before it and VOA concurrently, is understood in media science as an external service. It uses methods of emphasis and exclusion to shape public opinion in support of its sponsor government, as opposed (usually) to outright lies (though, again, there is no shortage of reporters at daily newspapers confidently sporting BAs in journalism from state colleges who may not be able to accurately explicate the difference to their readers or to themselves). RT is a public relations activity of the Russian government, which is different (even if only slightly) from propaganda. DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

According to its article, there's a split in authority about whether VOA is propaganda. I'm not aware of any such split here. But, if you have reliable sources indicating that RT isn't propaganda, then by all means they should be factored in. As for accuracy and simplicity, "propaganda" is a pretty simple term understood by most folks, and if it's expressly supported by reliable sources then it's accurate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a somewhat illogical question: "prove John is not a pedophile". You probably won't find articles in astronomy journals that definitively state the moon is "not" made of cheese. The absence of sources saying the moon is "not" made of cheese can't be used to prove the moon "is" made of cheese.

As I explained, invoking "propaganda" to describe RT represents the infusion of lay terminology fairly recently generated by contemporary political discourse into the encyclopedia. Analysis and study of External Services precedes 2009 and will continue when the current moral panic about RT dies down and we move onto something else. Being an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper, we should use the academically correct terminology to describe things, no matter how many examples we can find of consumer media invoking alternate constructions. Elsewhere in this thread I provide several examples of eminently reliable sources positively identifying RT using the conventional term "External Service" and numerous others can be found with ease. At this point it's incumbent on us to use critical thinking to determine that what is the consensus terminology in media studies is preferable to the consensus terminology in popular press, when the two diverge. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You could rephrase that without the backhanded personal attack of accusing me of not thinking critically. Personally, I try to adhere to our verifiability policies, which requires to cite reliable sources. The suggestion that the cited news sources that call RT a propaganda outlet are not reliable simply because other sources call it an "external service" (something I'm taking on faith here, since you refuse to provide us with the source material) simply isn't consistent with our policies and guidelines. You can call this a lack of critical thinking, but I call it a straightforward application of our community standards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Conspiracy theorist

81.152.40.198, please stop edit warring and come to talk to explain why you think we should say that Swann is a conspiracy theorist. Our BLP policies has a strict rule that any controversial content about a living person must be supported by reliable sources, otherwise it must be deleted on sight. I'm not aware of any sources expressly supporting the "conspiracy theory" label. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears @81.152.40.198: is unwilling to discuss. He's already received a block and now continues the same behavior after its expiration. Objective3000 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Who closed Swann's social media accounts?

Snooganssnoogans and Objective3000, I'm hoping this was unintentional, but please don't remove reliably sourced content and replace it with contradictory content, as you both did regarding who closed Swann's social media accounts. The cited source says CBS46 shut down dropped his accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please reread the source. CBS46 evening anchor Ben Swann today blocked his “Truth in Media” website and dropped his primary Twitter and Instagram feeds, as well as his Facebook “Truth in Media” page,... This clearly says Swann dropped the accounts, not CBS46. Objective3000 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Duhhhhh. I can be so dumb. I read that sentence on three separate occasions and misread it every time. Sorry both. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Entirely possible that the author designed that sentence to be misread. Objective3000 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The author of the blog-piece later says that CBS46 "clearly" made him shut them down. The source sounds pretty fishy, which has contributed to these confused edits back-and-forth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the source is mostly reliable but that "clearly" language suggests that the writer was just speculating, so I agree that particular sentence isn't reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I had the exact same feeling reading that sentence. Objective3000 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely the black helicopters :-) Guy (Help!) 11:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

Since June 2015, Swann has been an evening and late-night anchor for WGCL-TV CBS46 in Atlanta, Georgia. , where he continues to host his show Reality Check, while continuing to lead the Truth in Media organization.

this is incorrect... Swann no longer hosts Reality Check or Truth in Media

It should correctly read: Since June 2015, Swann has been an evening and late-night anchor for WGCL-TV CBS46 in Atlanta, Georgia. organization. Ben swann (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor wording

The article currently states "The theory falsely claimed that John Podesta's emails". "Falsely" here is a confusing qualifier. It needs to be more along the lines: "This theory is considered false by XYZ, as it claims that Podesta's emails...". Nergaal (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence of references to paedophilia, and there never was. See WP:WEASEL. We don't need to attribute the fact that these claims were entirely bogus because the attribution would be every single person who has the faintest clue. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dude, this is a controversial topic where it is not constructive to push inflamatory language in an encyclopedia. Go open the pizzagate article and see that the first sentence there is "Pizzagate is a debunked[2][3] conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle alleging that John Podesta's emails" and "determined to be false by multiple organizations". Don't use a more inflamatory language that the pizzagate article uses. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

False equivalence. It may be controversial, but the claims re Podesta's emails are entirely unsupported by any credible evidence whatsoever. It's a sky-is-blue level of claim, and we absolutely should not attribute it, nor should we bend over backwards to excuse people who promoted it. Implying the claims have any merit whatsoever is a clear BLP violation. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, it is not a BLP violation to use descriptions here that are not used in the main article itself? Nergaal (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To claim or imply any legitimacy at all for this defamatory and wholly false story, is a serious breach of WP:BLP. It implies that Podesta is complicit in child abuse, for a start. I think you may be out of your depth here. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't say the flat Earth theory is false according to XYZ. It's false. Reliable sources clearly state that Pizzagate is false. Objective3000 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Read my reply above. This is about being encyclopedic not about rating theories. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP is not rating theories here. It is using reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Then use the wording WP uses on the conspiracy article itself. There are plenty of controversial things in this article to give the pizzagate story its own spin here. Nergaal (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the articles did use the same wording. You just changed that wording in the other article and then claimed a mismatch that you created. Please keep the discussion on one talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What? You wanna check my edit history before throwiaccusations like that first? Nergaal (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal, see WP:YESPOV, and in particular the part saying, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." The reliable sources state without contradiction that Pizzagate has been debunked and is false. This isn't their viewpoint, it's a readily verifiable fact. In-text attribution of the type you're describing would be non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Let me clarify: why was my edit reverted by @Objective3000: 1 2 3 times. My edit was constructive and I've defended here. On the other hand, the other editor hasn't even bothered engaging into any discussion yet has made several personal attacks and false statements/accusations in the past several hours. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit warring notice, Nergaal. I warned the wrong editor, and that's why I self-reverted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit was reverting to consensus. I did not violate 3RR as you accused on my Talk. I reverted different text by two editors, one of whom has been reverted repeatedly and has refused any discussion Your claim that I have not engaged in discussion is false, like this conspiracy theory. You did violate 3RR and EW. Please be civil. Objective3000 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dude, wp:3RR is TOTAL reverts in the page, regardless of where in the article. The other guy argued his reasoning, you did not provide any conter-reasoning in your revert. (My double-rollback was from a misclick when trying to figure out the changes, thus my self-rollback). You started making accusations without providing any actual evidence. I engaged into a discussion which you did not provide counter-arguments to. You claim consensus, yet you never provide any evidence for consensus. Yet there are two other editors in the last day that seem to agree to my wording. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Stop. 3RR does not apply to reverting BLP violations. This stops now. I left a warning on your talk page, if you continue, I will block you. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You said focus on content, but you have yet to still to address any issues I have raised, while "issuing warnings". Nergaal (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to present as an opinion, what every reliable source presents as a fact. We also don't need to state, "Geographers consider the Earth to be round". Someguy1221 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why everybody seems to be missing my point. What I am trying to say is use the qualifier "debunked" instead of "false"; the latter is a synthesis, the former is objectively verifiable. I wouldn't compare pizzagate to flat-Earth; the latter is trivially debunked and has been so for a long time. Nergaal (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Pedophilia is considered by many as one of the most heinous of crimes. The claims that the leadership of a major U.S. political party, including its last Presidential candidate, and various businesses, are all involved in a massive child-sex ring, based on nothing but baseless, loony conspiracy theories, must be treated without using weasel words. Harassment and death threats have spread to other restaurants as far as NY and Texas. Bands that have played at the restaurant and even an artist whose murals are displayed there have been objects of harassment. And, of course, there was gunfire. This is an obvious BLP issue. Any slight hint that the falsity of this theory is in question must be avoided. Someone reading that it is “widely debunked” (by what many, including the President, call the dishonest media) can also think it’s also widely claimed by their favorite goofy “news” sites. Given the damage that such stories can create to living persons (and possible Wikipedia liability), it’s important that Wiki-voice be used in stating that the story is categorically false. Objective3000 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The one thing I don't understand why people do here is policing. We are not police, we are not an advertisement media. We present objective facts without personal bias. Or at least personally that is what an encyclopedia should be. No real-life judge would make Wikipedia liable for presenting facts ad verbatim. What you are doing is interpose yourself between what real-world sources say, and what is written here; I assume it is from an honest justice-baed perspective. Wikipedia is not here to bring justice in the real world, is not here to catch criminals. We are not here to police information because some wackos exist in the real world. Nergaal (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got any of that policing stuff. Merely reporting this theory in an encyclopedia lends it a bit of legitimacy in the minds of many. Any thought that WP supports this possibility is dispelled by calling it a false theory up front. RS have reported this is a false conspiracy theory. Per RS, that's what the article says. Objective3000 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

so because you don't want WP to be seen as supporting the hypothesis, WP must oppose the hypothesis? no. WP doesn't need to take any stance. this concern is just an excuse to push your own stance. taking out "falsely" from the page does not imply WP supports the hypothesis; but it does make the page more neutral. -Steve 104.33.114.195 (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal, there may have been some collective misunderstanding about your concern. But I have no issue with paraphrasing a source that says the theory is "debunked" as saying that the theory is "false." To debunk is to expose the falseness of something. So debunked and false are synonyms in this context. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine activism

Swann is of course medically unqualified and his views on vaccines are worth less than those of the average dog, but:

"Swann has expressed skepticism of media reports and public health officials' consensus that vaccines do not cause autism.[40][41][42]"

This is not skepticism, and it's not "media reports and public health officials' consensus", it's simple fact. Swann promotes the false idea that vaccines cause autism, and this should be stated a such.

He has said that "despite the official ruling that there is no link between vaccines and autism, there have been at least 83 cases of autism among those compensated for vaccine-induced brain damage."[43]

This is just fact-washing an anti-vaccine trope. The sentence should be deleted, or should be contextualised wiht the fact that the vaccine court has rejected every claim that vaccines cause autism. The cases noted are nto autism, and are not actually proof of anything due to the rules of the vaccine court. There is no "official ruling" that vaccines don't cause autism because science has no mechanism by which such a ruling could be made, there is a robust consensus that vaccines do nto cause autism and Swann's feelpinions do not even challenge this because the cases were not autism.

Swann has also said that "the CDC did ... intentionally omit data that demonstrated a connection between an increased risk of autism in African American males who were given the MMR vaccine before 36 months of age."[43]

This comes form Vaxxed. It is a fraudulent claim. The data was not omitted, it was included, but it was not called out separately as a post-hoc subgroup analysis because (a) that's P-hacking and (b) the researchers obtained additional data that showed the association was spurious. The source data has been available to qualified researchers ever since, and that is borne out by subsequent analyses. This sentence should draw form the sources at the article on Vaxxed which show this claim to be baseless.

'In one of his segments, Swann reported, "as one parent told me, while public statements have been made that there is no research supporting the assertion that vaccines can cause autism, families point to dozens of studies that do find a link between vaccines and autism that public health officials do not share with the public."[44]

The "dozens of studies" originate with anti-vaccine organisations. The chief study parents push here is in fact retracted (i.e. Wakefield). To make this statement without noting the hundreds of studies form dozens of countries covering millions of children over three decades which robustly demonstrate no link at all, is a classic case of false equivalence. The claim should be contextualised as what it is: an anti-vaccine talking point "balancing" a handful of junk studies in junk journals against a mountain of high quality research. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it you're 100% correct, but when I started looking for sources to support this I ran into a morass. Unfortunately the vaccine-related articles weren't of much help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment. Swann seems to clearly be engaging in vaccine denial. But how would you rephrase the wording of the section and what reliable sources would you add? Swann is not notable enough to have gotten extensive coverage by reliable sources on this subject (e.g. we can't say "WaPo has debunked what Swann is saying here", and "Professor X says that this is completely false and that this rhetoric is dangerous"). How would we get around problems related to original research when it comes to putting false claims in the proper context. I'm pinging Tryptofish, because he/she has experience fixing bad science on contentious political pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

See Rob Schneider § Anti-vaccination activism for one example. We can also say things like "the refuted claim that vaccines cause autism" with a wikilink to the article that explains it in detail. Snopes has the "CDC whistleblower" crock: [6], and our article on Vaxxed has more on that. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've looked, and I come to the same conclusions that Guy did. I recollect that many years ago, actually before I started editing, there was a big debate and ArbCom case over vaccine denial – so there is a solid consensus that Wikipedia treats the Wakefields and such as pseudoscience. I recommend against devoting space to back-and-forth rebuttals of the denialism. Instead, I would simply frame Swann's position as contrary to the scientific consensus (a phrase that we now use on the GMO pages), and link to other pages about vaccines for the scientific background. I'm now watchlisting here, so if you'd like to me to help with constructing the exact language, I will. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks. Where can we find sourcing for the scientific consensus? Not to worry, I'm not challenging that assertion, I just want to make changes that will withstand the inevitable challenges by the anti-vaxxers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

MMR vaccine controversy should have an appropriate reference. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I found something, from Vaccine controversies:

There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism despite popular press and media linking the two.

References

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian source doesn't seem to support the content. But the other two do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)