Wikipedia

Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 14

< Talk:Alex Jones
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Niteshift36 in topic Semi-protected edit request on 24 2018
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 18

RfC regarding description of Infowars.com

Latest comment: 6 years ago90 comments32 people in discussion
I may be involved in this discussion, but I don't see any room to dispute the outcome of this RfC. The clear majority of participants preferred to keep the existing language, and those opposed to it did so exclusively through vague claims of bias and nonspecific references to WP:NPOV. Additionally, this exact question has been posed numerous times before (see various archived discussions), and never received any traction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

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 sentence at the end of the first paragraph be (A) "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website" or (B) "His website, Infowars.com, has been described as a conspiracy and fake news website" -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


Survey - A or B followed by your reasoning

  • A of those two options. To present this as a "description" is filler which provides absolutely no usable information about the site that isn't also conveyed by simpler language. If reliable sources describe it that way, so should we. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • B I'd personally just put the phrase "described as" in, because for the 1kb of extra data it's going to stop the endless IP address edits and acrimony from the community, whilst still accurately summarising the view of some RS sources. In what is a very modern phenomena ("fake news") it's not as though it's a scientific term, it's a subjective description with no ultimate arbiter. Thanks Mdmadden (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A Alex Jones, via Infowars, is literally a purveyor of fake news....Pizzagate, the Chobani yogurt mess, "weather weapons", the list goes on and on and on of veritably false reporting. The deliberate dissemination of falsehoods has been extensively covered by reliable sources, there is no need to couch it in terms of "sources say". TheValeyard (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A Writing that his website is widely regarded as a conspiracy and false news website is nothing else than stating a well known fact that has been explained again and again by reliable sources. --Lebob (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Because doing as you suggest would be editorially skirting accountability/responsibility. The fact of the matter is that it is his website and should be described as such. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, then: "He publishes a website, Infowars.com, that publishes fake news stories and promotes conspiracy theories." This is not rocket science.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
"Publishes ... publishes" is bad writing and unnecessary, but I would support: "His website, Infowars.com, publishes fake news and promotes conspiracy theories." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Use the rewording proposed by The Four Dunces, as modified by later comment, above. It's as inappropriate for WP to engage in PoV finger-pointing labels as it is to weasel (actually, more so, since weaseling is just imprecise an easily fixable with attribution, while the former violates a core content policy). PS: If version A is used (in which case I'll lodge a WP:NPOVN thread about it), hyphenate "fake-news site" per MOS:HYPHEN and basic English grammar. It's a site of fake news, not a news site that doesn't exist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A (Summoned by bot) Agree with Evergreen fir on weasel wording of B. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A If a reliable source says something, we don't couch it in language like "reliable sources say the sky is blue." The way to go with reliable sources is to say "the sky is blue" and source it. If reliable sourcing isn't enough to get something said in Wikipedia's voice, literally everything remotely controversial would have to have the overtly cautious rhetoric. So it's a simple yes-or-no question. Is Infowars a conspiracy and fake news website? Reliable sources say so. Say the sky is blue accordingly. CityOfSilver 15:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • B This section needs to be reworded because its subjective to an individual whether something is 'fake news.' Alex Jones calls the mainstream media 'fake news' and they call him 'fake news.' Clearly only one can be right. On the off chance that Infowars isn't fake news, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and only write that they are 'described' as 'fake news.' Thanks for reading. Cchap88 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)— Cchap88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That's not really how it works. Sources that have a long reputation for editorial control, fact-checking, and accuracy in reporting pass the Wikipedia's policy on using reliable sources. Infowars, which has published veritably, intentionally false tales, does not. We should and do err on the side of the sources with a reputation for honesty, not hold out hope that the someday maybe kinda Infowars could possibly be telling the truth. They don't. TheValeyard (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a fair point TheValeyary. I still think B though. On an unrelated topic, are we allowed to use sources from Infowars.com? Cchap88 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)— Cchap88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Not allowed to use them as they don't meet WP:RS. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • B, if forced to choose. I oppose the line even appearing in the first paragraph. “Fake news website” is an imprecise and subjective description. Is a “fake news website” one that engages in deliberate promotion of spurious information? Is it a site that puts out speculation that some consider outlandish? Is it simply having an unpopular opinion? Exactly how much of a site’s information has to be “fake” before it is considered a “fake news website”? I’m sure there are plenty of RS articles saying something to the effect of “Elvis Presley was a great singer,” but we don’t get to use that wording in his article just because a bunch of RS articles say so. The same applies here. Discretion is a necessity. It may also be of value to give a summation of what the sources say after using “described.” Some of the sources we’re presently using don’t actually go into much detail. One cites an appearance on an “avoid these fake news sites" kind of list created by a professor that has since been taken down, due to criticism. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • B, I think. As pointed out in a recent edit summary, this designation stating InfoWars as a fake news website is not endorsed and wasn't created by any government or official. Yes, it has in the past spun conspiratorial information in the past, but remember all the cases of inaccuracies in major networks such as CNN. To say outright that InfoWars is a fake news website, I would argue, definitely compromises Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A per WP:SKYBLUE, WP:V and the third bullet of WP:YESPOV. It is a well-documented, easily verifiable and seriously uncontested fact that InfoWars is a fake news and conspiracy theory website. The arguments about WP:NPOV simply ignore the top section which explains what the neutral point of view is. I've seen several editors cite WP:NPOV in their support of option B, but not one of them has given an actual policy based reason based on WP:NPOV, instead merely citing it as if it were some sort of loophole that can be appealed to anytime they perceive an article as being unfair. Well, WP:NPOV doesn't require fairness, and in fact, explicitly denounces it with respect to articles like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A - accurately summarizes the sources. Neutralitytalk 06:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A Per sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • C Neither. If — according to Wikipedia itself! — conspiracy theory is a derogatory term, let alone fake news, saying that someone is a conspiracy theorist is tantamount to calling him crazy. And saying he's a producer/distributor of fake news is a libellous accusation. It's an epithet, not a descriptor. Libel, even! Worse, because mental disorder may be objectively diagnosed. It's like saying someone is ugly. And then go about collecting "reliable sources" that list them as ugly. Ridiculous. In fact, it's pretty obvious this little survey is meant to give an illusion of choice and debate between two equivalent "alternatives". — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, @Niteshift36:, seems very convenient. However, the Wikipedia policy is to consider large corporate mainstream media conglomerates as reliable only for statements of FACTS, not opinion. A derogatory term is by definition a statement of opinion, not fact. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Um, no. That's not Wikipedia policy. Further, it is your opinion that "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term. So what we have is your opinion that someone else is giving an opinion. BTW, your budget dictionary may have only a single definition. My Webster has 2. This would be the second one: "detracting from the character or standing of something". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Further, it is your opinion that "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term.
Nope, as I said, it's Wikipedia's own description: The term is a derogatory one. (conspiracy theory) — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • First off, sign your replies, especially when inserting them in front of another editors response. Second, there's your problem..... you're using a Wikipedia article to define a word. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, thus, not relevant to this discussion in terms of how a term is defined. So, to recap: 1) Sign your responses and 2) Learn what a reliable source is or is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 1) Done (don't be petty). 2) Learn what a reliable source is or is not. WP:NEWSORG clearly states:
    News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. … Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
    – Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Being derogatory doesn't make it untrue or even subjective. "Child molester" is a derogatory term, but that doesn't make the subway guy innocent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yes, it does! How about opening the dictionary before wasting your time?
  • derogatory
    from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
    adj. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
    adj. Tending to detract or diminish.
And 'child molester' is an actual criminal offence; conspiracy theorist isn't. It's just a slur. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
If a factual statement tends to detract or diminish, that doesn't make it less factual. Conspiracy theories objectively exist, and Jones is a conspiracy theorist. Fake news objectively exists, and Infowars publishes fake news. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There was so much fail in that response that if you saved it as a text file and changed the extension to .jpeg it would produce this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:
A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy.
What's warranted and what's unwarranted? Subjective. Opinion, not fact. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
That is why we follow the sources and not insert our own opinion. Sources say fake news, the Wikipedia article says fake news. Easy peasy. TheValeyard (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong. WP:NEWSORG clearly states:
News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. … Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
— Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh for fuck's sake this is third grade semantics, do you really need an explanation?! Fuck it; "Warranted" would mean "there are compelling reasons to believe it" and "Unwarranted" would mean the opposite. It's called context, for crying out loud and if you can't comprehend context, you have no business editing here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
"there are compelling reasons to believe it" → opinion, not fact. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I was willing to explain third-grade semantics to you; I'm not willing to explain epistemology 101 to you. We're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You're in breach: WP:UNCIVIL. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, you really have no clue what you are saying do you? I didn't get anyone to do anything. I didn't even edit anywhere on Wikipedia from the time you placed you complaint until today. The discussion was closed and the boomerang had hit you in the butt before I even saw your complaint. Peddle your paranoia elsewhere. I'm starting to see your interest in Alex Jones and your keen interest in the subject of conspiracy theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity Wisdomtooth32, take a look at my original word change and let me know what you think. It was something to the effect of "has been described by critics as a fake news and conspiracy website." Notice the "by critics" addition, I think that puts it more in the realm of opinion and not fact. You made an interesting point about "conspiracy" being an insult, which is basically what I have repeatedly argued "fake news website" is, an imprecise insult used by both sides of the political spectrum. I am also against 'A' and feel 'B' is better, but hardly ideal. Most of my previous discussion of these issues has been placed in Archive 12. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest we take it easy on Wisdomtooth32. They are entitled to their views, just as Mr. Jones is entitled to his. No one is going to convince Mr. Jones to stop running his show. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Can we drop this for just one day?, sorry I forgot (in all the tooing and throwing I asked for an RFC).Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I may have said this in the past, I have no major opinion either way. From a purely blind and literal interpretation of policy we should say it has been called an fake news site (or some such). But I cannot think of any RS that actually contest the idea that Infowars is a fake news site (I mean even his own lawyers have called his performance an act, which he contradicted) (and form a purely personal perspective it is a fake news site).Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources are not included, and being UK I know AJ only vaguely by reputation. I tend to be averse to 'blunt' descriptions which seem inherently subjective, but is a viable form of words: "has disseminated conspiracy theories and fake news" ? ie what it has done rather than what it is. Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I suggested something similar in the above discussion, that is a workable compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
My concern is in the phrasing. The article should read more like a textbook than an editorial. TFD (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Close

I'm calling for a close. This has been going on for three weeks now and the consensus is very clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

True, so it seems that a more controversial sentence and endless IP edits and vandalism is the preferred option... (just joking) Anyways, the sentence already appears to be suitable and already reads alike to the more popular ‘A’ option. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I call for Tidewater 2014's wording ("has been described by critics as a fake news and conspiracy website") to be adopted in this and all other pages in which these accusations are used as descriptors. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus support for the suggestion put forth by user Tidewater2014, unfortunately. This tangent is moot. TheValeyard (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus support for any suggestions put forth thus far. No tangent is moot until there is one. The matter is not resolved until it is. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Now, you're either lying or you don't have a clue what a consensus is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage: Please don't start an edit war. The neutrality of this article is clearly being debated in this talk page. You are forbidden by Wikipedia policy (WP:POV) from taking down the notice until the matter is resolved. It clearly isn't. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Same to you @MPants at work:. If you're calling for the matter to be closed, it's obviously because it's open. Wikipedia policy clearly states (Template:POV):
You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
* There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
* It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
* In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
— Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Template documentation != policy, for fuck's sake. Policy pages actually say "This is a Wikipedia policy page", like WP:CONSENSUS, which you really need to get off your ass and read. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
You can stop vandalizing any time buddy. I'm going to revert every vandalizing edit you make. I've got all day to do this. --Tarage (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the content not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

While this is in dispute here, readers deserve to be notified of it with a Template:POV tag. I tried putting it on, but it's routinely shot down with empty charges of vandalism. Seems like some people will use any means possible to impose their opinions. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If most editors do not support tagging an article, then that is how it goes. You had your say in the Rfc above, allow the process to go on to its conclusion. An article tag is not an important hill to die on. TheValeyard (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Or you just don't want to draw attention, lest more editors drop by to have their say too? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 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.

Half of this page is missing.

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I have noticed that many of the sections of this page are missing. Should they be restored? Every875 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Every875. What is missing? --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
For example, I started a discussion about a month or two ago about whether Infowars should be styled as Infowars or InfoWars. The chosen result was the former option. The section was called "Stylization of 'Infowars.com'" Every875 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Every875: Look in the archives (links at the top of this page). Sections are archived after thirty days with no response. Example: Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 12. --NeilN talk to me 00:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Well, thank you! Every875 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Jones vs TYT

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

There's nothing in this article, about Jones' confrontation with The Young Turks, during the 2016 Republican National Convention. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

True! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that time when Jones and Roger Stone tried to crash the Turks' broadcast and got chased off the stage? Not sure how notable or relevant it is to Jones' bio, but here's one source to start it off... Alex Jones, Roger Stone Hijack Liberal Livestream At RNC — And Things Get Very Real, Very Fast. TheValeyard (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Proposal:
In July of 2016, Jones and Roger Stone attempted to interrupt a livestream of The Young Turks covering the Republican National Convention. They attempted to mock host Cenk Uygur, prompting Uygur to stand up and raise his voice, at which point Jones and Stone fled the scene like a bitch.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget. Jimmy Dore spate in Jones' face. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
We might could leave that out per WP:SKYBLUE. Or to put it another way. "Of course Dore spit in his face!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Am I sensing some L I B E R A L B I A S in your proposal? (Just joking) I think the Jimmy Dore part and Cenk’s ranting should be mentioned as well, aided with Ana’s intervention and Alex’s attitude of laughing it all off. Maybe not using that specific language, though.. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh yea. Kasparian's fat-shaming Jones, thus contradicting her disapproval of fat shaming. Jones really stirred up events. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Plenty to cover, especially regarding the hysterical ranting of The Young Turk’s anchors, as you provided an example of. Should also be mentioned that the incident was soon addressed both on Infowars and TYT, as well as the TYT broadcast momentarily being cut during the occurrence. Cheers, trainsandtech (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It was not that notable. Some second tier sources cared about it for 5 minutes and moved on. There is no continuing coverage or enduring notability. This minor publicity stunt was like watching two ugly girls fight. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
But it fits this article, as Jones' disrupting TYT appears to fall in line with his style. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Change category from Low-importance Media articles to Mid-importance Media articles, and add this to the lead:

References

  1. ^ VICE News (2017-01-06), Info From The Fringe With Alex Jones (HBO), retrieved 2017-12-18

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. To put it mildly, this proposal is controversial for multiple reasons, and is unlikely to be implemented as-is. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is, as this Talk page clearly demonstrates. Everything about Alex Jones is controversial; that's his trade. Ok, didn't see that consensus was a requirement (now I did). Thanks. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"Man in background" cameos

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I might be mistaken because I'm basing this on a half-remembered synopsis of the film, but I seem to recall that the cameo in question was pivotal to an important scene in the film, and written specifically for Jones. If so, then that's a compelling reason to include this entry. It would make the cameo one which would be quite memorable to both the film audience and Jones' audience. (for those not following, this is regarding this edit). Pinging @TheValeyard:. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's an actual role with substance, fine, but the editor who added it listed it as a cameo, which is generally understood to mean a quick appearance granted to an already-famous person, e.g. Stan Lee's Marvel one-liners. TheValeyard (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't normally include a cameo in a filmography list, either. I just seem to recall that this was a particularly notable cameo, though I could be misremembering. As for Stan; I think that was probably not the best example to make your point (there's actually significant RS coverage of Stan's cameos), but I see it nonetheless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I know it was discussed at length before, but the text in the opening paragraph 'Infowars is a conspiracy theories and fake news website' just sticks out like a sore thumb. It is an overly bold statement which is not compatible with a neutral point of view. I know it is mentioned in the 'reliable sources' but generalisations, even from these sources should not be quoted as they create a misreprentation. Such an assertion creates mistrust of the neutrality of the lead and may cause readers to suspect bias, something Wikipedia prides itself on avoiding. Oscar248 (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Do any RS dispute the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at the top of this page. O3000 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Prison Planet

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The prison planet seems to be pretty short. Not sure if it needs expansion or not. While I can’t think of anything else that should be added, it just feels as if it could be expanded. That’s just my two cents, but does anybody else have anything else to say different? Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it needs expanding/Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments18 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 03:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The InfoWars host has received much more coverage and generated much more interest than other people named Alex Jones (which is unfortunate). Alex Jones (Welsh presenter) is the only other person with this name with non-trivial usage, but even in the UK, Alex Jones the radio host has received 2x the interest of Alex Jones the TV presenter. feminist (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Support radio host with the dominant source coverage and who interviews the president of the US is more vital then a regional welsh tv presenter. GuzzyG (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge InfoWars to Alex Jones (radio host)

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments14 people in discussion
No consensus. I count 5 for, 5 against, and some neutral comments. Arguments for merging include the strong control Jones has over Infowars and a significant overlap of coverage. Arguments against the merger include claims of independent coverage for both and the fact that Jones is not the only important actor of Infowars nowadays. I don't see either side as having an overwhelming advantage for now, but I think this can be re-examined in the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC))

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.

InfoWars used to be a redirect (per a previous AfD long ago). It was recently recreated as an article. Considering the elapsed time, a separate article may now be legitimate. On the other hand, keeping the information at one place also has benefits.

  • Merge As nominator. —PaleoNeonate – 21:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Infowars is a major organisation in terms of its following with multiple regular contributors besides Alex Jones - notably Owen Shroyer. There are more such as Roger Stone who also has his own article. Whilst keeping the information in one place can mean it is easier to navigate, the Infowars article does display notable information (referenced in this article in the Owen Shroyer section) that would not be applicable for the Alex Jones page. Oscar247 (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore to a redirect as nothing at all new has transpired since that discussion. Alex Jones is InfoWars, InfoWars is Alex Jones, there is zero notability for Jones' platform independent of him. If the likes of Owen Shroyer ever rise above their current status of minor, middling non-celebrity, then their pertinent info can be written at Owen Shroyer. We should not maintain an article on a blog just because one of the sub-bloggers has said a handful of controversial things. TheValeyard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone point to any distinctive separation in notability between InfoWars and Alex Jones? Aren't they the same thing? O3000 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
This is my take on it. But if it can be shown that there is a clear separation then the article should be kept.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Restore to a redirect Not only can we simply expand the Infowars section here at Alex Jones, we have concluded here that Infowars must be spelled with a lowercase "W". Even if my argument loses and InfoWars stays as its own page, please rename it to Infowars with a lowercase "W". Every875 Talk to me 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore to redirect - no compelling reason to create a new article now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep independent Alex Jones has projects besides the show and the show includes people other than Alex Jones. Both entries are lengthy and should focus on their respective subjects. It would be inappropriate to cover other hosts and details about the show here just as it is better to cover personal information and aspects of Jones life and projects here rather than on an article aboit the show. Both are pbvioualy independently notable generating lots of coverage and controversy. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Infowars article itself needs work (I'll volunteer to help out if I can), but I think should be independent. In the same way that things like Glenn Beck and his TheBlaze are separate entities, and Bill O'Reilly and his No Spin News and many others. The only difference I can deduce is Infowars is about 10 times the size and impact, in terms of media coverage, as all the other combined; so not sure under what logic they'd be merged. Mdmadden (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep 1) the nominator didn't provide a reason for merger. the fact that it used to be a redirect is not a valid reason 2) major website and news source 3) the article is large enough to stand on it's own, merger would result in loss of large chunks of the original article Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore to a redirect -- the subject is not independently notable; anything that's worth mentioning about him is already said in the target article. As said above: "Alex Jones is InfoWars, InfoWars is Alex Jones, there is zero notability for Jones' platform independent of him." --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep An organisation can still be notable even if the leader is very prominent. This is in my view due to the high prominence and following of InfoWars, prominent co-hosts with their own articles, as well as notable contributors e.g Mark Dice amongst others. This article passes GNG by flying colours and whilst this does not always mean a stand alone article is warranted, it is a very good indicator and this article allows for more notable, reliably sourced information from InfoWars. Probably about time this nomination has been closed - this has been here for nearly 2 weeks. Although I strongly believe InfoWars merits a stand-alone article and believe the discussion should be closed as 'Keep', I would understand a no consensus closure as opinions and arguments are almost split down the middle, and therefore consensus for merging is very clearly in my view not shown. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2018 (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.

Special pleading

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I recently reverted this edit by JzG because I think it helps characterize Jones better (by showing his reaction to his critics) and because the special pleading involved was in Jones' voice, not in Wikivoice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It baffles me that we would "balance" reality-based criticism of an obvious crank, with the crank's own self-justification. However, the worst part is not that we include his self-serving nonsense, but that we give him the last word. That leaves a false impression. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Because we need to put reaction to any criticism. Especially as it demonstrates his attitude towards creating controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Guy, I sympathize with that position, but I think the point I made above about it helping characterize him outweighs those (in short, I think his response is more incriminating than the critiques themselves). Do you think there's a way of not putting his response at the end? I can't think of a phrasing that wouldn't leave him with the last word, but I'm certainly open to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alex Jones (Welsh presenter) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alex Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Infowars is not a fake news site

Latest comment: 6 years ago34 comments15 people in discussion

There is a difference between fake news, conspiracy, and inconvenience. Fake news by Wikipedia's article "is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media." Note that it says "deliberate misinformation or hoaxes". Conspiracy by Wikipedia's article is "a secret agreement by people to commit something wrong or illegal. Depending on the circumstances, a conspiracy may be a crime, or a civil wrong." Conspiracy theory by Wikipedia's article is "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors." Infowars is a conspiracy theorist news site so of course they are going to report on conspiracy theories. Inconvenient is by the dictionary "causing trouble, difficulties, or discomfort." Infowars is inconvenient because it publishes things people don't want to hear. Just because someone named Rachel Dicker from the U.S. News says Infowars is a fake news site, it doesn't mean it is. The citation link going to the LA Times doesn't even bring up the article. The Wikipedia article on Infowars.com doesn't even say it is a fake news site. The Infowars.com Wikipedia article says "The site has also been accused of publishing fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims." at the very beginning. It later says in a sub section titled "Fake news" says in its full entirety "Infowars has been accused of publishing and promoting fake news.[26] Jones has been accused of knowingly misleading people to make money.[27] It has been alleged that as part of the FBI's probe into the interference of Russia in the 2016 US presidential elections Infowars was investigated to see if it was complicit in the disseminating of fake news stores put out by Russian bots.[28]" I think "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy theories and fake news website." from Alex Jones's Wikipedia page should be changed to "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy theories and has been publishing and promoting fake news."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fcc8:66ca:1400:e522:9081:b313:db09 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)

We just go by reliable sources. We don’t make judgments. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Only one of the four sources used actually calls it a fake news site, and that source fails reliable sources. (See the News organizations section.) TFD (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I checked all 4 citations... US News (Listed in a "Here are several fake news websites" table), LA Times (same), Washington Times (Jones begging Trump to help protect him against a fake-news crackdown, and Mother Jones("Alex Jones, the controversial radio host and founder of Infowars, his conspiratorial website that often publishes fake news" ) for the sentence in question, and all 4 refer to Infowars as a fake news website. Your statement is a bit lacking in the truth department. TheValeyard (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Do any RS contest this, if not then we go with what the bilk of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(This is the person who started this subsection, this PC has a virus protector that makes IPs) What I see from the first citation is a list that says these news sites are fake news sites. The article didn't provide any explanation to why they are fake news, it just says they are. That's like saying Disney is anti-semetic and expecting people to believe you. The list itself is very lacking; I don't see CNN on there. The second citation doesn't even have the list since it was taken down. The article though says ""Breitbart, the "platform for the alt-right" whose chairman was just named Trump's chief strategist, is on there, as is InfoWars. Alex Jones, who runs InfoWars, said Trump personally called to thank him for helping him win the election."" I don't see how Donald Trump calling Alex Jones to thank him for helping him win the election makes Infowars a fake news site. I assume it is referring to Alex Jones accusing Hillary of all these different things is fake news. That is not fake news, that is accusing someone. Keep in mind Infowars is also a conspiracy news site. Conspiracies are not fake news. The third citation is talking about Infowars getting shut down for endorsing the PizzaGate Scandal. Infowars is a conspiracy theory news site so of course Alex Jones is going to endorse the PizzaGate Scandal. You can't really call it fake news because as I've said many times; conspiracy and fake news are two different things. The last citation talks about the PizzaGate shooter getting arrested and also lists other PizzaGate shooters. The article says "fake-news conspiracy theory" and also says Alex Jones posts fake news. The PizzaGate Scandal was a conspiracy theory, not a fake-news conspiracy theory. Alex Jones doesn't post fake news either. He makes conspiracies and will go on about it. Just because Alex Jones says they are putting chemicals in the water that turn frogs gay, that doesn't mean it's fake news. It is very obvious when Alex Jones is telling the truth or is going on about conspiracies. Also on this page it says Infowars is a fake news site, but then on the Wikipedia article on Infowars it says it has been accused of posting fake news on purpose. This makes this page sound very leftist when bringing up Infowars. It really needs to be changed to "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy theories website and has been accused of posting fake news purposefully." or be changed to "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy theories website and has been accused of being a fake news website." It also sounds a lot better than just saying the site is fake news even though it's on conspiracies. Anything can be called fake news. If a news site makes one mistake they are automatically a fake news site. Also Alex Jones supports Trump. Most news sites were with Hillary because of whatever reason it was. Of course they were going to attack Alex Jones. Not only that but all four citations I saw gave no real explanation. One was just a list expecting you to believe it, one didn't have it's list anymore, the third just said Infowars was being accused, and the last one just said Infowars was a fake news site. The first, second, and fourth gave NO EXPLANATIONS ON WHY INFOWARS IS A FAKE NEWS WEBSITE. THE THIRD ONE SAYS INFOWARS IS BEING ACCUSED OF PURPOSEFULLY ENDORSING FAKE NEWS. I don't care if you give your Wikipedia citation policies at me but when I see, hear, or read something or someone I want proof and evidence. The citations we are talking which is 10, 11, and 14 give no evidence. Citation 13 is the only good one but it only matches WITH "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy theories website and has been accused of posting fake news purposefully." OR "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy theories website and has been accused of being a fake news website." It does NOT match with "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy theories and fake news website." 2607:FCC8:66CA:1400:4876:F676:930B:6246 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Your verbose tirades really amount to very little. The cited sources are more than sufficient to support the statement that Infowars is a purveyor of fake news. Your disagreement with reliable sources is not relevant. TheValeyard (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
TL;DR You will find that walls of text will never convince anyone here of anything. If you have a point, and thus far it doesn’t appear so, you must make the point succinctly. Keep in mind that we are only interested in what reliable sources say. We are not interested in editor opinions (WP:OR). That’s how you ensure WP:NPOV O3000 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That is why we link to sources, so readers can read why and judge for themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Has anyone actually read that wall of text? It's great, one of the arguments is:
Infowars can't be a fake news site because they are a purveyor of conspiracy theories. QED.
Good stuff. Not as good as The Dresden Files, but still a fun read. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Fake news isn't outbound. It's inbound. Some folks, anything they will read is fake news because they are fake news readers. Other folks, they read it and it's not fake news because they are not fake news readers. It's pretty simple really once you get the hang of it -- it's like riding a horse. That's why we have WP:CIR. It's just that you can't say that because folks get upset if you say that. SPECIFICO talk
That's why we have WP:CIR. It's just that you can't say that because folks get upset if you say that. But you just said it. And now I'm upset. :'( ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not surprised I got these kinds of responses. Sure I did make a wall of text since I can get really involved into things but I don't see any actual arguments back besides from what SPECIFICO had to say. All I see is petty insults if you want to call them that. Let me be clear as possible for you all then. The citations don't explain why Infowars is fake news, they just say the site is. The one on the PizzaGate shooter getting arrested also seems to be very much against Infowars. Not only that but the Wikipedia page on Infowars doesn't say it is a fake news website, it says the website has been accused of posting fake news deliberately which make this page mentioning Infowars look very POV even with the citations. I may have little experience with Wikipedia and I may not have read all 100 policies, but I know that these sources hardly prove anything. But then again what does an incompetent IP Address, who makes walls of text know? If you all still disagree with me, then at least make the Wikipedia article on Infowars stay consistent with this one.2607:FCC8:66CA:1400:5CAB:F7C4:CDC7:59A (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I read your arguments. I then made fun of one of them. How could I have done that if I hadn't read it? Oh, and mocking or criticizing your arguments isn't even in the same ballpark as "petty insults". You can tell the difference because the former never start with "Yo momma so..." and the latter frequently do.
Do you really want a serious response? Okay, here goes.
Wikipedia has a policy of only writing that which is verifiable through examination of the sources used. Wikipedia has another policy of only using sources which are reliably accurate in their claims, and we even have a policy about how to identify which sources are the most reliable. It is through following those policies that we arrived at the claim that Infowars is a fake news site. Basically; people who know what they're talking about keep calling it that, and no-one who knows what they're talking has argued against it. If you have seen that the article on Infowars (which is actually quite new) doesn't label it a fake news site, then I suggest either changing that yourself or asking about it on the talk page there, because it probably should. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, good point. The language in the Infowars article could be less weasely. O3000 (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's characterized as a "fake news" site by many sources. The quality of their journalism is very low, and they editorialize, and plagurize from other sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

TheValeyard, what I wrote was, "Only one of the four sources used actually calls it a fake news site, and that source fails reliable sources. (See the News organizations section.) [03:13, 24 January 2018]." Headlines are not written by the authors, only one of the authors calls it fakenews. News organizations says we need to distinguish between actual news and opinion pieces in articles. We should follow reliable sourcing policy when we make claims especially claims about sources reporting unreliably sourced information. TFD (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware of what you said. What you said was not the truth. TheValeyard (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I suppose you are entitled to your own personal truth, but articles must follow policy. TFD (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
TFD, allow me to re-phrase what TheValeyard said: What you said was not verifiable in the sources given. You said that only one called Infowars "fake news", but the truth is that all four characterize it as "fake news". We don't nitpick over whether the exact phrase "Infowars is fake news" exists in a source. If a source gives Infowars as an example of fake news, or if a source is about fake news and discusses stories on Infowars as examples, or even if a source quotes another source which identifies Infowars as fake news without saying that it doesn't trust that other source, then the source calls Infowars fake news, full stop. In addition, your claim that one of the sources is unreliable is not tenable. US News, the LA Times, the Washington Times, Mother Jones and CBS News are all very reliable sources. Yes, one of them references Zimdar's list, but that source does so with complete credulity. In other words, that source has endorsed Zimdar's list for the purpose and to the extent that it was used in that source. We don't second guess sources. Just like we wouldn't cite an autobiography for a claim that a BLP once saved a bunch of children from a burning building when we can't find any record of that event, but we will cite a secondary source who repeats and endorse the anecdote, so long as we consider that source reliable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
While they are reliable sources, not every article in them is per "News organizations." It is part of RS, which you linked to and I already provided a link so you should read it before you post again. Also, you cannot combine a definition of "fake news website" with information about InfoWars that meet the criteria and call it a fake news website. That violates synthesis. And note the whole approach is backwards. Instead of deciding what should go into the article and seeking sources, we should idenfity the best sources and reflect what they say.
David G. McAfee, who debunks pseudo-science etc. and is a noted Trump opponent, wrote in a section called "Fake News" that it "has become a buzzword used by all sides to write off anything they disagreed with." Even Alex Jones used the term "despite the fact that InfoWars itself has been added to lists of fake news sites to avoid. Now, I don't know if they're "FAKE NEWS," but I do know sites like InfoWars and Breitbart News...have incredibly biased and poorly sourced opinions."[2] That's the difference between objective writing and polemics.
TFD (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I am well aware of WP:NEWSORG and have read it many times, at least one of which was very recent. It does not, in any way, say anything to suggest that these sources are unusable. Nor does your argument that the phrase is a buzzword do anything to change the fact that it is a descriptive term that is applied to the site by a number of RSes. A number of different sources have attached different meanings to the term. Some consider it to refer to any "news" org who cannot be trusted. Others use it exclusively to refer to orgs which present exclusively false stories with a buried disclaimer that they write satire. Others use it to refer only to orgs who present overly biased opinions. If one single source refers to a site as fake news, we will not call it fake news. But when multiple sites, using multiple definitions all call it fake news, and the best defense is an author known for being incredibly specific and using disclaimers and caveats like a scientist writing an abstract, and all that author can say is that they don't know if it meets the particular definition that author prefers, then you have no sound argument here. I respect and appreciate your contributions, but on this, I don't see even the slightest shred of validity to your view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a good point posed in this thread. Even in 'reliable sources' this is contested and many sources avoid outright calling it fake news. Many of those articles that do are op-eds. And while WP:RS says that editorials can be good sources, you also have to watch out for the sort of wording used in such articles. And, I know this is like beating a dead horse, but according to the Impartial tone section on WP:NPOV, this sort of high-disputed description of Infowars is against Wikipedia policy. Specifically, it says:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."

This is definitely a major dispute, so Wikipedia shouldn't engage in it. It can point to issues of Infowars and its reliability, but shouldn't take sides just when the article begins. It continues:

"The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." It isn't impartial at the moment. Do you really think that labelling Infowars as a fake news site will further Wikipedia's goals, even when it comes at the price of consistent vandalism and disputes? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you also read "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Thus we only need to give both sides when both sides are represented by RS. "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." again we do not have to (or a required to) give minority viewpoints not backed by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there are some reliable sources that call Infowars such (and there are many issues to pose with stories it has published). But many don't, at least not outright. One of the sources says it is a "conspiratorial website that often publishes fake news." Saying that it "often" publishes fake news is a more impartial tone than calling it a fake news site. You will find it has a few generally accurate articles. However, you will also find it aggregates and links back to other outlets and also has a lot of editorial-style articles. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I see a bunch of assertions that the article is not neutral. What I don't see is any evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I have been mentioning the entire time that the Wikipedia article on Infowars labels it as being accused of deliberately posting fake news and now you bring this up? That is why I think it would be better for either this page to say "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy theories news website that has been accused of deliberately posting fake news." or the Infowars Wikipedia page have it be labelled as a fake news website but that sounds very against Infowars instead of neutral. The evidence is right there as well; one says Infowars is a fake news website, the other says it has been accused of posting fake news on purpose.
Let's also not just think about us, we should think more about the readers. They will read this article and see it says Infowars is a fake news website. They might then read on the Infowars Wikipedia page and then see that it says it has been accused of posting fake news deliberately or vise versa. What are they going to believe then?
I also know someone did a poll on this but they wrote "Should the sentence at the end of the first paragraph be (A) "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website" or (B) "His website, Infowars.com, has been described as a conspiracy and fake news website." I don't know why the person made option B weasel words but there is a difference between described as and been accused of
I don't care if you change this article to use my decision or if you make the Infowars page say it's a fake news website but in the end the choice been accused of deliberately posting fake news sounds more neutral than is a fake news website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:66CA:1400:4471:6981:71C8:6569 (talk • contribs) 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Except "is a fake news website" is the most accurate way of stating it. "fake news" is a descriptive term for websites that regularly post fake news stories. Infowars regularly posts fake news stories. QED. Actually, the policy reason is "Many reliable sources say it is a fake news site, and no reliable sources say that it is not. QED," but I can see here that you really don't care about our policies. Good thing for this project that the rest of us do then, eh? :D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Also just because not every RS calls it "fake news" does not mean we cannot. A controversy exists when RS contest a claim, not merely do not repeat it. To illustrate.
Here is a source talking about the sea and it's effects, does this mean the sea is not wet [3]?
NO doubt tjhis emans we have to say ducks are only alleged to quack [4].
The argument "Not all RS explicitly say it so it is a controversy" is....not a good argument, please stop it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
^ 100% pure brilliance. Great post, Slater. I shall be referring to the "alleged" wetness of the ocean every time this argument comes up, from now on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I should've known this happens when you... Oh, hi! Many, Many, Many reliable sources describe Infowars as a right wing, alternative or conservative media/news website. This includes some RS (like this and this) that say it has published fake news or has been accused of. Saying it is a news site, even if bringing up the controversies around it regarding fake news published by it, is completely different to calling it a fake news site. Using that tone is, like it or not, much more in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It's hard to say the current wording "present[s] the arguments in an impartial tone," as the policy puts it. Also remember that it clearly states that Wikipedia describes disputes and that articles can become partisan even if presenting all POVs from RS. I am not trying to promote Infowars. I am trying to promote what Wikipedia is intended to be and do and for it do be done in the correct way. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Impartial doesn't mean false balance, so this does present the facts in an impartial tone as far as I can see. Wikipedia's fundamental mission involves the careful dissemination of information. If reliable sources characterize Infowars as a source of false, misleading, unsupported, etc. information (and they sure do), we have an obligation to reflect that in direct terms. This is not only because we should try to reflect all information in such a way, but also specifically because Wikipedia's goal as an encylopedia is to provide accurate information and to counter falsehood. We draw a hard line for this kind of thing, and rightly so. This is why we do not allow for WP:FRINGE theories to infect mainstream science articles. Such is the case here. We do not allow fringe journalism to infect news articles. Grayfell (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Trainsandtech, please read WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. You are completely misrepresenting what an "impartial tone" is. An impartial tone is not equivocating over well sourced and uncontroversial statements of facts in order to avoid making factually accurate statements which a small percentage of the population would take offense at. An impartial tone means stating all the facts without passing any judgement, including facts that fans of the site might object to. Inofowars absolutely is a fake news site, by a number of different definitions, including the most germane one; it manufactures stories and presents them as news. All of this can be verified by either checking with the reliable sources used in the article as well as a large number of others not used because they are not needed, or by simply comparing the stories on Infowars to accurate information about the people, places and events referenced therein. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know much about Infowars and the only reason I titled this discussion as this is because the articles didn't really say why exactly and two of them don't even have Infowars on it. I also said numerous times after a while that I'm okay with either the Alex Jones article saying Infowars has been accused of being fake news or making Infowars article say its a fake news site but no one really listened to that. So I guess it makes sense for two articles that have the same subject matter to say the complete opposite of each other apparently. As for policies and guidelines, of course I don't know every policy or guideline but I certainly know there were a ton of WP:BITE. In the end I still got what I wanted to have fixed done and this really was a sh*t show. 2607:FCC8:66CA:1400:B972:F22A:28D1:702A (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding in White Nationalist for Alex Jones

Latest comment: 6 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion

I think label of "white nationalist" accurately describes Alex Jones. I think it should be added into the opening paragraph to label him along with the alt right, far right labels.

Below sources can be used as citations:

Alex Jones' War for White, Christian America https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/alex-jones-war-for-white-christian-america.html

How the Fringe Alt-Right Is Trumping Traditional Media http://fortune.com/2016/11/17/alt-right-media-donald-trump/

Alex Jones goes on a white nationalist rant https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/01/31/alex-jones-goes-white-nationalist-rant-claiming-latinos-are-stealing-americans-birthright/219221

175.156.1.119 (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure we can, we can say these people have said he is (or in some cases appeal to) one. I am not sure these are good enough to say he is one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but we're going to need a number of rock-solid sources to state that. Even the MMfA source (the best one you've got) only states this in the headline, which we can't cite without a supporting claim in the body. Even with a single rock-solid source, there's a real argument to be said for non-inclusion because his "shtick" is conspiracy theories, not white nationalism. He may well be a white nationalist, but that's not necessarily a due statement to make in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't describe himself as it. From my understanding, he's somewhat fascist leaning, and is allied with white nationalists, but he doesn't espouse those views himself. He has stated anti-racist views in the past, but he also plays into anti-immigration and anti-minority viewpoints. So he's trying to have it both ways in my mind. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would say he's sympathetic to white nationalism, but I don't think its article worthy until we get some concrete bile from his own mouth. Ice this. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Racial insensitivity falls along a continuum and we normally reserve the term "white nationalist" for the most egregious, such as Klansmen and neo-Nazis. Bear in mind that a number of policies introduced by the Democrats in the 1990s such as three strikes you're out and welfare reform have been described as racist but we don't call them a white nationalist party. TFD (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discounting MMA because it's clearly following its own stated agenda, The Paste article never actually calls him a white nationalist. It starts by talking about how he may or may not even believe what he says, then says he "represents" a white nationalist POV. The Fortune piece says Jones is part of "a loosely defined group of white nationalists, neo-Nazis, anti-immigrant provocateurs and trolls" It doesn't say which of those he belongs to. So this isn't even close to being added. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Discounting MMA because it's clearly following its own stated agenda... See WP:BIASED. But the MMfA still isn't usable because it only calls him that in the headline. The body doesn't actually support the statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • But with a BLP, we need an abundance of caution to make a statement like that. An activist org that aims to only discredit "the right wing" is obviously not what we want to base it on, even if they did say it. Their very existence depends on having a windmill to tilt at. The more windmills, the more they are "needed". In a case like this, their bias far outweighs their usefulness as a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree about the abundance of caution. I would be very wary of using MMfA for such a claim, and I almost certainly wouldn't use it exclusively unless it was the only source for the claim, and the claim were obviously true (such as if the BLP in question had a swastika tattooed on their cheek and "white nationalism" across their chest in a number of publicly viewable photos). But we can't exclude MMfA just because they have a bias, even for such claims as this. Because this is what they do, they are arguably one of the experts on extremist right-wing views, along with a couple other right-focused media watchdogs and groups focused on activities associated with the right, such as the SPLC. Bias is something that matters to weight and the need for attribution; it shouldn't ever be a factor in judging reliability, because the way we perceive bias depends entirely upon our own biases. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note that I said discount, not exclude. There is a difference. Additionally, although the SPLC does have a leftist tendency, they do not exclusively focus on right wing orgs. Lastly, I'd dispute that their focus makes them "experts". Like the old adage "if all you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails", I'd submit that one can see bias everywhere if they are focused on finding it exclusively. To use an example, if 2 white parents watch their children play in a park and one says "look at that boy run", neither of them will likely see anything racist. If a white parent says the same thing to a black parent who happens to be a member of the New Black Panther's (an org the SPLC labels an extremist group BTW), the perception may be that it was racist. One parent (reliable source) would see no racism, the other sees a derogatory term and reports to their friends about the "racist" comment. Is that expertise or just perception? Good discusion though. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please note that I said discount, not exclude. There is a difference. You'll have to explain then, because in this sense, the words are synonymous.
Additionally, although the SPLC does have a leftist tendency, they do not exclusively focus on right wing orgs. I never said they did. I said they focus on activities closely associated with the right. The vast majority of hate groups are, in fact, right-wing. Egalitarianism (a halmark of left-wing politics) rarely meshes well with hate.
Lastly, I'd dispute that their focus makes them "experts".... You would be in the minority on that.
Regarding your example, you've actually done quite a good job of evincing my point; that our judgements about bias in others is subject to our own biases. "Boy" has a long history of racially charged use in the US, particularly in the South, where it is also used in both its literal sense and as a familiar term of endearment. A white parent saying that to a black parent might well be ignorant of the connotations, but might just as well not be. You presumed that the white parent would not have meant it that way because you, yourself would not make a racist remark under similar circumstances. Your bias (the presumption that most white parents aren't racist; an accurate bias, but a bias nonetheless) informed your judgement of the black parent's bias.
But your analogy doesn't apply, in any case. White nationalism is a specific set of racist views; namely that America (for American WN's) is meant for white people, and that non-whites should leave. That is hardly the sort of view that any self-respecting media establishment would ascribe to someone based on a single misunderstood phrase. So while MMfA might well take something Jones said as being more racist than Jones intended, their own experience dealing with numerous actual white nationalist groups and individuals would have made it clear that the remark was insufficient ground to make a defining judgement. After all, as I previously pointed out, the story by MMfA doesn't actually support their headline. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I apparently didn't make my point clear enough. You even missed the basic difference in discount vs exclude. 6.to allow for exaggeration in (a statement, opinion, etc.):Knowing his political bias they discounted most of his story. The example shows they DISCOUNTED MOST of his story, not EXCLUDED ALL of it. I mean that's about as clear as I can make that. I may also be in the minority in my disputing that focus = expertise, but I'm ok with being in the alleged minority. Being the majority dfoesn't make one correct. As for the rest...... well, you're missing the point and since this is now theoretical, I don't see any point in trying to explain it further. Appreciate the discussion though. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not explaining third grade grammar to you. Try to puzzle out why the example sentence needed to include the word "most" if you want to know where you're going wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a good thing you're not trying to explain it because you aren't getting it. I do discount MOST of what they say. Not ALL of it, but MOST of it because I believe they are concerned more with making a point than with truth. You may disagree and that's fine. I'm done with this discussion. Have the last word. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You realize that it was the dictionary definition you quoted that disagrees with you, right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
To the groups the SPLC monitors, all mainstream sources have a left-wing bias. Note they don't call Jones a white nationalist, islamophobe, or any other type of hater.[5] TFD (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
To those groups, Breitbart has a left-wing bias, heh. (Actually, I'm probably giving Breitbart too much credit, but I'm not being serious.) Yeah, calling Jones a WN is an insult, not a statement of fact. None of the sources that hint at it actually come right out and say it, and there's a reason for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

lead misleading

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

the changes to the lead look right. simply branding something as fake news to fit opinion pieces its whacky. The same could be done on the CNN page, since that's the network that has basically got the nick name of FAKE NEWS CNN. the lead was worded like a lefty revenge meme. it needs to be neutral since its a biography. The Megan Kelly interview with Alex Jones doesn't say its a fake news site. get real man.StarMountain (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"Lefty revenge meme", said the editor quoting reddit memes about CNN... We've already had this discussion multiple times, including the top of this very talk page. These are not merely opinion pieces, this is the consensus of many reliable sources. Stating simple facts in straightforward language is neutral. Couching it in WP:WEASEL words is whitewashing. Grayfell (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There aren't any WP:WEASEL words in the edit though. The InfoWars show has made corrections and retractions just as CNN or ABC has done. the program expresses opinion which it is free to do and it presents evidence. Just because you or others don't like it is irrelevant, WP:I don't like it. The sources make accusations and express opinion. The edit change states that in straightforward language without coaching it with WP:WEASEL words as it was before. The edit makes it neutral. Its actually a reasonable edit, so being against it makes no sense. Makes it appear like the trolls are protecting their bias. It is not factual or neutral to equate the meme of 'fake news' with conspiracy theory as was being done, the History Channel presents all sorts of conspiracy theories and mysteries which are speculative, false, or later turn out do be false, so the same could be said of the History Channel or other MSM. the way lead was is not neutral and injects opinion and makes it more of a lefty revenge meme, merely to brand the person in the biography as a hoaxer, which is simply not right or credible. The WP:Tone of a biography should not be loaded with spin against the person who is the subject of the biography especially the lead.StarMountain (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is RS call it fake news, do any RS say Whilst it is true all news media make mistakes, not all push stories long after they are proven false, or have to be taken to court on a regular basis to get retractions (hell most of the stories it seems to publish seem to be false and of a "do they really believe this" nature). In fact the biggest issue is that it is 100% editorializing, often to the point of ranting. And the history Channel is not a news site, so why would we label it fake news? If there were some RS that contested that Infowars just propagates blatant false hoods and lunacy I might have some sympathy ( we do have to represent all viewpoints) the problem is no one does contest it (I am not even sure Jones has).Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The InfoWars show has made corrections and retractions just as CNN or ABC has done. Name one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yogartgate.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I should have been more specific (pizzagate, too) and said "Name one that wasn't court-ordered." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones Accused of Discrimination and Sexual Harassment by Former InfoWars Employees

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Alex Jones Accused of Sexual Harassment by Former InfoWars Employees

https://www.motherjones.com/media/2018/02/alex-jones-is-accused-of-discrimination-and-sexual-harassment-by-former-infowars-employees/

This is quite important information on Alex Jones that must be included in the wiki article.175.156.24.240 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Explain why it is important (also this is a BLP, and this is only an accusation).Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE without wider coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Coverage is starting to pick up: NY Post [6], Daily Mail [7], Washington Examiner [8], IBT [9], NY Daily News [10]. Admittedly, I haven't dived deep into the issue yet, so I don't know what stages we're at, but the coverage is starting to happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Daily Beast Newsweek Doug Weller talk 14:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
(Doug, the Daily Beast link is just a redirect to a Daily Mail article.)
You see why I put clauses in my kneejerk reactions? I think we might want to first look into adding a line about this at Weinstein effect. We also might want to wait a day or two before fleshing out coverage here, just to give it time to get a reaction from Jones and some third-party analysis. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: I agree we should wait at least a day, perhaps two days. I'm bothered a bit about the Daily Mail source, so we need to be sure that it's accurate and that might take a day or two. And yes, we'll see what Jones says and add that. I don't ever read the Daily Beast so had assumed they were doing short peace themselves rather than just copying and linking. It's clearly not useful for this. Just as it would have been a mistake to add to this article or the InfoWars article (which does have this accusation in it btw) that Infowars was on its 2nd YouTube strike, which turned out to be an error. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with all of that. I'll set up an alert to see what pops up on the news feeds today and early tomorrow. I'm sure Jones will respond by then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Infowars and Youtube Removal

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/technology/youtube-ads-infowars-alex-jones/index.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/376613-alex-jones-says-youtube-will-delete-infowars-channel

Update apparently theres allegations going around that Youtube might remove Jones from Youtube due to violations that his staff is facing.

http://www.newsweek.com/youtube-deletes-infowars-account-jerome-corsi-bureau-chief-828203

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/youtubes-crackdown-goes-beyond-alex-jones-w517346

Stay Tuned for updates on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jones's "aggressive opposition to gun control"

Latest comment: 6 years ago39 comments4 people in discussion
All done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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.

The statement is not supported by the reference used, which is a short video with minimal text. What's more, I got reverted with the edit-summary see WP:V. "Aggressive" is verifiable; even the most strident Jones supporter will -if honest- agree that Jones was being aggressive, and would consider it laudable, so the claim of WP:BLPVIO is not supported.. The edit-summary completely sidesteps the fact that the source, a video actually, never mentions the adjective "aggressive". To claim that "aggressive" satisfies WP:V because even the most strident Jones supporter will -if honest- agree that Jones was being aggressive, and would consider it laudable, so the claim of WP:BLPVIO is not supported., is basically completely off the mark, because out policies of WP:V and WP:RS do not depend on the reaction of Jones's supporters, but they depend on WP:RS to verify any controversial statements made in a BLP.

This is the BLP of a controversial person. If anyone can come here and edit, or edit-war, any controversial adjective or WP:WEASELWORD they please without backing it up with a WP:RS, then this article will become a heaven for unverified NPOV and BLP violations. I would add also that one of the pitfalls of not using WP:RS to support "aggressive", is that one could equally well use the more benign description "strong opposition", which is a better term to describe Jones's reaction, and it is also a less obvious violation of NPOV, while being less editorialising and more encyclopædic. However, both terms, are a violation of WP:V, because none is supported by WP:RS. To conclude: the revert is a POV edit, a violation of WP:V, and it violates WP:BLP because it restores an unsourced controversial statement for this BLP. Dr. K. 18:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Let us be clear: Are you contending that that Jones was being calm, complaisant, easy-going or relaxed in that video? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
So, is this what WP:V has come to? Watch a video, appraise it using any unsourced term you like (aggressive, strong, relaxed), then add your term to a BLP? Really? FYI, that's the very definition of WP:OR. Dr. K. 19:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Is that a "no" then?
I'm sure you've considered that saying "No" means conceding the point, while saying "Yes" means adopting a rather indefensible position. That was my point in asking the question, really. I had typed out a relevant anecdote and a longer request for you to answer the question initially, but upon giving it some more thought, I decided to be a bit more direct. I understand your argument. There is no analysis in that source which refers to Jones' behavior as aggressive. But my point is that we don't need that to make a statement as simple as "He was aggressively defending gun rights", because there's no reasonable assertion that Jones was being anything but aggressive in that video. If a video showed someone walking down the street, I can't imagine any reasonable editor claiming that the video can't be used to source the claim that the person in question walked down the street in the video. If, as you assert, it is unverifiable in that video that Jones was being aggressive, all you need to do is provide a reasonable alternative interpretation. So make a reasoned (it doesn't even need to be compelling, just "not complete bollocks") argument that he was being calm, or jocular, or easy-going, or indeed anything that would preclude aggression, and I will drop the matter.
I would also like to point out that WP:BRD expected you to discuss here before reverting me back, not after. I'll let it sit as it is until this discussion is over, but so far, you're the only one who's shown any indication towards edit warring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Christian Science Monitor had a fun word: "vituperative". They described his debate with Piers Morgan"Mr. Jones shouted, ranted, and preached in a voice so loud that Rush Limbaugh is a whispering golf announcer by comparison".[11] When a guy actually starts a petition to have his debate opponent deported, one could call that aggressive. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this proposal is OR. If there are no sources calling Jones's opposition to gun control "aggressive", then, per WP:V, we cannot include it in this BLP. Dr. K. 22:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Then pick one of the words from the source. Bombastic? "...outrageous and vituperative..."? Unhinged? I mean the man offered to physically fight Piers Morgan over the issue. Pick one...they're sourced. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It's already mentioned in the article. See Alex Jones#Gun rights. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: Is that a "no" then? Please read carefully what I wrote, before asking simplistic question like this. All I am saying is: Find a reliable source that calls Jones's opposition to gun control "aggressive" and the matter would be over. Statements such as If a video showed someone walking down the street, I can't imagine any reasonable editor claiming that the video can't be used to source the claim that the person in question walked down the street in the video. are just pure filibustering. Again, we don't watch videos just to invent terms of our own making to describe Jones's actions. Also, If, as you assert, it is unverifiable in that video that Jones was being aggressive, all you need to do is provide a reasonable alternative interpretation. Nope, the WP:BURDEN is upon you to source the "aggressive" term. That's, again, WP:OR and, in this case, it smacks of WP:TRUTH. Edit-warring to add this OR/BLP violation into the article just adds insult to injury. Dr. K. 22:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: It is a simple question: Are you willing to state clearly that you disagree that Jones was aggressive in that video? I don't understand why you need to get so worked up over being asked to say something explicitly which you keep implying so strongly. Also, I think you should look up the definition of "filibustering". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It is a simple question: Are you willing to state clearly that you disagree that Jones was aggressive in that video? Once more, this question is irrelevant. I repeat what I said above: "So, is this what WP:V has come to? Watch a video, appraise it using any unsourced term you like (aggressive, strong, relaxed), then add your term to a BLP? Really? FYI, that's the very definition of WP:OR." As far as getting "worked up", sorry, but if someone refuses to get the point, there are so many ways you can make them hear. I am not worked up in the least. I am simply trying to explain OR to you multiple times and in different ways. It obviously isn't working. Dr. K. 23:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
If it were irrelevant, then I don't understand why you seem so agitated as to repeatedly cast aspersion on me for asking it. You could have just answered it and moved on. But regardless, I've substituted an explicitly supported term from an impeccable source. It no longer says "aggressive". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not casting aspersions, neither am I "agitated". But, given your persistence in mischaracterising my actions, perhaps, you are. I am just baffled as to why you don't seem to understand something as simple as OR, even after multiple attempts on my part to explain it to you. Dr. K. 23:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
You accused me twice of edit warring, despite you being the only editor in this discussion to show any refusal to follow WP:BRD. That's the textbook definition of casting aspersions. As to your bafflement, perhaps it it equal to my own bafflement at your refusal to clearly state a position you have obviously been pushing. You have repeatedly and quite strongly implied that a reasonable person could watch that video and still believe that Jones was not being aggressive, yet when asked to confirm that, you refuse... It's almost as if you know damn well what I said in my second post is true: Either you say "No" and thus admit that the word "aggressive" is verifiable in the source, or you say "Yes" and thus take a position which bears no resemblance to reality.
But I always try to be a reasonable guy, and I've taken your every complaint to heart. So now we've gone from aggressive opposition to gun control to what The Christian Science Monitor describes as an opposition to gun control "...so outrageous and vituperative that the gun lobby must believe he’s counterproductive." which looks far (far) more problematic from a BLP standpoint to me, but it seems nothing but a direct quote from an impeccable source will satisfy you.
For the record, I own about two dozen guns, and am stridently opposed to efforts to ban assault rifles and large capacity magazines. I would certainly hate to have to give mine up. I also have a history of defending Jones from dubiously-sourced criticisms suggested here. Your earlier accusation of POV pushing is rather off the mark. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
You accused me twice of edit warring, despite you being the only editor in this discussion to show any refusal to follow WP:BRD. I was the one who opened this discussion. However, you, as the reverting editor, were supposed to open this discussion, not me. So, don't accuse me of not following BRD. That's casting aspersions against me. As far as the CSM piece, at least it is compliant with V and RS. BLP-wise, I wouldn't have chosen such a piece to be at the lead. For something to be at the lead, it must be covered in the main article body. So your edit violates WP:LEAD. Now, do I want to keep reverting your edits to clean up the article? No. Dr. K. 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You should probably actually read WP:BRD. It doesn't say that. It does say that you should have opened this discussion (good job on that), and also that you should not have reverted again (you'll need to work on that part). Check out this handy graphic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
No need to patronise me about BRD. You reverted, you had to open the discussion and you did not. So, again, you violated BRD, not me. You also forgot the clear-cut BLP violation of using the unattributed "aggressive" descriptor in the BLP which failed WP:V and had to be removed. That edit had to go, irrespective of BRD, as I already explained multiple times. Dr. K. 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, that's not what it says. Really, if you can't be bothered to read our policies, I fail to understand why you're citing them. And I've already pointed out that we have only your assertion that "aggressive" is a BLP violation. It's certainly not "clear-cut", or else I'd have removed it quite some time ago. From where I sit, "...so outrageous and vituperative that the gun lobby must believe he’s counterproductive" is a far more condemnatory description than "aggressive", but you seem quite happy with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Really, if you can't be bothered to read our policies, I fail to understand why you're citing them. Well, since you studied BRD so much, you may have yet to find out that BRD is not a policy. Heck, it's not even a guideline. In any case, if my interpretation of BRD differs from yours, you have to take also into account that in addition to BRD, I had to consider that the policies of WP:V, OR and BLP were violated by the "aggressive" term. That means, BRD or not, they had to go. Dr. K. 02:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought you might have been experienced enough to recognize the colloquial use of "policy", but apparently I was mistaken. BRD is an explanatory supplement. As such, it is a community-endorsed and maintained guide as to how to treat both an official guideline and an actual policy page. It is frequently cited on every single drama board dealing with conduct as the standard to which we are supposed to adhere. Editors have been blocked and topic banned for their refusal to follow WP:BRD. It is -in every way that matters- a policy on this site, regardless of whether or not it says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." at the top. If you don't believe me, feel free to continue ignoring it in your every interaction and see what happens. I think you might be surprised at just how seriously this community takes that page. And I might point out that the community has never held a single revert, followed by discussion to be edit warring. Meanwhile, the community has frequently taken a refusal to follow BRD to be edit warring. Though to be fair, the community has a different page they frequently refer to when deciding what to do about editors who insists upon repeatedly casting aspersions on others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I see you are continuing down the spirral with more presumptuous hectoring. What makes this more ironic is that you restored the same OR/POV/V violation that started this discussion. You have violated BRD and EW multiple times today, yet you presume to lecture me about BRD and EW. Talking to you is hopeless. As far as aspersions, you have multiple times cast aspersions against me in this discussion. You should follow your own advice about BATTLE, instead of casting more aspersions against me. Dr. K. 03:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please relax. Attributing to you, a short, two adjective description, is not an accusation of plagiarism. The way you added it, without attribution, was POV, so I wanted to fix it. Without access to CSM, that was the best I could do to fix it at the time. On the other hand, you accused me of "inventing quotes", using the edit-summary field, which is a hard place to respond to. That was not good form. Dr. K. 00:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Now you are accusing me (again) of POV editing? Is this level of combativeness really necessary? I'm afraid your exhortation to "relax" looks more like gaslighting in the context of this repeated accusation. In any case, I'm not particularly concerned or upset here, but more than a little intrigued.
It was not POV editing, it was replacing a nominally (if not seriously) contested adjective with an explicitly sourced one, using the expected method of transferring information from source to article: summation. And your edit absolutely invented a quote. Such a quote was never, according to any source but that particular version of the article, attributed to the CSM before that. That's the very meaning of "invention". It certainly does not imply any malice to the edit, the way you keep implying my edits do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You are obviously doubling down and becoming more combative in your answers. I am not interested in continuing or contributing to this spiral you have initiated. Dr. K. 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Doubling down and becoming more combative? I've changed literally every aspect of the article you had a problem with. I've also not been repeatedly accusing you of POV pushing and edit warring. Which of us has been combative, again? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I've changed literally every aspect of the article you had a problem with. Yes, that's true, and I commend you for that. Too bad this editorial agreement we reached did not reflect in the rest of the comments. However, my previous comments about POV and EW referred to your past actions, not to your recent, and commendable, compliance with policy, with which I am in agreement. Dr. K. 02:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Giving your expressed concern over BLP more thought, I've toned down the language of the CSM source and replaced the direct quote with a more neutral summation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This is cute. You just restored the same edit that started this discussion, and are continuing your edit-warring. You are in no position to hector me about BRD, a policy you violated multiple times today. Dr. K. 03:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It is my considered opinion that the quote "...so outrageous and vituperative that the gun lobby must believe he’s counterproductive." is pointlessly antagonistic for an encyclopedia and represents a BLP violation, as it casts a value judgement upon Jone's behavior with which I take exception (I don't, for one second believe that the gun lobby believes he's counterproductive). Therefore, I have toned it down by re-phrasing it in a more neutral way. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but you did say you were concerned about BLP violations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that upsets you,... You should stop your presumptuous characterisations, as I have told you before. but you did say you were concerned about BLP violations. So you try to satisfy BLP by using a term that violates the policies of OR, and Verifiability. Brilliant. Instead of continuing this edit-war, I have opened a discusion at ORN, to elicit some opinions about this issue from other editors. Dr. K. 04:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you offended by me suggesting you might be upset? Well, imagine if I'd been constantly repeating the completely baseless accusation that you were POV pushing and edit warring. You'd be positively apoplectic, I suspect.
In any case, please familiarize yourself with WP:CANVASS and note that such notifications are required to be posted in a neutral manner. Lying about the current sourcing is far from neutral. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I see. More PAs, filibustering and obfuscation. The CANVASSing charge would be funny, if it were not so tendentious. I have provided my detailed response at ORN but I will also note here that you keep edit-warring the POV term "aggressive" into the article, although it is not supported by any of the two sources you have provided so far. At ORN, I provided two diffs, one of which includes the second source by CSM, so I was not trying to hide it. The reason I did not specifically mention it at ORN is that it is useless in the context of my report at ORN, because it does not verify the term "aggressive". None of the two sources describes Jones's opposition as "aggressive". So, both are useless, and no amount of obfuscation or PAs will change that. Also, adding the "aggressive" descriptor at the lead, without it being mentioned in the main body of the article, is a violation of WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Overall, this edit you keep adding to this article is in violation of multiple policies and guidelines. So far, noone has supported your POV at ORN. That you are still defending it with PAs is clearly disruptive editing. Your lack of AGF, in falsely accusing me of "lying", is also noted. Dr. K. 06:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Please, file a report about me at ANI if you honestly believe all of this stuff. As to your lying: you provided a diff which clearly shows that there are two sources, yet you claimed in your text that there was only one. That is a lie. If you were unaware of the fact that I left the second source in, that's your error, and not mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This is what I wrote at ORN: Your The description of Jones's opposition to gun control is described as "aggressive", on the basis of editors watching a video and evaluating the way he responds as "aggressive", but without any of the sources making any mention of the term "aggressive". I used the expression but without any of the sources, which clearly indicates more than one source. As I also mentioned above, I also provided two diffs, one of which shows clearly two sources. But, again, you don't address the substance of my repeated arguments that none of the sources mentions anything about "aggressive" which is OR, so your continuing PAs are just part of a continuing attempt at more obfuscation and fillibustering. Also Masem told you at ORN: It's scrapping the edges of OR since it is not used exactly even though it is synonous with what CSM published; this is where quoting sourcing material can go a long way. Also keep in mind, we're only talking about this one appearance, it seems, so to broadly call Jones' stance on gun control aggressive from one interview is definitely an OR issue. So, again, the quality of your bad edit is apparent to neutral editors as well. No amount of PAs or taunts will hide that. Dr. K. 15:53, 6 March 2018 (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.

Add Pepe the Frog in "Legal Action" section

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Pepe the Frog Creator is suing Alex Jones, I think this should be added into the article.

Pepe the Frog Creator Sues Alex Jones's Infowars https://pjmedia.com/trending/pepe-frog-creator-sues-alex-joness-infowars/ 138.75.56.94 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That article is terribly written. But, there are several reliable sources carrying the story. I’d wait a bit to see if the case stays alive. O3000 (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't this make more sense on InfoWars anyway? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It was quickly settled [12][13] and it was really not aimed at Jones. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I like how Logsdon (the plaintiff in the lawsuit that was the focus of that first link) claimed "...she creates artwork that promotes unity and laughter..." by painting Pepe pointing a gun at people the at-right don't like. Yep. Nothing says unity and good cheer like "I WILL SHOOT YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE!!!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Brennan Gilmore suing Alex Jones for conspiracy mongering

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alex Jones is a menace to society. I’m suing him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/14/alex-jones-is-a-menace-to-society-im-suing-him/?utm_term=.7b04f420d62b

Please add it to the "Legal Action" section.14:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.24.168 (talk)

Lets wait and see if this get dismissed as frivolous shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Marcel Fontaine suing Alex Jones for defamation

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

New law suit against Alex Jones. Should be added in article as well.

"Infowars, Alex Jones sued again, this time after falsely identifying man as Parkland shooter"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/04/04/infowars-alex-jones-sued-again-this-time-for-falsely-identifying-man-as-parkland-shooter/?utm_term=.90c661cb9c13

138.75.19.145 (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Again lets wait and see whee this goes, if anywhere. Buy=ut this mnay have more legs then the one above, there does seem to be a case here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Alex Jones a fascist, neocon, and a Zionist?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is this info not in his article? AHC300 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have RS supporting this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither of this true. Sovietmessiah (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising Alex's Page

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know it's funny for you putting Russian Jokes on this page like "Alex Vladimir" born in "Russia" shit... But please stop vandalising the page for "shots and giggles". Getting sick of seeing it. Goes for those who both support Alex and oppose him. Colliric (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarification, this is not Alex's page. This is Wikipedia's page about Alex Jones. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He does NOT support fake news! Willowvh (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not done He uses his "news" site to spread anti-vaxxer and "white genocide" stories -- i.e. fake news. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Why has information about Jones' exposure of Bohemian Grove been removed?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This was significant reporting, recorded on video, showing premier and respected businessmen and politicians engaging in a bizzare, cultish-ritual in a secretive California campground established by Joseph D. Grant (one of California's earliest mega-wealthy enterpreneurs). Regardless of what your opinion of the rest of Alex Jones' activities may be, it helped establish him, is important information, and ought to be part of this article. What is the reason it has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.237.153 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Reference number 11 ( "All Hell Breaks Loose on The View After 9/11 Truther Cuts Loose". FoxNation.com.) is dead. Can someone please mark it with [dead link]? --2.104.86.226 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_14&oldid=1136506872"