Talk:Ben Swann/Archives/2018/July

"Widely-accepted narratives" is not NPOV, and neither is describing Sandy Hook as a "high-profile controversy"

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 anon IP user seems to believe that the phrase "widely-accepted narratives" is NPOV. It is not. Per WP:FRINGE, we do not describe mainstream points of view as a "narrative," and we describe conspiracy theories as what they are — conspiracy theories. There is no "high-profile controversy" about Sandy Hook - there are, instead, conspiracy theories about it, all of which have been completely discredited as evidence-free nonsense. The viewpoint that there is a "coverup" of Sandy Hook, that there is anything sinister about a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. or that vaccines cause autism are fringe beliefs which must, as per policy, be presented in the context of the mainstream viewpoints about the claims — which is that they are all false and at worst malicious lies. NPOV does not require that we give equal time to all viewpoints, nor does it require that we couch conspiracist beliefs in a shroud of semi-respectability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The IP's proposed language wasn't a complete violation of WP:FRINGE, but the current language is a more appropriate description of these controversies. These minority views weren't just contrary to "widely-accepted narratives." The Sandy Hook theory was a truly unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, and the vaccine-autism theory has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. We shouldn't suggest that these positions were simply minority views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The specific wording isn't the problem here. The problem is that the lede associates Ben Swann with these conspiracy theories in the first place. The conspiracy theory on Sandy Hook posits that it was a false flag for the purposes of gun control and that nobody actually got killed. Equating that to Ben Swann questioning how many shooters there were in the lede is extremely inappropriate for a WP:BLP, especially since it's based on a minute or two segment in a video with 3000 views while Ben's videos with 100,000+ views get no mention. The lede is actually worse on this now then when this was brought up.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. Neither the lead nor the body say anything about false flag theories or about a video not made by Swann. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The lede says Ben promoted conspiracy theories surrounding Sandy Hook on various platforms. Conspiracy theories surrounding Sandy Hook involve the ones mentioned above. Is it consistent with WP:BLP to have those sorts of connotations in the lede? Is this not a WP:WEASEL issue as well? The implications are very vague and misleading. And do you really not see a problem with the focus on a video with 3000 views when he has videos with 100,000+ views? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is trying to revert my changes to the lede. The concerns were posted here with no response several days ago. The new language I added is consistent with sources given. If Ben Swann has done anything besides question the number of shooters then that needs to be sourced and probably still be specifically mentioned stead of lumping it all into "conspiracy theories" which could mean all sourts of crazy things. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Daily Beast: "On his own YouTube channel he said he had “major problems with the theory” that the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings were each conducted by “lone gunmen.” “There’s a good reason to question this whole narrative: There’s been no evidence so far provided by police, other than what they’ve told us,” he said in his Sandy Hook truther video."[1] The Daily Beast describes him as a "Sandy Hook truther" and Swann clearly says that there is "no evidence" for the official account of what happened. That's promoting conspiracy theories, and we should describe it as such per WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's what the lede now ways. That he questioned the number of shooters. This is the source that calls Ben a "Pizzagate Truther" and pictures him with a tinfoil hat and it didn't even go as far as the lede did with painting him as a conspiracy theorists regarding the shootings. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Swann also says that there is "no evidence" for the official narrative. That's a broader claim than his nonsense about multiple shooters. I don't think we should get into the weeds of what he said precisely in the lede (the body can do that) - it suffices to say that he promoted conspiracy theories about the shootings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

questioning is not synonymous with conspiracy theories according to Wikipedia's own definition. Perhaps start by editing the wiki on Conspiracy Theory if you think simply questioning a narrative is the same as spouting conspiracy theories.--98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

using facts, which I did, is the best way to maintain NPOV. When you add the language you prefer that strays from facts, then it gets vague and misleading, which is the problem with WP:WEASEL wording.--98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

If I say there is no evidence that the Moon landing occurred and proceed to present debunked nonsense as evidence that the Moon landing was staged by Hollywood, then I'm promoting conspiracy theories about the Moon landing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

that the Moon landing was staged by Hollywood that's the part of "Conspiracy Theory" you are missing with Ben. What was Ben's explanation of the shooting? Conspiracy theories, according to wikipedia, are explanations. If you disagree, take your argument to the Conspiracy Theory talk page. If not, what was Ben's explanation? "on various platforms" is also problematic? Where else did he talk about this besides his own platform? None of these questions are answered in sources --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "on various platforms" and left the conspiracy theory part in there for now. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The removal of "on various platforms" was good. I don't think WP:WEASEL applies to lead content that's merely summarizing what can be found in the body. However I agree with Oklahoma that the sources don't expressly support the conspiracy theory label outside of Pizzagate. I think Aurora and Sandy Hook should be treated the same as 9/11, i.e. Swann questioned the official accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I was gonna say you should make this change because if I did then it would likely be reverted...I was right, but ironically it was reverted by you. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my bad. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Reality, as depicted by mainstream sources, is not a "narrative." Describing Swann's bizarre, false and ludicrous suggestions that the Sandy Hook massacre didn't happen as "questioning a narrative" is unacceptable. Sources describe what he said as "echoing right-wing conspiracy theories." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Where did Ben Swann suggest that Sandy Hook didn't happen? And you're attacking a word(narrative) that wasn't even in the lede. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As per the NY Times, Swann is a journalist who has highlighted conspiracy theories about major news events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because a source in inaccurate doesn't mean we can be. Define Conspiracy Theory for us Baranof and tell us how Ben's reporting matches that definition --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If RS use the term, we use the term. O3000 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't repeat false statements under the guise of it being an RS. If it makes unsubstantiated claims than it shouldn't be considered an RS --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is false. We aren't RS. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Prove me wrong then. Tell us the "Conspiracy Theory" that Ben Swann has put forth in his reporting about the shootings. The burden is on you. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The burden is not on us to prove it. We use reliable sources. If you have a problem with the NYTimes, et.al. as reliable sources, this is the wrong place. Take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on you according to WP:NPOVFAQ. Since this is a BLP, you have even more of a burden than in a regular article. The fact that you can't prove me wrong with your so called RS (which is supposed to prove the claim) pretty much says it all. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no burden on us to prove “truth”. The burden is verifiability and reliability. That is accomplished by using RS. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't accomplish it. The idea that you can label an entire publication as an RS and are then able to use any spurious statement that comes out of it without question is absurd. You can't violate WP policy just because a so-called RS does. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Even granting the reliability of the source, it does not direclty support the claim as it should. It makes a vague comment about "major news events". It does not say Ben repeated "conspiracy theories" about the shootings.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, source is questionable according to WP:SOURCE "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context...Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine." The article is about a marco rubio ad and it's contradicted by other sources such as this one https://www.mintpressnews.com/ben-swann-attacked-by-the-new-york-times-for-pointing-out-rubios-voting-record/212801/. Probably shouldn't be in the article at all much less being used to justify contentious material. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several sources that say he repeats conspiracy theories. I just added another. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several hit pieces that say that. And they all violate BLP and are all still contradicted by sources like the one I mentioned above as well as Wikipedia's own definition of Conspiracy Theory --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, we use RS. That is WP policy. If you think the NYTimes and WaPo articles are "hit pieces", take it to RSN. O3000 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that the sources using "conspiracy theory" are wrong is unsourced original research and wishful thinking. That you disagree with the sources is interesting, but of no avail here. As you disagree with my changes, I disagree with your changes and have reverted to the prior, longstanding version per Bold, Revert, Discuss. I ask that you not make any changes without gaining consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

My changes reflected Dr. Fleischman's suggested change. You did not give any further input until now. And this is more than a difference of opinion. I'm not just saying it's wrong. I'm saying your wording is not adequately reflected in the source and it violates BLP. You have no such argument against Dr. Fleischman's suggested wording. If you have reason to believe it violates any WP guidelines than please give it. Until then we will go with less contentious language as per BLP --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Go update Conspiracy Theory to your version, and if the change sticks then I'll concede. Otherwise, it is what it is. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Other articles are WP:OTHERCONTENT and irrelevant. Also, we are not here to judge definitions. We are here to add content using reliable sources. You continue to refuse to accept reliable sources preferring instead to use your own opinions. You are now edit warring against Wikipedia rules. I suggest that you self-revert your edit warring. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said early, other sources contradict the NYT piece. I was edit warring as much as Baranof who undid the change me and Dr. Fleischman agreed on --74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No, there is nothing which violates BLP about describing, as reliable sources do, his spreading of conspiracy theories about major historical events. And no, again, we do not create false balance with this idea of "official accounts" meaning anything. There is no "official account" of the 9/11 attacks, there is merely historical reality and then there is lunatic nonsense, and the idea that any part of the 9/11 attacks involved a "controlled demolition" is nothing more than lunatic nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oklahoma, you lose all credibility here when you dismiss reliable sources like the New York Times as false and as hit pieces. And you're edit warring too. You need to convince your fellow editors. Ramming your preferred version through will never work and could lead to you losing your editing privileges. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I did never dismissed the NYT. I dismissed that specific article as a hit piece. The claim that it's a hit piece is far more accurate than the claim that Ben has repeated conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep digging. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I see you've already lost your editing privileged temporarily. Hopefully there will be no more edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that Swann has promoted conspiracy theories. However, as I've mentioned, I'm uncomfortable with describing some of his specific pieces as promoting conspiracy theories when the cited sources don't say that. We need better sourcing, or this content needs to be re-written to be more closely in line with the cited sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The weak part, I think, is the bit on autism/vaccines. We have a link to the episode itself, which should probably be removed. I can’t find a reliable secondary source. We may need to remove or soften language related to this conspiracy. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already changed "promoting" to "repeated." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

But he hasn't repeated conspiracy theories by any objective understanding of the word and none of the sources say he repeated Conspiracy Theories surrounding the shootings. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Echoing right-wing conspiracy sites, he has questioned everything from the origins of ISIS to the veracity of the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings to whether Russia was actually involved in the DNC email hacks." [2]. O3000 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Questioning does not make a conspiracy theory. "Echoing" the questions (not the theories) of conspiracy theorists does not make a conspiracy theory. Again, he has not "repeated conspiracy theories" in any objective understanding of the word and none of the sources posted say he repeated conspiracy theories surrounding the shootings. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Echoing and repeating are the same thing. You are not convincing anyone. I suggest you drop the stick. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I edited my previous statement, making it more clear. Your quoted source doesn't claim he echoed conspiracy thoeries. They say he echoed "conspiracy sites", a weaselly way to make it sound like he echoes the theories. Of course, they couldn't just say that because it's not true --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Your language parsing is a bridge too far. The quote I provided is clear, and the context within the article is clearer yet. He repeated nonsense on multiple subjects, including shootings, that he found on conspiracy sites. WP:DTS O3000 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You may have had a point if this wasn't a BLP, but this is how BLP's are supposed to be treated --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that this sourcing is sufficient. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You've stated twice that you don't agree the sources say that. What changed your mind? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Here I'm speaking specifically to the AJC source and whether the "echoing" language sufficiently supports our "repeated." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"echoing" vs "repeating" isn't the problem. The problem is with "right-wing conspiracy sites" vs. "conspiracy theories". A right-wing conspiracy site could ask why police haven't released a video alongside there actual conspiracy theories and then if Ben Swann asks why police haven't released the video then he's "echoing right-wing conspiracy sites" even though he's not echoing conspiracy theories --74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. The sourcing is sufficient there. The AJC said the echoed right-wing conspiracy sites, so we can say the same thing (or an appropriate paraphrase). If you have a problem with what the AJC published then you can write to their editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You didn't even address what I said. Do you think the above scenario is fair? If somebody calls on the police to release surveillance footage and so does a "right-wing conspiracy site", do you think it is accurate to claim that the person "repeats conspiracy theories"? Or would it be more accurate just to describe what the person actually did? --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

Paraphrasing is for the sake of brevity. In this case, the truth (he questioned the accounts) is just a brief as saying "he repeated conspiracy theories" --98.173.248.2 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

By and large we follow the reliable sources. A professional journalist and their professional editor concluded that it was noteworthy that Swann was echoing conspiracy websites. We don't substitute our volunteer editorial judgment for theirs unless without some compelling policy-based justification. I'm not seeing that, and neither are the other editors here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The policy-based justification is WP:BLP, but that's clearly been ignored for a while. It's you guys who are volunteering your own judgement with your conjectural interpretation, which is a form of OR. And you still didn't address my point btw --98.173.248.2 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

• IP, without reliable sources explicitly disagreeing with the characterizations you take issue with, nothing will be done, and you are only wasting other editor's time by continuing to argue here. So please, stop wasting our time. If you can't or won't stop on your own, an admin can make you stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I already posted this source further up in the discussion https://www.mintpressnews.com/ben-swann-attacked-by-the-new-york-times-for-pointing-out-rubios-voting-record/212801/ --98.173.248.2 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

Ahem, I said reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What makes this source unreliable? --98.173.248.2 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

Anonymous author on a dodgy website.... i doubt you would get consensus at RSN to include content from that source and certainly not remove content based on it. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That is the entirely wrong question, IP. The onus is on you to prove that the source is reliable, not upon any of us to prove that it is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody here has proved that the NYT's article is reliable or that it directly supports the claim being made. But even though the burden is on you guys, I have demonstrated that it does not directly support the claim being made about Swann because that's how discussions work. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The NYT is an established, highly respected news source with 44 news bureaus and 125 Pulitzer Prizes. MintPressNews is the outgrowth of a blog with a history of spotty reporting, links to hate sites, and accusations of anti-Semitism. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 14:47, 6 July 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.

Dead ref

I cannot find this reference to verify the content. it is not in internet archive and I cannot find it in a library database either. If anybody finds it, great.

During the two and one-half years Swann was part of the news team at WXIX-TV Fox 19, it consistently placed second in ratings in the Cincinnati market.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Here you go, Jytdog, with this clipping.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I had seen this earlier, but I didn't find anything to add. I don't know what the ratings were "last May", for instance.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Challenged claims need to be cited inline

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.

---

WP:BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Jytdog has accused me of "edit warring" for adding "citation needed" to challenged material. This is puzzling for a few reasons. 1) It's the first time I've touched the page today. 2) "Edit warring" does not apply to enforcing BLP policy. and 3) Ironically, Jytdog himself has done two reverts on the same material within an hour. That sounds a lot more like edit warring to me. Can anybody tell me why the contentious claim in question (Ben Swann spreads fake news) is exempt from WP:BLP guidlines?--74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom. A slow motion edit war is still edit warring. The content is well-sourced in the body of the page. This is the same issue you have been battering this page over, and the responses are the same as they always where. Bring new sources or new arguments; I will remove future repetitions and if you keep bludgeoning this page saying the same things I will seek a topic ban. I am closing this. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 21 July 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.

Fake news

I agree there's a sourcing problem here. The lead says Swann spread fake news, but there's no indication which source to look at to verify that. And I agree there's a BLP problem here. I don't think the IP should have been treated so dismissively, despite their sock-like behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you recognizing this, but for the record, I have never made an edit from a phone or any other IP besides the two IP's that are already known. Several other anonymous editors have tried to remove or edit the "fake news" claim for obvious reasons, but they have not been me. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• The lede is a summary of the body. The body describes numerous incidents in which Swann made demonstrably false claims of fact, or emphasized demonstrably wrong interpretations of facts while purporting to report the news. As that is the very definition of "fake news", it is perfectly acceptable to summarize those numerous incidents as Swann having "... repeatedly spread conspiracy theories and fake news..." Remember, accurate summation is not WP:OR, and is required by both our guide to writing ledes and our policies governing copyright. I would also point out that literally hundreds of people have pushed to have creationism or intelligent design labelled a scientific theory, or to have the "pseudoscience" label removed. The number of people who believe a falsehood has no bearing on the truth of that falsehood. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

None of the cited sourced describe his claims in that way. Can you give a few examples so we can discuss them? Baranof (the author of the claim in question) was asked in another section for examples to support similar claims, but gave none. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SKYBLUE. If it is reliably sourced that he repeatedly made untrue claims of fact while purporting to report the news, then it is perfectly acceptable for our lede to claim he "repeatedly spread... ...fake news..." because "false claims made under the guise of reporting the news" equating to "fake news" is as obviously true as "the sky is blue". Even if the sources never call it "fake news". Hell, even if the sources never explicitly state that the claims were false, so long as no reasonable reading of the source could conclude that the claims were true, we can label it "fake news". If our job was to precisely parrot the sources, then every article would consist of nothing but quotes and section headers. Even then: this article would still make it abundantly clear to anyone without an axe to grind that Swann is a conspiracy theorist and a pusher of fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Fake news are not the same as false claims of fact. And no your statement about the "definition" of "fake news" is demonstrably wrong. Fake means something more than false; it means not only false, but fabricated and masquerading as the real thing. When we start labeling things as "fake news" without sources to back ourselves up, we're acting just like our esteemed president. Didn't you work with me on this stuff at Fake news and List of fake news websites? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sources, but "fake news" is a specific thing that I'm not sure that Swann has been doing. Swann has just been pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Unless RS say specifically that he's been pushing fake news, then it doesnt belong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you hadn't checked the sources then why did you put it in there? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Swann&diff=851332083&oldid=851331191 --74.195.159.155 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll not waste my time arguing with anyone who can't be bothered to read my comments, no matter how well we might otherwise get along. Either respond to what I actually said or fuck off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• oh look: https://www.qallout.com/debate/5200-wikipedias-claim-that-ben-swann-has-repeatedly-spread-conspiracy-theories-and-fake-news-is-false-and-violates-several-of-its-own-policies-as-well-as-basic-human-decency Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not even the only one from that same person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• I understand the point; but not sure of the fit. The article does not say that his sites/shows are fake news. The article says that he: “has repeatedly spread conspiracy theories and fake news in his work…” I fail to see the how the second part is not well documented. Seems pretty clear from the reliable sources that he has repeatedly spread conspiracy theories and fake news. I mean, how far can you parse language to pretend you aren’t doing what everyone can see you are doing? O3000 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but I'm personally not saying he hasn't spread fake news... I'm saying we have a sourcing problem. Our article says he has repeatedly spread fake news, yet we don't have a source (or sources) indicated for that. Without a source the material must be removed, regardless of whether it's true. If you can find a source, please put it in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times now: If a reasonable reading of our sources doesn't permit any conclusion except "he spreads fake news", then we write "he spreads fake news" because we're summarizing the sources. Summation is the reason we have human editors instead of machines that can pick quotes from sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants. Lesson 101. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable, especially BLP content. Please point me to a source that verifies the content. Handwaving about all of the sources in generally is most definitely not sufficient. You know this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources, Doctor. Then try to explain to me how you can conclude from those sources that he's not spreading fake news. I've explained this too many times already: A conclusion that is inescapable from the source is not OR. This is epistemology 101, high school level logic. Either he's spreading fake news, or his reporting is factually based. Which is it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We summarizes sources; we don't quote them. The lead summarizes this summarizing sentence in the lead of the Buzzfeed piece pretty darn well: "Swann is no stranger to airing pseudo-investigative reports of elaborate conspiracies on the local affiliate of TV’s most watched national network, at his former employer Russia Today, and on his own website, Truth in Media—which shares a contact phone number with a prominent member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a tax-exempt 527 political committee." Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Do the words "directly supports" mean anything to you? If so what do you think it means?--74.195.159.155 (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• how about this? I put a little distance, and this is directly supported by the refs there and throughout. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you trying so hard to associate him with "fake news"? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't you find a source that at least tries to refute Ben's reporting if you are going to make these sorts of claims in the lede? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• This bullshit whitewashing is growing disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing poorly sourced lies and disinformation is not "whitewashing" in any way, shape, or form. It's clear your bias is clouding your judgement. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you believe that the Democrats are operating a pedophilia ring in the basement of a Pizzeria that has no basement? O3000 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

O3000 has hit it on the nose. There are two possibilities here: Ben Swann is right, and is engaged in real journalism, or Ben Swann is a fake news outlet. There's no way he's not full of bullshit conspiracy theories and peddling fake news unless he's right about his conspiracy theories. And don't think your "make a POV pushing edit followed by a relatively unremarkable edit" tactic is fooling anyone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's not bias. Maybe it's ignorance. Ben Swann never mentioned a basement. The problem here is that you guys can't seem to differentiate between Ben's actual reporting and the conspiracy theories he touches on. They are wildly different. There's a reason both MPants and Baranof declined to support their accusations of lies and fake news with any actual examples. They only know of the lies and fake news they associate Ben Swann with, not any anything from Ben Swann himself. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

High quality sources are consistent in describing what he does as not "reporting" but rather propagating and regurgitating; this is what reporting on conspiracy theories looks like. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• MPants and Jytdog, no offense to both of you whose opinions I respect so highly, but I believe in this case you've both lost your WP marbles so to speak. You're sounding exactly like the rightwing kookpots, just on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Saying "read the [unspecified] sources!" on the talk page is not how our verifiability policy works. A statement is made in the article, and an inline citation is provided. True, an exception to this is WP:LEADCITE. However WP:LEADCITE doesn't exempt us from the bedrock verifiability policy. The article must allow readers to readily identify which specific sources verifies the "fake news" content. WP:LEADCITE doesn't allow us to substitute verifiability with truthiness. I'm quite surprised that you both have trouble grasping this. Perhaps we should run an RfC since this discussion has quickly devolved into nastiness. Please everyone, let's keep this on the up. Stay civil and AGF and all that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • My comments are here, here (two comments), and here and here In each case I have cited specific content and specific sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog I only see two links in those comments, and neither one is to a reliable source I AFAICT? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You wrote} of me, that I have been Saying "read the [unspecified sources!" I just showed you my diffs and I have said nothing like that. You can leave your statement unstruck bu9t I will not be replying to this further. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• • MPants and Jytdog, no offense to both of you whose opinions I respect so highly, but I believe in this case you've both lost your WP marbles so to speak. The fact that you extended AGF far past the logical point and decided to take a POV pushing IP's position on a content dispute does not say anything about my judgement or Jytdog's. Whose judgement does your chosen line of argumentation speak to? Hint, there's only one correct answer...

Saying "read the [unspecified] sources!" on the talk page is not how our verifiability policy works. Are you suggesting that I have to explicitly quote what section of each source supports given content every single time a POV pusher with little regard for our policies except where they think said policies can be used to their advantage, and whose clearly defined position on Swann's numerous falsehoods is "Swann is always right" comes along to claim it's not true? That's ridiculous. We've all done it when it's convenient to do so, but I got sick of this IP editor two weeks ago. The expectation that I have to continue to indulge their bad-faith argumentation is spurious.

The article must allow readers to readily identify which specific sources verifies the "fake news" content. Please explain how the eight subsections under "Views and claims" and the sourcing therein are in any way unclear as to what source verifies what claim.

I'm quite surprised that you both have trouble grasping this. I have no problem "grasping" anything. I know exactly what you're saying, and it's more of the litigious, overly literal bickering about a source's exact words with which I've vociferously disagreed with you in the past. I don't know why you think that 30-40 sources all saying "Swann promotes conspiracy theories and false claims ON HIS NEWS SHOW" (got to make sure you don't ignore that point this time like you've done before) can't be summarized in the lede as "Swann promotes conspiracy theories and fake news". I've asked you twice now for an alternative interpretation, and you can't give one. Indeed, you profess to not having one.

This isn't rocket science, it's simple boolean logic.

• Ben Swann engages in factual reporting.
• Ben Swann engages in fake news.

Those two possibilities are mutually exclusive, and no "middle ground" (like "Ben Swann engages in factual reporting but consistently adds spin to it) is supported by the sources, because they almost all state rather clearly that he either pushes conspiracy theories or makes false claims. Either Swann is right and our sources are wrong, or our sources are right and Swann is wrong. Which is it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We're having some weird disconnect and I believe it boils down to this: 30-40 sources all saying "Swann promotes conspiracy theories and false claims ON HIS NEWS SHOW" -- can you please provide a link here to one such source? Just one. It's all we need. For the "fake news" part. I'm fine with the "conspiracy theories" part. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman before we continue this, have you read what the content actually says; I changed it yesterday and noted that I did so above. My sense is that you are reacting to something that no longer exists. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I hadn't caught that. We have a new problem though, which is guilt by association (neutrality/coatrack/synth). Sure Swann did things that were also done by nefarious people. That doesn't merit inclusion however. It's like saying in Hillary Clinton, "Clinton called Trump a liar, aligning herself with Ted Cruz." Perfectly verifiable, but blatantly non-neutral and synth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You know what? If it will shut you up about this, here:

• The Daily Beast calls Swann a "Truther" right there in the headline, then goes on to say (as previously quoted by Jytdog) "Swann is no stranger to airing pseudo-investigative reports of elaborate conspiracies on the local affiliate of TV’s most watched national network, at his former employer Russia Today, and on his own website, Truth in Media—which shares a contact phone number with a prominent member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a tax-exempt 527 political committee."
• The New York Times calls him a "conspiracy-minded journalist" in the headline, the goes on to say he has "highlighted conspiracy theories about major news events" and then goes on to point out the false claims he's made. We don't need the NYT to state that these are false claims, by the way: we have plenty of reliable sources directly contradicting what Swann says already.
• Salon calls the statements repeated by Swann "false information" (oh yeah, they call him a truther, too. Check out that wikilink and try to find where the word means anything but "conspiracy theorist").
• Gizmodo calls him an "imbecile" in their headline before describing his segment on Pizzagate thusly: "Swann’s Reality Check–an irregular segment which is slotted into CBS46's news programming—aired a story last night at 11pm titled “Is Pizzagate ‘Fake News’ or Has It Just Not Been Officially Investigated?” Lets set aside the deeply butchered meaning of the phrase “fake news” for now and see what insights Ben has to offer as a responsible member of the press." They then describe him as "...launching into a discussion of “pizza” as a potential pedophile code word—a theory even arch conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has dismissed as coincidence." They then state "Of course, like so many of the die-hard Pizzagaters, Swann isn’t suggesting anything in particular is happening at Comet Ping Pong—merely that whatever is definitely not happening there merits investigation." before concluding by calling the segment "boneheaded and irresponsible."
• Mediaite accuses him of defending Pizzagate.
• HuffPo claims his show "Reignites Debunked Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory".

And it goes on. There's material either directly accusing Swann of pushing conspiracy theories, directly attributing false claims to him, or sarcastically pointing out that he's "Just Asking Questions".

Do we have a sourcing problem? Well, the media got so pissed that one of their own went off the deep end, they spent all their effort calling him names and writing sarcastically and didn't bother to soberly explain that the things Swann says are false. That's a problem if you're a fucking robot who can't engage in any thought whatsoever, and can only quote the sources instead of paraphrasing and summarizing them."

The summary of these sources is "Ben Swann is full of shit". The only reason we don't say that is because it doesn't sound encyclopedic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Salon calls the statements repeated by Swann "false information". The two quotes from the Salon article that mention "false information" are below. If you are basing this claim on the first quote then your claim is extremely misleading if not outright false.

Of course, there is always all kind of false information and confusion in the immediate hours after a tragedy, and several of the eyewitnesses he shows had actually heard reports of multiple shooters secondhand from friends or relatives at the scene.

In a third “Full Disclosure” episode on Sandy Hook, he does rightfully debunk a meme floating around “alternative media” that Connecticut State Police had threatened to arrest people posting what they consider to be false information about the Sandy Hook massacre on social media. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman I have nothing more to say here. You have made strong accusations here and at ANI, which you have not struck, based on a failure to read what is actually in the article. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by Jytdog

Jytdog, I don't agree with your recent edits. They bring in details about theories Swann has promoted that don't bear directly on Swann himself. This creates a non-neutral and coatracky impression. I also think the inclusion of the Russia think in the first sentence is grossly undue. I've repeatedly considered grouping material by the Russian connection, because there does appear to be a minor pattern there, but to call it out like that without a source looks like a BLP vio to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body. The thread throughout his career of alignment with Putin and Russian disinformation tactics is very clear and is discussed in the sources and i've added well sourced content about that throughout as well as the two sources right there after the first sentence, which both pull that thread out as well. Nothing UNDUE much less "grossly". Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The thread throughout his career of alignment with Putin and Russian disinformation tactics is very clear and is discussed in the sources. No it's not clear. I don't even know what you mean by "disinformation tactics", but from what I've seen, none of the sources refute Ben's reporting (or even attempt to) much less anything from Russia. The source you posted talks about a video that both Ben Swann and Sputnik happened to get ahold of and reported on. But again, no reporting is disproven so I don't know where you are getting the "disinformation" part. Sounds like OR to me and seems like you are working under a premise that anything contrary to mainstream media stories or anything from a Russian source is, by definition, "disinformation" or "fake news" whether it happens to be true or not. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog's edits. Details about Swann's reporting are details about Swann, as far as we're concerned. He's not notable for his good looks, after all. And this is getting old. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record, somebody you don't like modifying the article is not "edit warring". An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring. That's what you and Jytdog have been doing. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Third. It's called "background", as opposed to stenography. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just want to note that I have been editing per WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE which calls us to say what reality is, when dealing with FRINGE viewpoints. BLP of course remains at play; content about FRINGE viewpoints needs to be directed to the viewpoints held by the person, not the person per se. I will note that pursuant to an ANI filing the IP has been blocked with the rationale: "Disruptive editing - WP:FRINGE". What is happening, is what tends to happen. When we get FRINGE POV pushers, the editing community reacts by generating content clearly showing the FRINGE nature of the subject matter and WP:PARITY comes into play. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE isn't a substitute for WP:V (or WP:BLP). WP:FRINGE requires us to call out that Swann has pushed conspriacy theories, which is supported by the sources. It doesn't require us to say (in the first sentence no less!) that Swann's viewpoints are aligned with Russian disinformation efforts, which isn't supported by the sources. None of the cited sources say any of Swann's pieces are aligned with Russian disinformation efforts. This is your own personal analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not say anything like "WP:FRINGE is a substitute for WP:V (or WP:BLP)." Do not misrepresent me. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you said that. But you did cite WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE in response to WP:V concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly how you characterized my statement. I was not addressing anything about V. I have nothing more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Alignment with Russia and fake news providers

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 we include the bolded language in the first sentence:

Benjamin Swann (born July 17, 1978) is an American television news anchor, political commentator and journalist who has repeatedly spread conspiracy theories that are also spread by fake news providers; some of his pieces have been aligned with Russian disinformation efforts.

As well as the recently added supporting content, below the fold? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

The conspiracy theory had been spread by fake news websites and was extensively discredited by a wide array of organizations, including the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. ... The meme questioning the bombing of civilians during the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War on the basis of "civilians dancing in the streets" and calling the bombing "fake news" originated with Russian-backed media and was spread by fake news far right media in the US like Infowars; RT commentator Eva Bartlett's comments were widely disseminated. The tactic of "just asking questions" with regard to the bombing of Aleppo is a well-established part of Russian disinformation approaches to discredit not just legitimate journalism, but the reliability of any information. ... One of the first stories run by RT America when it launched, was called "911 Reasons Why 9/11 was (Probably) an Inside Job"; RT is part of Russian public diplomacy efforts and stories about conspiracy theories like those about 9/11 attract conspiracy-minded readers in the US, undermine the credibility of the US government and its domestic and foreign policies, and promote Russia as the world leader in checking US imperialism. References

Survey

• Exclude. This material appears to be non-neutral improper synthesis. None of the sources say Swann's pieces have aligned with fake news, and none of them say any of his pieces have aligned with Russian disinformation. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, none of the sources here say anything about Swann at all. Wikipedia isn't the place to conduct this sort of analysis, when no reliable source has identified these patterns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This is !vote:

a) misrepresents the content. The content does not say that Swann's pieces are "aligned" with fake news. The content says "that are also spread by fake news providers"

b) you are very mistaken; the two sources cited after the first sentence discuss Swann; one of them extensively.

this one says "The narrative that Aleppo bombings are “fake news” are taking traditional paths to viral success in America—polished, easily shareable Facebook videos that have received pickup by mainstream American outlets and wide-reach Facebook pages. What those outlets may not realize is that the material was made with Kremlin money.... Videos of American conspiracy outlets like InfoWars started to take hold.....The story even reached a segment on Atlanta’s CBS affiliate called “Reality Check with Ben Swann,” which has been shared over 61,500 times in the past six days. 'The reports from Aleppo Syria are incredible. The suffering. The humanitarian crisis,' said Swann. “But if that’s true, why are these people in Aleppo celebrating in the streets?” This mirrors a narrative within several stories written by Kremlin state media outfit RT in the past several weeks."

DrFleischman did you even read this source?

the other one discusses Swann more extensively and has already been quoted here twice, says "“Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news, but what does that even mean?” Swann asked on the 11 p.m. newscast of Atlanta’s CBS affiliate. He was referring to the debunked conspiracy theory spread by 4chan and InfoWars that Clinton campaign chief John Podesta is connected to a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza shop that has no basement. Swann is no stranger to airing pseudo-investigative reports of elaborate conspiracies on the local affiliate of TV’s most watched national network, at his former employer Russia Today, and on his own website, Truth in Media—which shares a contact phone number with a prominent member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a tax-exempt 527 political committee."

c) that is just those two sources. There is loads more of well sourced content in the body about this, as noted the discussion section below.

The lack of care in this RfC and this !vote is ... something. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Include Swann is explicitly described by the RSes as "questioning the official narrative" (usually with liberal useage of scare quotes) and advancing consporacy theories, and is explicitly linked to RT and compared to Russian propaganda. The bolded portion is an almost verbatim quote from this source, contrary to the assertions above me.

I'd also like to point out that Dr. Fleischmann is, by putting up this RfC, continuing a series of arguments that has yet to gain any consensus, on behalf of a POV pushing IP who has been blocked multiple times for disrupting this page. Literally every argument put forth against this comment has been directly addressed, Jytdog and I have bent over backwards to explain and provide evidence, and every single time the response has been to simply move to another line of argumentation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Can we please focus on content not conduct? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There is actually no "dispute". We have you and the IP raising hand-waving objections, apparently not even reading the content or the sources, and "objecting". If there is some specific edit that you don't think is policy compliant, I would be happy to discuss it. But I cannot read for you. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If you keep going with this we're going to end up on the admin boards. Please let the RfC run its course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - I don't really know much about this character and his pieces may well be aligned with fake news or Russia. That said, the way this line is injected into the lede sentence is a little wacky. To have something in the lede sentence like that really indicates that it's what a subject is primarily notable for. Is Swann really primarily notable for his alignment with Russia and fake news? This feels like WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Is Swann really primarily notable for his alignment with Russia and fake news? Yes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: - I just glanced at 5 randomly pulled RS's about the guy. 2 of 5 mentioned him in relation to what seemed to be conspiracy theories. None of them mentioned the Russia angle. I think it's fine to mention the "conspiracy theory" element early in the lead paragraph, but probably not in the lede sentence. NickCT (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You might want to check those refs further, and check some more. The Russia angle is mentioned several times, and it was his segment on Pizzagate that brought him the attention that made him notable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: - I don't dispute that the Russia angle has been mentioned. What I'm trying to assess is the subject's primary notability (i.e. what the subject is MOST notable for). It looks like he's somewhat notable for conspiracy theories...

Anyways, I don't think we disagree on content, just on WP:WEIGHT. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, first let me beg your attention for long enough to read a small wall of text. I understand where you're coming from, and I want to make it clear where I'm coming from.

The issue I'm seeing is that this RfC is framed so as to suggest that we either refer to the Russian angle or we ignore it, and -at least in the lede- pretend that he's notable just for being a reporter. Well, he's not. He only started getting significant coverage when he started "questioning the official narrative" around Pizzagate; one of the most laughably wrong and easily debunked conspiracy theories out there.

All of the sources used in the Malasian Air, Syrian and Russia-US relations section mention the similarities between his "reporting" and Russian propaganda. It's also mentioned in some of the other sources.

So my point is that a very large portion of RSes have pointed out that his "reporting" looks like Russian propaganda. Given that Russian propaganda includes pushing Pizzagate (see [3], [4] and [5]), I don't see how there's a good argument that it doesn't deserve to be noted right off the bat. It was his pushing the same stories as known Russian propagandists that made him notable in the first place. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What made him notable "in the first place" (and sadly not mentioned anywhere in the article) was him being one of the first and one of the few (perhaps the only) to question Barak Obama on his assassination program as noted by The Atlantic, Huffington Post, and New American among others, not for pushing "Russian propaganda" --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: - Again, I don't really disagree w/ a lot of what you're saying. But I think you may be synthesizing associations which may be unfair or constitute original research.

For instance, is the Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory "Russian Propaganda"? Or is Pizzagate a conspiracy theory that Russian Propagandists, among many others, happened to push, b/c Russian propagandists generally push conspiracy theories? Can you find a source that directly calls Pizzagate "Russian Propaganda"? The ones you provided simply note an association between Rusky propagandists and Pizzagate.

Also, even if you have one source that says "PizzaGate is Russian Propaganda" and another that says "Swann promoted Pizzagate", it's a little synthetic to combine the two and say "Swann promoted Russian propaganda". NickCT (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For instance, is the Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory "Russian Propaganda"? Or is Pizzagate a conspiracy theory that Russian Propagandists, among many others, happened to push, b/c Russian propagandists generally push conspiracy theories? First off, let me point out that Russian propaganda efforts were focused on pro-Trump/anti-Hillary CSes. Since they were exercising some discretion there, I don't see that this distinction makes a difference. Also, as evidenced by the sources used in this article, Swann also pushed many conspiracy theories that had nothing to do with American politics, culture or even general interest in the US.

Also, even if you have one source that says "PizzaGate is Russian Propaganda" and another that says "Swann promoted Pizzagate", it's a little synthetic to combine the two and say "Swann promoted Russian propaganda". That's not at all what's happening here. This source describes Swann's reporting on Aleppo and then says "This mirrors a narrative within several stories written by Kremlin state media outfit RT in the past several weeks." And this source outlines many conspiracy theories he spread while openly working for a Russian state-run media. There's no synthesis here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: - I think the distinction is important, b/c your inference and the inference in the lead is that somehow Swann and Russian propaganda are directly linked. The distinction I was trying to make above was between a direct link (e.g. A leads directly to B, or Russian Propaganda created PizzaGate) versus a mere association (e.g. Russian propagandist and PizzaGate are usually found in the same place).

And yes, his reporting has "mirrored" a lot of the same stories the Ruskies may be pushing. Yes, you have one great source identifying a single incident where he was acting directly as a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda. No he doesn't seem primarily notable for spouting Russian propaganda. NickCT (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're not going to read my comments or the sources I've given you, you're not going to be taken seriously. Go read the sources; they do not say what you think they say. To say this was a single incident when the second source alone mentions Pizzagate, the Syrian civil war, The Malaysian Air crash, the Aurora theater shooting, the Clinton campaign, the DNC email hacking and ISIS is incredibly dishonest. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: - I'm reading the sources. I'm just reading them better than you.

Your second source only talks about his reporting on the Malayian Air crash for RT. That's a pretty clear single example of a direct link between Swann and Russian propaganda. The source does also discuss PizzaGate, but not in relation to any Russia angle.

Unless you've got something more convincing, Swann seems to be primarily a reporter. Secondarily a conspiracy nutter. And only very slightly, a mouthpiece for the Russian state. NickCT (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh bullshit. It's not called "reading better" when you cherry pick out only phrases that support your interpretation. The article claims he's "no stranger" to conspiracy theories espoused both on his show and at RT, then it starts listing conspiracy theories. The fact that they repeat the RT connection for the most russia-est CS doesn't mean they haven't introduced the rest in the context of Russia. And of course now, you're ignoring the first link again. And the ~30 others that talk about his promotion of pro-russian CSes which I've directed you to, and you haven't bothered to read. You claim he's notable for being a reporter first and foremost, yet you've yet to highlight a single source that doesn't mention Russian propaganda or conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, there's one one single source used in the entire article that doesn't mention conspiracy theories or Russian propaganda. One. As I've said before: if you can't engage with some integrity, you're not going to be taken seriously. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 11:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: - I told you when we started this bud that I'd pulled 5 random pieces and only 2 mentioned conspiracy theories. Don't believe me? Here (12345) they are! I did this at random (i.e. not cherry picked).

Look, again, I don't think we're really disagreeing that much here. This is just a WP:WEIGHT and a causation versus association argument. Given how many WP:BLP fascists are out there, it's sorta wise to stick as close to the source as possible and not draw conclusions which aren't explicit in sources.

re "espoused both on his show and at RT, then it starts listing conspiracy theories" - Sure. But I think it specifically says the PizzaGate thing he did was on CBS, not RT. So again, you have situation where Swann is pushing a conspiracy theory that Russian propagandist also happen to push. But that's not enough to say "Swann pushes Russian propaganda". NickCT (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Look, this is a discussion about the lede, and instead of going through the sources used in the body as I have asked you to do at least three times now, you're hunting down additional sources that support your argument. I want the lede to reflect the body and sourcing, you want to win the argument. There's nothing more to be said here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: - "you're huntind down" - Do you know what "at random" means? Ever heard of "random sampling"? I don't want to win anything. I just want to ask the question "What's the guy primarily known for?".

If think if you step back for a second you may recognize that you've formed opinions that you're having difficulty re-examining. Remember, I came here naive. NickCT (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Uh huh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Include in some form, possibly changing 'aligned' to 'mirrored' if we want to be excessively cautious or moving it elsewhere in the lead. The text in question seems to summarize this line from the relevant source: This mirrors a narrative within several stories written by Kremlin state media outfit RT in the past several weeks. There's some room for rewording, but hard oppose to taking it out entirely - the key points that his reports have been aligned with Russian disinformation efforts belongs in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• This is prematurely launched and not thoughtful.

User:DrFleischman you rushed directly from crying "BLP" about the "fake news" business, based on a version of the page that no longer existed (making accusations here and at ANI) and then acknowledging that you were not dealing with the changes that had been made to that exact section.... then you immediately shifted ground to this.

There has been little to no discussion of these concerns yet, from any editor acting in a calm manner, considering what sourced content in the body actually says, and then considering whether the lead is appropriately summarizing the body.

In the "extended content" section above much of the relevant content is not even cited. DrFleischman please slow down and look at what the following sections actually say:

• Syria conflict and ISIL
• September 11 attacks
• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
• Russia–United States relations
• Alleged Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's e-mails

This really should be pulled. Too hasty, incomplete. Please pull this before taking up community time with it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not hiding anything from newcomers, I was just identifying the content I objected to. And I'm not pulling the RfC for being too hasty. You said, "I have nothing more to say here." I took that to understand that further discussion would be unproductive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you were hiding anything. I said that by presenting only some of the content I recently added and that the lead is summarizing, you have presented a skewed RfC. My guess is that you have not even read the whole article recently. This is premature not only from a community perspective, but on your part. It is also for what its worth very far from neutral. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Lol. I didn't say you said I was hiding anything. Let's keep this at user talk. I doubt newcomers want to read about accusations about accusations about accusations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

btw. When I said "here" I meant those particular threads. When people misrepresent me I give them a chance to walk away from that, and if they won't, I walk away. I will not have a conversation on the basis of "does my mom know I beat my wife".

If you want to laugh, that is your deal. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog, can you please move your extended response to my !vote down to this "Extended discussion" subsection? It's multiple times longer than my !vote. I'd be happy to discuss if you moved it here. The Putin TV source is a step in the right direction, we just need to cite it appropriately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • No. And this edit -- the citation was perfect already, it was "cited appropriately". Our difference is how to summarize it. Your edit did not summarize the piece, which is 100% focused on how the stories about the bombing were spun by Russia and uses Swann as example of that spin being picked up and propagated by fake news cites and - like them -- by Swann. You removed context which is essential for understanding what Swann was doing. It fails NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I focused our content on the parts that were about Swann, since this is a Swann's biography, not an expose on violence in Aleppo or Russian propaganda. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct, this is a biography about Swann that focuses on his work. This piece uses his story about Aleppo as an example of Russian disinformation being propagated in the US. The context is essential for helping the reader understand that. There may have been a little too much detail but your edit went too far. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Still an issue?

Is this still an issue after I moved over the revised article following the Line-by-line review?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Seeing how the the question asked is no longer relevant, as the text in the first sentence is no longer there, I am boldly closing this in my next edit. Anybody who objects can revert. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 30 July 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.

Line-by-line review

As discussed on ANI, which was just closed, I will go ahead and to a line-by-line review. I will start it as a subpage User:CaroleHenson/Ben Swann/July 2018 review and work top-down. My approach is to generally go through the article myself ... and then go back through the article talk page to see if there are some additional changes. Then, rewrite the intro/lede.

I will summarize any key variances in approach or wording on User talk:CaroleHenson/Ben Swann/July 2018 review to explain my approach/reasoning. Feel free to post questions there. Sound like a plan?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

May I offer you a word of advice? Start with the body. Do that, and then when you're done, do the lede. That way, you'll have already gone over all the references in the body, and can simply check the lede against the body itself. It'll save you some time, and it's how articles really should be written, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MjolnirPants, as does Jytdog (per ANI). The core of the dispute is whether content in the lead section is improper synth or an appropriate summarization of the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Updated links above - the pages were moved.

I don't know how I missed this, but I did. I already started on the article from the top-down, but the end result will be the same.

There were other issues (see this) than the summarization of the lede, and I started a section on the talk page with notes about what would be good to add. See this

Does anyone have an opinion about whether vaccines/autism should be covered? See this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be included, though I'm wondering if the "views and claims" section should have the subsections removed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, MjolnirPants, if I continue to be a minority voice on this, I'll add it back, but round it out a bit more. Regarding views and claims, I have wondered about: 1) integrating views and claims into careers because it would be a little clearer what happened when, 2) putting the info in a table, or 3) just leaving it alone. Putting it in a table with heading for topic, claim, prevalent thought could be seen as not being NPOV - but I think it might make the info clearer... and help round out the info a bit. I don't have a strong opinion, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I took a stab at putting the info into a table (here), and it became clearer where areas need to be rounded out. See what you think.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the whole thing would work best as prose. Just use paragraphs to separate them, and unless there are any objections, I would change the section name to "controversial views and claim", then give it a brief intro based on this source. I can write up an example if you're not sure exactly what I mean. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's fine, MjolnirPants. It helped to identify areas that needed info. I finished those additions and I'll put it back to prose right now. As an FYI, I added back vaccines/autism.

Yes, if you'd like to work on an intro, that would be lovely. It sounds like you have an idea of what you'd like to add.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: See this diff for what I meant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the 1) exclusion of headings and 2) change from table to prose - that's already done here. Or, am I missing another point, MjolnirPants?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I also added an introductory sentence, refactored some of the text to make it flow better, and removed one statement "which is itself fake news" that wasn't very encyclopedic, but yes, for the most part what you've done is what I meant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• FYI I might have very limited bandwidth for the next week to 10 days. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done I did a scan for copy edits, and caught what I saw off-the-bat (I'll see more I'm sure after a day or two). Otherise, I am done.

It is not going to be as strident as some would like, but I think it is encyclopedic and told from a neutral point of view. I have also added some more information about the prevailing conclusions regarding conspiracy theories, where they were missing.

I have a significant problem with using articles about Russian propaganda in the section about Swann's viewpoints - unless the articles mention Swann. Making the connection to Swann, in my opinion is original research and not a neutral point of view. Besides, the facts speak for themselves and I think we can rely on many readers to come of some of these conclusions... and the ones that don't wouldn't likely come to that conclusion anyway. Trying to skew the information is more likely to lose people.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not I'm okay with removing them depends on how well one can briefly summarize the CSes themselves in this article. If the sources that mention Swann include good enough summaries, then just source to those. You might be able to trim the summaries a bit. But I would point out that inescapable conclusions are not synth. If we have a source that says "A is an example of B" and another source that says "B is an example of C" then, if doing so makes sense, we can cite both of those to say "A is an example of C", because there's literally no way for that statement to be inaccurate. See WP:SYNTHNOT. To bring that back to this article: If reliable sources state "Conspiracy theory X is pushed by Russian propaganda", different sources state "Ben Swann pushes Russian propaganda" and different sources states "Conspiracy theory X is pushed by Ben Swann", then we can say "Ben Swann pushes conspiracy theory X, which is also pushed by Russian propaganda" because there's literally no way for that connection not to be true. Consider that it would be acceptable for us to summarize each of those statements in a different sentence, juxtaposed next to each other. That would produce the same exact claim of fact, but only in a much less encyclopedic way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear about what I am talking about, it's items 5 and 6 from Edit comments and the review talk page. Those sources don't mention Swann at all. There's plenty of reference to Russian misinformation in the article, I see no reason to add content that doesn't mention Swann. Why do that? Is the point to write an encyclopedic article, or to make Swann look at bad as possible, in as many ways as possible? Sorry, but I'm frustrated and confused by trying to use sources that don't mention him to tie him unnecessarily to Russian misinformation.

What remains in the article is: 1) He worked for RT, 2) In several cases his line of argument mirrors that of Russian misinformation, 3) He seems to have a unusual/peculiar opinion of Putin, and 4) He was willing to lose his television career over his conspiracy theories. That doesn't look that great to me. And, it doesn't take much for the reader to surmise that the other theories are also similar to Russian misinformation campaigns. Trying to make that leap for the reader, though, where it's not reported is OR and SYNTH. It just is.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless I hear any objections, I'll copy over the revised article in a couple of hours. So far, the only outstanding item at all is the addition of Russian misinformation content and sources that don't mention Swann.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing the bit about the "911 reasons why 9/11 was an inside job", and the source that supports it. While Swann is associated with 9/11 conspiracy theories, he's not associated with that particular RT story in the sources that I'm aware of. Unless such a link can be established with sources, then yes, I agree that it's pointless for us to talk about it here.

The source about Malaysian air is referring to conspiracy theories about that more generally so it's less obviously inappropriate. However, I'm okay with removing that source if we can describe such theories based on the other sources (which I believe to be the case with the source I suggested to use for the intro to the section, in my comment above).

Finally, I don't believe we should be leaving the reader to surmise anything on their own as a general principle. That's called "argument by implication" and while it's often a valuable technique in rhetoric, we shouldn't be engaged in rhetoric here. However, I don't think that anything needs to be stressed beyond it's presentation in the RSes, though this is neither OR nor SYNTH. As I said above: If it's an inescapable conclusion, it's not synth. For example, if an RS says "Swann is an imbecile" (which one of our sources actually does), we are perfectly free to use our knowledge of the context and meaning of that phrase to say that the source is "critical" of Swann. We don't need to find "This is my criticism of Swann:" or "I am criticizing Swann" in the source for that. Because if a source is referring to Swann as an imbecile, it is an inescapable conclusion that the source is critical of Swann. So instead of quoting the source by writing "Swann is an imbecile", or re-writing the source by saying "Swann is possessed of an intellect far weaker than is considered typical for individuals in his profession," we simply write "So and so was critical of Swann, saying..." It's why we need human editors: to tease out the meaning of sources, be it the meaning of a particular sentence, or the overall point of the piece, either of which may never be explicitly stated because explicitly stating them would undermine the prosaic and entertainment value of the source itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

From your comments, I am trying to net-net what you think needs to be done to the revised article at User:CaroleHenson/Ben Swann/July 2018 review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I went off on a little tangent at the end there, so my fault. I'm reading that version now, and I'll make a few edits to it. I'll comment here again when I'm done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some changes. Mostly it was removing editorializing commentary (such as him being "an adept user of social media"), and adding a brief introductory sentence to the "Controversial views and claims" section. All in all, your re-write looked very good and I'm quite happy with it. The removal of content discussed here was done well, and it reads quite nicely. I fully endorse your version. Not sure if anyone else would have a problem with it, but if they do, they can make their views known here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Copied over article revision from User:CaroleHenson/Ben Swann/July 2018 review to Ben Swann.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks User:CaroleHenson. That was very, very generous of you. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• You're welcome. My pleasure!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)