Talk:InfoWars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

If this article does not violate the (NPOV) policy, then the policy is futile.

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.

---

This entire article is written in what appears to be a violation of the (NPOV) policy. It appears to be exclusively written as a criticism of InfoWars, and includes direct personal accusations and criticism. Some sources themselves are opinion pieces of similar viewpoint. It is passionate and focused, but not impartial, nor balanced. There is some factual content, but it is overwhelmingly opinion, posed as unimpeachable. It would be very helpful to have an actual InfoWars viewpoint review, and an independent arbiter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymac60 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV means that we neutrally summarize reliable sources, not that we create artificial balance between truths and falsehood. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

InfoWars is a right American conspiracy theory and news website owned by Alex Jones.[14] It was founded in 1999, and operates under Free Speech Systems LLC.[15] In my opinion this should be the new entry i know that so called “reliable” news sources said that its fake news, far right etc... but me like a lot of people would like Wikipedia not influenced by left wing news sources like cnn i would like Wikipedia to stand its ground and not be influenced by other news sites. Plus the same can be said about cnn and other news sources. Probably going to get denied but please people at wiki stand your ground and show the media you are truly not biased. All the news sources you listed are left wing and New York Times is now left wing to I would love for Wikipedia to say no to all the main stream media and that they will not crave in there demands (Sorry for spelling i am italian) Mattiaoki (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @Mattiaoki: The citations in the lede section do not merely consist of "CNN" (which is not "left-wing" to anyone who knows a damn thing about politics) but also The Independent (which is pro-market and so not left-wing), Politico (which leans to right-wing), the National Review (which is openly right-wing), The Washington Times (which is also right-wing), as well as news sources that are not explicitly political (did you know those exist?) and even academic publishers.

Wikipedia is based on reality-based professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources. If you're scared of mainstream media, you have the wrong site. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is strong...

I've noticed a lot of personal edits on this page that violates wikipedia's own policies of being 'neutral' when editing/writing an article. Of course controversies of the subject can be highlighted like any other page, but to go so far as to accuse them of being 'fake news' and 'right-wing' is extremely biased on the editors part, let alone unprofessional and very childish when they have to lock the edit tool to protect their version. We obviously live in a 'free' society where emotions override our ability to be more open-minded towards certain groups. If InfoWars is fake and wrong then let them run themselves to the ground, don't suppress their articles and fill it with personal opinions because you do yourselves no favor and only proving them right about how crooked things really are. If you have no agenda then enable this article for edit and make it neutral like everything on this site should be.

(No doubt this discussion will be closed immediately to confirm everyone's suspicions...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syke2230 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2020

Please change

Staff The following table lists InfoWars main staff members.[43]

Infowars staff Name Role Alex Jones Publisher & Director Paul Joseph Watson Editor & Staff Writer Steve Watson, Adan Salazar, Kit Daniels, Mikael Thalen, Jamie White Associate Editor & Staff Writer Anthony Gucciardi Contributing Writer Rob Dew Nightly News Director David Knight, Jakari Jackson, Lee Ann McAdoo, Joe Biggs, Millie Weaver, Owen Shroyer Reporter Jon Bowne, Clifford Cunningham, Dan Lyman Correspondent Jerome Corsi Author & Correspondent (former)[39] Shepard Ambellas, Lionel, Jon Rappoport Contributors

To:

Staff The following table lists InfoWars main staff members.

ALEX JONES Publisher & Director

PAUL JOSEPH WATSON Editor, Staff Writer

STEVE WATSON Associate Editor, Staff Writer

ADAN SALAZAR Associate Editor, Staff Writer

KIT DANIELS Associate Editor, Staff Writer

ROB DEW Nightly News Director

DAVID KNIGHT Reporter

LEE ANN MCADOO Reporter

JON BOWNE Correspondent

MILLIE WEAVER Reporter

JAMIE WHITE Associate Editor, Staff Writer

OWEN SHROYER Reporter

DAN LYMAN Correspondent

JON RAPPOPORT Contributor

SHEPARD AMBELLAS Contributor

GREG REESE Contributor

Redding Taylor (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on an obfuscated link to a globally blacklisted URL shortener, pointing to a TripAdvisor page? I don't think so, thanks. Guy (help!) 23:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm not user where the shortened link to TripAdvisor comes in, I see a link to the infowars site. That's not the reason to leave it out.

The reason to leave it out is that it is trivial detail. We do not list every person associated with every subject. We don't list all of the section editors, reporters, columnists, photographers, etc. for The New York Times. We don't list the gaffer, sound mixer, colorist, caterer, etc. for the latest film. It's trivial info. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal from App Store by google

https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-28-infowars-google-play.html is surely worth noting in this article. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess "wait too long to do the right thing" is sorta compatible with the broadest interpretation of "Don't be evil" possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that should be mentioned. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

replace Type of site Politics News and opinion

with

Type of site Far right politics Fake news and opinion Conspiracy theories Tsla1337 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: So that content of the infobox is closer to the lede of the article, I've added "Fake news". I have also arranged them in alphabetical order. Any additional proposal should probably have WP:CONSENSUS before this request is re-opened. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect

There are no slave colonies on Mars. O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
InfoWars is not necessarily fake news. This page has clearly been taken over by liberals. 13wikapediauser (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Do you have an RS (I shall ignore the ad hominme) any RS that dispute its not a fake new site?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC) I think that if you claim a website "fake news site" you should provide proofs it was publishing fake NEWS. It is more important than statements made by any media sources, even if they are called "reliable", which is clearly a biased statement. I'm not seeing any evidences of such activity by InfoWars, I know in fact that it is publishing conspiracy theories, which is basically just opinions. Opinions can not be considered as "fake". What I'm seeing here is that this article is politically biased by left.

Staff list

It is unusual for an article about a media website to contain a list of staff members, as this article does in the "InfoWars § Others" section. This section should be removed as undue weight, as it lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Removed in Special:Diff/955802179. — Newslinger talk 22:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Non-biased"

Imagine leaving this entry untouched, unedited for a couple of years and then coming back to it after things have calmed down. Could you really say that multiple editors' intents and the tone of the entry is fully without bias? Of course you can't. And that's the problem with Wikipedia as a whole. Especially when it comes to anything related to politics and double-so if said subject is anywhere near the 'right'. People get locked out from editing because they're not part of the in group who makes the "acceptable" edits on this so-called freedom-oriented platform. That is, unless i'm getting it wrong about what Wikipedia is about at its core? — ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to have gotten it wrong about what Wikipedia is about at its core. Wikipedia is not about "freedom." Wikipedia is expressly, by policy, not a free-speech platform. Wikipedia is a project to build a free-content encyclopedia with a neutral point of view based upon reliable sources. The depiction of InfoWars in this article is based upon what reliable sources say about InfoWars. Your apparent personal disagreement with those reliable sources is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your cookie cutter commentary is completely walking around the clear issues with this article. This article is far from neutral, regardless of how many non-neutral "reliable sources" back up said bias. If there's a lack the depth of insight to understand that then I don't know what to tell anyone. It's not a personal disagreement when I can reach out to any non-invested and non-political individual, show them this article and they can spot the bias from a mile away. The problem is those who are conveniently ignorant of the glaring bias. The neutrality of this article is easily disproved by looking up the biases of the linked "sources". There's a reason why people call Wikipedia an unreliable source for nearly any and every subject. Essentially, it's an encyclopedia for the intellectually lazy. You all can have your playground, your echo-chamber. — ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, a neutral point of view is reached by balancing viewpoints published in reliable sources. If there are reliable sources about InfoWars which have viewpoints you believe are not fairly represented here, please feel free to present them here, or add them to the article. If you need help figuring out what is or isn't a reliable source, the guideline on identifying reliable sources can help. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

ChonokisFigueroa, no, the problem is that you don't understand what neutral means. Neutrality is not the average between bullshit and critique of that bullshit. Neutrality is describing the bullshit as accurately as possible without ever losing sight of the fact that it is bullshit.

Alex Jones is currently Schroedinger's bullshitter: simultaneously claiming that the bullshit is real on-air, and asserting in court that it's all an act, because of the obvious insanity of the bullshit. Only one of these can be true.

I think if we came back in ten years the reaction would be "wow, people actually took this bullshit seriously?" Guy (help!) 10:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• @ChonokisFigueroa: Which specific parts would you like to see fixed and how? Ian.thomson ([[User talk:Ia

We comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2020

the first line in describing who/what infowars is, suggesting it is “conspiracy theory” and “fake news” is bias, unfounded, and discrimination. Please remove those two errors suggesting conspiracy theory and fake news and replace with the following terms; news and audio/video shows. Thank you. 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:19 (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The descriptors are well-sourced. — Newslinger talk 09:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

actually not a single one of the linked sources call it "fake news website", i just manually checked them. Urgal (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

talking about those sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=962864420#cite_note-14 Urgal (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Urgal, check the archives of this talk page. Fake news has consensus. Guy (help!) 09:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

yeah well it doesnt really matter, as its still unsourced. having spreaded fake news in the past ≠ being a 'fake news website' Urgal (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Urgal, See the FAQ above. Any change requires consensus here. Note that this article is also covered by discretionary sanctions. Guy (help!) 09:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

so its probably the right thing to add a "citation needed" tag for now? Urgal (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've cited four reliable sources, and am in the process of adding more. — Newslinger talk 09:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

ok yeah looks good. Urgal (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the dead link i removed; it showed a "denied access" for me. but it just might be because its country locked or something. Urgal (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Urgal, a dead link is not the same thing as denied access. Since I'm in the UK, I'm frequently denied access to US sources - don't remove them just because you can't read them. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

ok yeah sry, it just looked like a typical dead link at first, only noticed the 'denied access' the second time i checked Urgal (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I had no idea that local news stations like CBS19 deny access to certain geographical areas. Since the CBS19 article was a republication of an article from USA Today (RSP entry), I've replaced the CBS19 citation with a USA Today citation. Let me know if any other sources are inaccessible, and I'll add archive links where possible. — Newslinger talk 10:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, just so you know, I wasn't able to view the CBS19 article from the UK, but the USA Today one works for me. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That must be very inconvenient. Now that I'm aware of the problem, I'll consider using InternetArchiveBot to address the issue on articles that I focus on. Ideally, we should have a list of sites with geographical restrictions to ensure that editors make archive links available for citations of these sites. If InternetArchiveBot could automatically add archive links for such sites, that would be even better. ​— Newslinger talk 11:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, sounds like a good idea. Feel free to ping me if you ever want me to check on viewability of a source from this side of the pond. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, annoying, isn't it? IU have to use a VPN to check these things, and a lot of regional US newspapers as well. Guy (help!) 11:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Why no List of Debunked Fake News Articles?

If we want to clearly demonstrate InfoWars is fake news and consists of entirely fabricated material there should be a list of links to these fabricated articles (or at least a significant number of them) and also to reliable sources demonstrating their specific claims to be fake: then there would be no more room for controversy. All their articles are available online or archived so failing to do this seems like a missed opportunity to prove the truth, and leads to accusations of name-calling and white-washing.

All there appear to be at the moment are links to other sources claiming that it's fake news, which is a circular argument proving nothing. Why miss the opportunity to prove the case beyond doubt when it should be so easily done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.136.194 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a summary in InfoWars § Promotion of conspiracy theories and fake news. There are too many articles to list individually, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Additionally, InfoWars is on the spam blacklist, so we would not link to InfoWars directly, but rather to reliable sources that cover InfoWars. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Because we do not say entirely fabricated.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Were someone to sort through the articles on InfoWars and separate them into those that are fake news and those that are not, you'd have an easier time listing the ones that are not. It isn't that they're simply mistaken on occasion, it's that they are built upon an ideology that is incompatible with a connection to reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So all we have to show that InfoWars is a fake news site from the relevant paragraph (distinct from the sections on conspiracy theories) is one link to CBS (a media-biz competitor) saying its owner "has alleged the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax" (which as stated is a conspiracy theory, not fake news, and no link is given to the article this claim comes from), a pay-walled Telegraph article that appears to be about Jones' personal life, and an Independent article from three years ago saying that they'd been investigated by the FBI for spreading Russian fake news? That's not enough to convince anyone. In fact, that the FBI investigation has not resulted in charges suggests they were cleared of suspicion (should this be added, or the sentence removed - what was the outcome of the investigation?) Surely there must be better information out there from multiple reliable sources detailing the false claims of fact that InfoWars has made over the years? At least one concrete, egregious example...

After googling "Infowars fake news examples" there's surprisingly little to go on. The best example I could find was this (from Mashable, which may not be reliable) with some variably absurd headlines but it doesn't link to the articles so there's not much way to evaluate exactly what false claims are being made:

https://mashable.com/article/facebook-infowars/

There's also this about a specific false claim (from the InfoWars store, not the news website) being made about "colloidal silver" being able to "[kill] the whole SARS-corona family at point-blank range" which is "misleading" according to the FDA (HuffPo reliable?):

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-jones-toothpaste-coronavirus_n_5e694142c5b6bd8156f0ce82?guccounter=1

The actual FDA warning letter is here, which details the specific claims very clearly:

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/free-speech-systems-llc-dba-infowarscom-605802-04092020

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver

But surely we can do better with actual examples of clearly demonstrable fake news articles, as opposed to unfounded pharmaceutical claims from their store, or conspiracy theories? Even just added to this talk page for evaluation purposes it would be useful to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.136.194 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and fake news are not mutually exclusive. The most disreputable conspiracy theories, including the ones InfoWars has published, are frequently labeled as fake news. In addition to the Promotion of conspiracy theories and fake news section, the article also has the Claims of false flag school shootings and Chobani retraction sections. Wikipedia does not accept original research, but if you locate more reliable source coverage of InfoWars that would be suitable for this article, feel free to introduce it so that the article could be expanded. As I mentioned before, InfoWars (RSP entry) is on the spam blacklist due to persistent abuse, and will not be directly cited for the purpose of providing examples. It is not our job to "demonstrate" anything in Wikipedia articles; this article is a reflection of reliable sources, not a proof or dissertation. — Newslinger talk 05:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not, will not and should not attempt to "prove" anything other than that independent reliable sources say something. Wikipedia does not show that the Earth is spherical, it shows that independent reliable sources say it is. Wikipedia does not show that HIV causes AIDS, NASA landed astronauts on the Moon, the world is not run by reptilian aliens or anything else. Wikipedia merely shows what independent reliable sources say about those things.

Independent reliable sources say Infowars is a fake news site. So, Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports that Infowars is a fake news site. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Then the sources supporting that paragraph need to be strengthened, because as they are currently an objective observer would find them questionable. Given that CBS is one of the U.S. mass-media companies InfoWars directly attacks (rightly or wrongly) and is losing share in a shrinking market to alternative media like InfoWars (again, justifiably or otherwise) as they struggle for survival, its independence, reliability and absence of bias are seriously in question on this topic. Given that they do not themselves provide evidence to support their claim, a reasonable person would suggest that their claim is merely an opinion and does not pass the test of objectivity.

If we allow one entity to say what it likes about a competitor (especially a less powerful competitor) and have it enthusiastically stated as fact on Wikipedia, all without any evidence having been demonstrated, then the concepts of independence and reliability of sources need to be re-examined and overhauled, particularly as the idea of ethics in journalism becomes increasingly tested in the mainstream as well as the fringe.

Of course, if a competitor can demonstrate a claim to be factual rather than opinion, any question of bias is completely irrelevant. Surely such examples can be found? The (bizarre) Chobani incident is good, but a retraction was issued, something legitimate news sources do all the time: I tried to find out the outcome of the Sandy Hook lawsuit (legally proven defamation being a good, conclusive example of fake news) but it appears no conclusion has been reached and reports of damages are actually fines for procedural annoyances (link below).

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200326/alex-jones-must-pay-legal-fees-for-rsquofrivolousrsquo-sandy-hook-appeal

Can anyone help out with more well-founded sources, demonstrating (with direct quotes of reported speech, screenshots, etc., not merely general accusations) un-retracted promotion of demonstrated-false claims of fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.136.194 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The argument that CBS should be excluded from the article because InfoWars has criticized it is entirely unconvincing. A subject does not get to pick and choose the sources cited in the Wikipedia article about the subject by criticizing the sources it doesn't like. InfoWars is not considered a reliable source, and its opinions carry no weight on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the issue again; with all due respect you appear to misunderstand the concern. The problem is provision of evidence, or absence thereof, in an opinion piece about a market-share competitor. If a talking head on CNN calls Fox News "a den of vipers" in passing do you immediately rush out and change the Fox News article lede to read "Fox news is a cable news channel and den of vipers"? One assumes not. Again for clarity: if Wikipedia policy allows a commercial competitor to state opinions without evidence and have them repeated on Wikipedia as facts, the system is naive to the extent of being broken - regardless of whether you or I think the opinion is correct. Anyway, the point in question is that it's not convincing to the reader! A single-sentence comment from a BuzzFeed-style listicle? Absurd. It's very odd to receive pushback on strengthening the references for undersourced key claims in this article, time would be better spent finding stronger references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.136.194 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reliable sources that claim that Fox News is "a den of vipers" in their non-opinion reporting. This article currently cites 7 reliable sources that describe InfoWars as a website that publishes "fake news", and the label meets the verifiability policy. If you have found additional reliable sources that can be used to expand this article, feel free to share them. Otherwise, your comments do not warrant any action. The goal of Wikipedia is not to "convince" the reader about anything, but to present information that has already been published in reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the ideas that Wikipedia is trying to convince anyone of anything. Wikipedia exists to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Such sources say InfoWars publishes fake news.

I also can't figure out where you got the idea that we are citing a "BuzzFeed-style listicle" for this. The sources cited include Deutsche Welle, The Conversation, Nature, U.S. News & World Report, The Atlantic, Fortune and Vox. If you would like to argue those are not reliable sources, I will say flatly that you either do not understand what our criteria for reliable sources are or too informed by other concerns to see that they plainly meet our criteria. (Note several of them are listed at WP:RS/P. The note at the bottom of that page for Nature makes me giggle a bit at the prospect of someone arguing it is not reliable.) if you would like to challenge the sources, please take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. Generally, it's easier to discuss one source at a time. While you are free to start with any source you would like, I would ask that you start with Nature. :)

Multiple independent reliable sources regularly and repeatedly identify InfoWars as a fake news source. As a result Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally reports that InfoWars is a fake news source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You're both not addressing the issue or the source in question as laid out clearly and specifically, but instead appear for some reason to prefer to argue for the sake of argument rather then helping to improve the specific two-sentence paragraph under discussion. Never mind, life is too short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.136.194 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. You want to say something else. You can't do that here. If you write a blog you can say whatever you want. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Reorganize first sentence wording?

The first sentence currently states that "InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website". However, I would propose that it is changed to "InfoWars is a far-right news, fake news, and conspiracy theory website". The current wording implies that the website includes only conspiracy theories and fake news, while it clearly includes stories that do not fall into either of those categories. For example, the top stories on the website right now are "JOE BIDEN TRIES TO ‘CLARIFY’ REMARKS ABOUT AFRICAN AMERICANS; NO APOLOGY", "THE ECONOMIC DEPRESSION OF 2020 IS BECOMING AN ENDLESS NIGHTMARE FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS", and "‘NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT’? TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON TIKTOK & WECHAT, BANS TRANSACTIONS WITH CHINESE OWNERS IN 45 DAYS", which are clearly not fake news or conspiracy theories. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not, but its what its noted for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Pick an article about a person. The lead summarizes what they are notable for: an actor, the inventor of the flat-bottomed paper bag, world-renowned entomologist, fascist dictator, whatever. Every one of those people was/is a stamp collector, McDonalds cashier, gardener, Go-go's fan, snorer, card sharp, etc. We cannot explain in the lead every significant part of a topic and we don't try. The lead merely says why the subject is notable. InfoWars is notable for far-right conspiracy theories and fake news. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

There is potential bias in this article. I just want to put a note in the top page that this might violate the "Anti-Bias" rules of Wikipedia. As we all know, they are massively(and negatively) hit by mass media and might affect the neutrality of this article. Furthermore, there are some not very neutral descriptions of its editor, Mr. Alex Jones. AnotherHasCome (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. O3000 (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

Remove "Fake News" from the description. I've never heard of a "fake news website". Calling it conspiracy theories is reasonable, but many publications have put out "Fake News" and have not retracted their statements and are not labeled as such here. It's political and derisive and unnecessary to explain what InfoWars is. 47.200.13.231 (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Read the FAQ at the top of this page. Ixocactus (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This article cannot claim a neutral point of view

The claim that this article is of a neutral point-of-view is horrendously untrue. This claim hinges on the assumption that the sources are "reliable". Yet it blissfully fails to address that the vast majority of citations derive from sources that indisputably skew left. The lens through which this article is written is thusly warped and will stand as unreliable (biased) until rectified. This is an egregious and dangerous example of cherrypicking sources. And, unyielding to criticism, many editors are relentlessly safeguarding this article, feeling justified under this haven of cherrypicked sources.

To highlight an example, the FAQ claims justifiability in describing InfoWars as a "fake news" website due to these sources: Vox, The New York Daily News, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, CBS News and The Statesman – 100% of which are invariably left-leaning. Yet the FAQ generalizes its claim of neutrality to the entire article. Furthermore, there are indubitably defenses against these some of these claims, yet they are left out of this article (presumably since they must be "intrinsically unreliable").

To preemptively dispel ad-hominem rebuttals, I, personally, am not even conservative politically, but I do believe that overwhelming bias on an "encyclopedic" article is damaging to intellectual discourse. I admit having little faith that this will be improved, especially since the co-founder of Wikipedia himself attests that Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy "is dead". But I hope to leave this here – as a civil statement, mind you – for anyone who is rightly skeptical of this article.

Gdgd.pp.0 (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"left" and "unreliable" are not synonymous. Also talk pages are not for "making statements" THEY ARE TO DISCUSS IMPROVEMENTS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not claim "left" and "unreliable" are synonymous; I claim that the article is biased and therefore unreliable. Having left sources are great as long as the list of citation is not one-sided. Also, I thought the improvements to be made were sufficiently implied, but I will state explicitly: balance the citations with more right-leaning sources to clear the obvious editorial bias & consider adding a small section to recognize the dissenting claims.

--Gdgd.pp.0 (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you any sources or information in mind you would like to include?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

As for "fake news", do you have any sources that say it does not publish fake news?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll see to collecting some, will (hopefully) get back soon. --Gdgd.pp.0 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting that WP:NEUTRAL does not mean presenting as many right-wing sources as there are left-wing sources to create a "balance". It does not even mean that Wikipedia should have a centrist bias (which, incidentally, does exist). It means using sources that credibly state something as it is. If they establish that InfoWars is fake news, then it is not opinion for us to state that it is fake news. In this case, saying that InfoWars is not fake news actually is opinion. FreeMediaKid! 03:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I will reserve judgement on the merits of their sources until when they present them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your comment omitted quite a few sources cited in the article, including two high-quality academic publications that describe InfoWars as a fake news website:

• Nelson, Jacob L; Taneja, Harsh (October 2018). "The small, disloyal fake news audience: The role of audience availability in fake news consumption". New Media & Society. 20 (10). Sage Publications: 4. doi:10.1177/1461444818758715. S2CID 52986600. Retrieved October 9, 2020 – via ResearchGate.
• Fleming, Nic (June 17, 2020). "Coronavirus misinformation, and how scientists can help to fight it". Nature. 583 (7814): 155–156. Bibcode:2020Natur.583..155F. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01834-3. PMID 32601491. Retrieved June 22, 2020.

— Newslinger talk 10:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

- I do not claim "left" and "unreliable" are synonymous - I do, but I use sources that I consider to be to the left because editing Wikipedia requires consensus among editors. I may find the editorial slant and even the news slant of some of the sources I use distasteful, but I still use them until I can find better sources that will meet with consensus on reliability.

That said, there are two so called "reliable sources" that I will never use. They are ones that I am all too familiar with and I don't use them because they are completely biased and utterly terrible. They only get RS status because it is a rite of political correctness to genuflect before them. I won't mention them here, but you will never see me use them.

I won't use InfoWars, because I don't know much about them except that they get a bad rep. If they could improve said reputation, I might seek them out. 47.137.178.203 (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have an issue with how we determine RS take it elsewhere, this is only for discussing how to improve the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as none of your contributions to this section have been about improving the article, I suggest that you take your own advice. This is WP:NOTFORUM.47.137.178.203 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Illuminati

Jesus Christ how hard is it to get a story out...? Sometimes I feel like people only wanna talk; and never listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:8400:168:7DB3:8624:9CDF:D2ED (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you want to add?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Possessive form

Hi True Pagan Warrior, I noticed that you removed the s at the end of InfoWars's in Special:Diff/1005522059, changing it to InfoWars'. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Possessives (MOS:'S) states, "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's", and lists Glass's books as an example. Since InfoWars is a singular noun (and not an abstract noun), shouldn't InfoWars's be the correct possessive form? — Newslinger talk 11:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to webpage is not a link

The link on the infobox is not made to be a link. 123popos123 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

Remove The supplements sold on the InfoWars store are primarily sourced from Dr. Edward F. Group III, a chiropractor who founded the Global Healing Center supplement vendor.

OR

Change The supplements sold on the InfoWars store are primarily sourced from Dr. Edward F. Group III, a chiropractor who founded the Global Healing Center supplement vendor.

To The supplements sold on the InfoWars store from mid-2016 through early 2018 were primarily sourced from Dr. Edward F. Group III, a chiropractor who founded Global Healing Center.

Reliable Sources Hi- we're Global Healing and would like to provide you with any documentation that is deemed acceptable, so that we can correct this misleading statement. We have had no association or done any business with Infowars in any capacity for three years. We can be reached at admin@globalhealing.com

Thank you. 12.196.226.194 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done in Special:Diff/1009147687. The sentence is now: "In 2017, the supplements sold on the InfoWars store were primarily sourced from Dr. Edward F. Group III, a chiropractor who founded the Global Healing Center supplement vendor". I specified the year 2017 because it is the date of the cited New York article, and we do not yet have any reliable secondary sources to verify the 2016–2018 range. — Newslinger talk 00:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation bundling

See also: User talk:Srodgers1701 § Citation bundling

Hi Srodgers1701, I noticed that you recently changed the citation bundling style in this article twice (once in Special:Diff/1012228025/1013571307 and once more in Special:Diff/1013860979). While it is valid to use bullet points instead of {{refn}}, it is more difficult to synchronize and keep track of bulleted references when they are reused across multiple citations. Because different editors will have different citation style preferences, it is generally not recommended to change the citation style of an article unless you are going to make significant contributions to the article content, or unless you have obtained consensus beforehand (see WP:CITEVAR). Unless there is consensus for a bulleted citation style, I am going to restore the longstanding bundled style. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

As Srodgers1701 did not respond here despite clearing their talk page, which included an invitation to participate here, I have restored the longstanding citation style in Special:Diff/1014426647 per WP:CITEVAR. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

Remove faKe news website. Thats incorrect. Most new sites publish fake news and they retract it sometimes and apologise and info wars has correct info and even if they did publish something incorrect. It doesn't make them fake news. Your fake news if you do not remove this line 80.5.97.48 (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

See FAQ at top of talk page. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

FAQ edit request

Change Q3's answer from "(Yes.)" to "(Yes, both.)". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done at Special:Diff/1017762112. Thanks for suggesting this.​ — Newslinger talk 13:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. I only made an edit request there because I was just unsure if my suggestion would be acceptable of a suggestion. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just noticed that alt-right is only used once in the article under the InfoWars § Owen Shroyer section. However, there is enough high-quality academic sourcing to describe InfoWars as alt-right in addition to far-right, so the FAQ change looks fine to me. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

“Fake news website”

This is egregious and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Cnn has gotten much more wrong than infowars ever has. 174.214.49.176 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• InfoWars (and Alex Jones) have pushed the story that there are child slave colonies on Mars, that the government has weather-controlling weapons which are responsible for major storms in the past few decades, that chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay, that Robert Mueller is a literal demon and that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza shop that has no basement.

Anyone who is ashamed to call that fake news (or believes others should be) is clearly not competent to work on this project, or indeed, on any project requiring anything resembling factual accuracy.

P.S. This is literally addressed in the FAQ edit notice, meaning it is impossible for someone to edit this page without having an explanation for in basic terms literally right in front of their eyes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's review, shall we?

Let's review for our newly-arrived Infowars/Newswars/Prison Planet minions, shall we? Alex Jones claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Coronavirus is a hoax, that 5G networks create Coronavirus within human cells (no explanation about the conflict between those last two), that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps, that the US is being invaded by South American walruses... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments / questions

• Q: Isn't Jones just an actor playing a role without actually believing all of that?

A: It doesn't matter. Millions pf people read his webpage, some believe it, and a tiny percentage go to Wikipedia to set us straight. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Q: Why doesn't this page cover the bit about gay frogs?

A: We only cover those things Alex Jones says that have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Q: OK, all that other stuff is just silly, but the bit about South American walruses is real!

A: No it isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Q If there is no evidence of Alex Jones labeling himself a “far right” person and he also speaks badly about Trump and other republican representatives is he labeled “far right’” here based on unfounded opinion alone?

A: It is not Wikipedia's job to determine whether someone is right or left wing. See WP:NOTESSAY. If you find a reliable source that calls him leftist or even centrist, that might invoke some conversation Vkb123 (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That's why Wikipedia cites reliable sources for its statements. High-quality academic sources, including Digital Journalism, Open Information Science, Nature, Journal of Communication Inquiry, The Far Right Today, and The Far Right and the Environment: Politics, Discourse and Communication agree that InfoWars is a far-right website. — Newslinger talk 11:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Q it was recently proven that some of Alex Jones outlandish statements are true such as the fact that Jared kushner’s dad set him up with a prostitute in a sting operation, and the NXIVM cult, so if some of what he says is true and some of it is false, how is he any different than any other media outlet and shouldn’t the label conspiracy theorist be removed as things are fact checked and being proven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlacrone (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  Because a broken clock is right twice a day, its still broken.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

---

This is why I give maybe two warnings (if that) before blocking anyone who tries to defend InfoWars as an RS on grounds of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows the slave colony is on planet Invisibilia that the New World Order has blocked from view with light-bending technology. The rest is probably true. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was on Nibiru? Guy (Help!) 20:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You would say that, wouldn't you? (mocking) Nibaru! What an obvious false flag to hide THE TRUTH! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

InfoWars defenders are why I no longer have a button to email me on my user page. Words cannot describe how bizarre their messages are, but they seemed to figure out that emailing editors instead of posting directly on user talk pages lets them get away with harassment. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I get that there are stories infowars may have fabricated but there are multiple videos of CNN telling “witnesses” exactly what to say, making up stories etc. Just confused on why that’s not described as “fake news” as well. Flyingchiimp12 (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And what great source gave you that idea? O3000 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

[fake video redacted] here's just one of the many great examples. Google apparently blocks you from (easily) finding this video on their search engine so I had to use duckduckgo but if you do some research you can find all the moments of proven fake news you'd like. I'd also be happy to keep supplying links if need be.Flyingchiimp12 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Flyingchiimp12, that stupid video proves nothing at all, and it looks fake as hell. If you want to play here, you will have to acquaint yourself with guidelines like WP:RS, but more than that, you probably need to develop some common sense and educate yourself on what constitutes "evidence", and what kinds of things one probably shouldn't believe. I fear for you. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

lmaoo ok it’s obvious no amount of evidence will change your bias against Jones. Go ahead and google “project veritas CNN” and there’s even a page for CNN controversies on Wikipedia. I’m not even that big of an Alex Jones guy but the fact that he’s listed explicitly as “fake news” and not something like, “many claim he is fake news” just shows this is trying to push a narrative instead of being impartial like it should be. As much as you guys will deny it, Jones has been right about things the rest of the media won’t talk about, e.g. Epstein being a pedophile. I fear you as well. Flyingchiimp12 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Flyingchiimp12 has been blocked. O3000 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed The article has several errors as well as unfounded criticisms. If InfoWars is to be labeled "fake news" it serves that all media entries on Wikipedia ie CNN FOX NEWS NY Times et Al should be labeled "Fake News" as well. "Alternative" "Libertarian" or "Online" would be more accurate describers of the type of "News" site InfoWars is. The authors sources, though numerous are suspect for their factuality. This entry requires several edits. Justkmill (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for these claims? Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a euphemism. — Newslinger talk 05:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

What is absolutely biased about this page, is that only the mainstream view is considered correct. If the mainstream claims that Infowars is fake news, then Wikipedia states that it is fact. Since when do mainstream views become fact? There is plenty of evidence of other media outlets being "fake news", but the source of proof is not accepted by Wikipedia since the mainstream media disagrees. When it was believed by the majority of people that the Earth was flat, Wikipedia would have been in agreement. JKJ2 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

They don't become facts, they do however represent the mainstream view, which is what wp:weight says we should do. And you are correct, yes we would have had to stick with the mainstream view the earth was flat. After all can you prove that Alex Jones is not a space lizard in disguise? If not should he say he is one?Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia absolutely is biased. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. That's called "verifiability". When there are alternative points of view held by reliable sources, Wikipedia reports the viewpoints of significant groups relative to how much coverage those viewpoints have in reliable sources. That is called "weight.

Yes, there are tiny minorities who believe the Earth is flat, the Bushs and British royal family are space aliens, humans don't need food to survive, InfoWars (with reports of slave colonies on Mars and such) is meaningfully accurate, etc. In each case, the consensus of the sane world is that these stories are nonsense on stilts.

Yes, there was a time (thousands of years ago) when Wikipedia would have verifiably said "the Earth is flat". Wikipedia also would have correctly reported on the widely held consensus on the size of the Earth, contrary to Columbus's massive error in the 15th century.

Today, Wikipedia neutrally and verifiably reports that InfoWars is a fake news site, because that's what independent reliable sources say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What makes the source 'reliable' enough to call InfoWars a fake news site? I could dig quite easily for sources that note that CNN is a fake news site. Even the President of the United States has called CNN a fake news site. Perhaps this the editors of this article just want to put a spin on truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

See the reliable sources guideline for the criteria. High-quality academic publications including New Media & Society and Nature describe InfoWars as a fake news website, and there is minimal to no opposition among reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 05:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

Fake News Needs to be removed its should be just news conspiracy theories are ideas to be thought about 98.113.69.144 (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 03:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

“fake news website” is very controversial because it covers political views.. which is never fact or fake.. also to add info wars is consistently displaying there research and provides actual data from .gov sources.. it’s editors like these that are breaking apart this country because they can’t put there own feelings aside.. and that’s purely sad 2601:18C:8B80:3120:65EF:EB60:DC24:B30 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - that you think InfoWars is not fake news is prima facie evidence you lack the necessary competence to edit Wikipedia. Try reading reliable sources and Wikipedia policies before making additional fruitless edit requests. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

Remove the fake news allegory in the overall description of the infowars news network. Most news networks have fake news reports and none more then CNN, so either change this article or name other large news groups as fake as well. It’s unfair and illegitimate and unfair sense people have capitalized on controlling the media and pushing there own opinionated agenda. 2600:1008:B1D5:11F6:657B:E987:A89D:D555 (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: the claim in the lead is verified by multiple reliable sources. To effect this change, you'll need strong sources that deny the claim and consensus from other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

The far right conspiracy theorist comment on the page is not true. This source has been against plenty of right wing groups and also has been accurate enough to move outside the threshold of conspiracy, even more so than most new outlets who do not have “conspiracy” on the page as a description. 205.197.212.198 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

InfoWars is an American news website owned by Alex Jones. It was founded in 1999, and operates under Free Speech Systems LLC. 73.215.216.14 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to change?Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Lead is well sourced - hako9 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

Delete the "Fake News" on the top right section. There is sources with all the documents relating to this great news source. 158.4.218.53 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No reliable source describes InfoWars as a accurate source of news EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Article image

The article image is incorrect. It says it is a screenshot of the homepage in January 2017, yet it makes references to Biden being president, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Covid vaccine, which leads me to believe it is a screenshot from January 2021. Not sure wether or not to change this but it seemed worth pointing out, maybe someone who could put a definite date to the screenshot could change it. Typhlosionator (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Done.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

Article currently states in section 3.5: "In February 2018, Alex Jones was accused by former employees of antisemitism and sexual harassment of both male and female staff members." With all of "sexual harassment of both male and female staff members" blue linked. Shouldn't only "sexual harassment" be linked?Outdatedpizza (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done 晚安 10:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Should a link to the website be included?

This is the same for other controversial sites such as WikiLeaks and 4Chan, so the link to the website should possibly be included in the infobox. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's there and as an External link. -- Valjean (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Should be a little more balanced

Should mention some of the stories that infowars got correct that most didn't. Don't want anyone who's watch a show or two to think wikipedia is one sided. 2601:3C4:301:F60:DCC7:7653:8C2F:59A3 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Chemicals in the water can make frogs engage in homosexual/female-typical behaviors or something? Dronebogus (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that infox wars broke the story about hormones affecting amphibians. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

But it was technically right, right? And that’s what IP was asking. (But in any case I’m just kidding around) Dronebogus (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No their point was "stories that Infowars got correct that most didn't", this is not an example of this as pretty much everyone reported the story. What we needed is an example of a story that Infowars got right, and everyone else got wrong, not just that everyone (including Infowars) got right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And this is why "kidding around" is a bad idea on article talk pages, as this could be seen as supporting the OP's claim. Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Infowars and co aren’t immune to stopped clock moments. But then something full of shit 9/10 times is still mostly full of shit. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:10C6:9384:1890:AE7D (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems a little biased

Sure he's controversial, he's not alt right. 2601:3C4:301:F60:DCC7:7653:8C2F:59A3 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

wp:rs say he is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of WP is that while contentious labels may be used, they must be attributed to the source and not stated as fact.

Many reliable sources may hold this viewpoint, but as many do not it remains a POV claim. Editor 45678765 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The opening summary "American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website" is cited to more than enough reliable sources for the labels not to be contentious according to Wikipedia policies and considered thoroughly verified. Philip Cross (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issues

I am concerned this this article contains blatant violations of Wikipedia policy. And I am particularly concerned because elements of BLP are involved.

Terms like "fake news" will always be POV terms because there is serious dispute over their use. This is not my personal view, it is WP:NPOV: "When a statement is an opinion (e.g., a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion." By all means cite claims from reputable sources that a publication is "fake news"- but do not report these views as fact. I cite WP:NPOV again: "when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so." Consensus cannot be used as a defense because: A. this is the consensus of related, media sources. While valid to cite they do not constitute a consensus. B. the cited sources do not represent a broad or global view, they relate principally to the perspective of commercial media publishers in the US. C. conflicting views abound, as everyone is well aware.

WP:POVSTRUCTURE is relevant here because the article begins with the use of labels which the subject. WP:NEGATIVESPIN is also relevant because criticize of the subject is overly lengthy, repetitive and not contained to the relevant criticize section. WP:BLP is relevant because the article contains biographical information of a living person (Alex Jones) including the image of Alex Jones.

I would recommend that contentious labels be avoided where possible and relegated to the criticism section where this is not possible. Criticism should be condensed so as not to be unduly lengthy/repetitive and to ensure the page does not appear to be an attack page. All contentious labels and POV claims should be attributed to specific sources, and areas of serious conflicts should be treated as POV claims.

--Editor 45678765 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You should try to find reliable sources which dispute the claims made against InfoWars in this article, if it is possible. However, you should also read Wikipedia:Fringe theories which states in the opening: "The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence." It is impossible for this article to discuss any potential defense of InfoWars if no reliable sources are positive about the website.

See also Wikipedia:INFOWARS which states community consensus on the website as a potential source. Philip Cross (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no intention of deleting or challenging cited material, my concern is primarily that cited information violates NPOV guidelines because in it's formatting and tone the article resembles an attack page. Editor 45678765 (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

So how do your propose we restructure it, without removing cited content? Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Objection

"FAKE NEWS" is not an objective or quantifiable thing. It should not be used on a site like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:188:E810:7496:8D9B:12E6:4F48 (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We go with what wp:RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Infowars bankruptcy

The website has now ceased to exist, but even though as a user of 14 years I am unable to edit this article. Eck (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources? As I understood it they have filed for bankruptcy, not that it had been granted. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

I want to fix some mistakes you guys made in this article 64.114.222.205 (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

tell us what you want fixed and we will fix it is they are acceptable. Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

2603:6011:A03:4A1A:955E:61BF:16E0:A17 (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the fake news and conspiracy description is inaccurate and deceptive. No more.money for wikkioedia

You need to say what changes you wish to make. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

This is all wrong Captain Pingu (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

Fixing some minor mistakes Captain Pingu (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Please state the specific changes you want made. We cannot implement your edits unless we know what your proposed edits are. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

Please reformat this hatnote should be italicized:

"Info Wars" redirects here. For the 2004 film, see Info Wars (film).

87.202.2.236 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

Add the hyperlink to the website listed (infowars.com) Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This website is listed in the spam blacklist, so links to it cannot be added to any articles. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

InfoWars name

I was watching this deposition (at you.tube qdh2aWlqfdM) where Jones explains the origin of the term InfoWars (about 8:40). A colleague of his told him that what he (Jones) was doing was Information Warfare, as defined by USAF intelligence. Whether or not the description was relevant, his colleague registered InfoWars.com for Jones. Worth adding to the article because the name is odd, considering the content. Maybe some adults can add it after the kiddies stop warring themselves? Artificial Nagger (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be unbiased? Or not? Just curious, this article seems extremely biased.

Maybe try being objective? 2600:1700:4091:5AA0:B516:9948:61BC:CBE2 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. That's not bias from our side. We just document the facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Claiming the website is a fake news source is kind of messed up. CNN has covered multiple stories that aren’t completely true. Fox has done the same it seems this is a move to make wikipedia look like the good guys with recent issues legally regarding host alex jones. 24.40.81.161 (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, and "sometimes not being completely true" is not the same as "deliberately and purposefully telling lies". Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

[[edit conflict] Your opinions do not matter. We still report what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Far right????

Alex Jones was arrested in 1998 for going after and questioning Republican George Bush who was governor of Texas at the time. Alex Jones is against corruption period! He has been correct on many subjects more than he has been wrong. It is interesting to see how everything is weaponized against him. He must be a big threat to THE AGENDA if this is the rhetoric being used against him. 66.207.228.250 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

RS say he is, so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Fake News

i hate alex jones as much as the next guy, but to describe something as a “fake news website” is misunderstanding the meaning of the term. a “fake news website” is a website that intentionally makes fake comments for fame or notoriety. InfoWars actually believe their claims. its not for notoriety; sure its a conspiracy theory but that doesnt mean its a “fake news website”; and using various websites that claim it to be so its true. vox, NYT etc etc are newspapers. these arent independant researched groups, and this doesnt come from a study or sources. its just someones opinion. it would be like putting “fake news” on CNN because Fox and Donald Trump and a lot of conservative independant studies have claimed that. claiming that “reputable sources” call it that and then naming articles from (in voxs case, pretty unreputable) newspapers isnt independant. Alllllkjh (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No its not, it means it is a site that published fake (I.E. false or made-up) news, it is. Which is what our sources say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

every website publishes “fake news”. also; that isnt the definition of fake news. you can literally search it up. vox has made false statements in the past. every publisher,newspaper and website has consistently has had to cencede that their wrong. also; you havent told me why your sources are all newspapers and not independant studies. Alllllkjh (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And there you have the difference"every publisher,newspaper and website has consistently has had to cencede that their wrong", Infox continued to publish fake stories after it knew they were fake, did not take them down or alter them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This is just disgusting semantics. You know he is right, but you act too dumb to understand his point. You should have any ability to edit removed, you do not deserve it. 2600:100F:B1BF:F60B:D50E:F39E:D111:AB1C (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "independent studies"? "Independent" usually means "not subject to control by others" or "not affiliated with a larger controlling unit", both of which apply to Vox and NYT. Also, the first nonWikipedia definition of "fake news" that comes up for me is "news stories that are false" (umich.edu), which does apply to InfoWars. Justin Kunimune (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent analysis!!! 172.56.169.179 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

So, Infowars actually believes that Sandy Hook was staged and there are child-slavery camps on Mars? I did not know that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If you look into the depositions given by Alex Jones and other Infowars employees in the Sandy Hook defamation trials, it becomes very clear that they don't really care if anything on Infowars is true. They have basically no standards for verifying information or disciplining people for getting things wrong. They frequently cite sources that contradict what point they are trying to make. I feel like it's being far too generous to assume that Jones really believes everything he says. 96.18.176.178 (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You can label someone as fake news if the news is real. Go back and fact check you morons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100B:B017:CBDC:0:6C:915D:5101 (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

We did, more than once. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Live link in infobox

If other hate sites like The Daily Stormer are allowed a live link, shouldn't this site be allowed a live link? It's a disgusting, horrible site for sure, but we allow such links, as this is an encyclopedia. Is it a good idea to seek an exception to the blacklist only to put it in the infobox? aeschylus (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

I want to fix that fact that your explanation states that Infowars is 'fake news' which is in all entirety false. You can gladly put, Some think that this is a 'fake news website'. Jearbear911 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see FAQ Cannolis (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

RS confirm that much of what Infowars publishes is false. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

heavily biased.

This is an unilaterally and heavily biased article. Surely in almost 30 years one might assume Infowars and Alex Jones would accidentally get something right. It's hard not to come away from such an article without having witnessed the full relevance of George Orwell's Ministry of Truth allegory. Except it's not really an allegory, is it? 2A00:801:77C:89B8:989C:BCC1:FA5C:5030 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

He might well have gotten something right, by accident. But if reliable sources say he told lies, so do we. Do you have any specific content you think is false? Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Fake?

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.

---

Whom Ever started the page and claimed it’s fake news should be looked at and check their political standing. You are the fake. Everything this man has claimed had pretty much happened. He’s just calling out all You FAR Left liars. 2603:8080:5300:E419:ED01:8917:8D38:8EF3 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

See: [1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources confirm that InfoWars is indeed a fake news website, and Alex Jones was ordered to pay over $1.4 billion after losing his defamation cases in Connecticut and Texas. — Newslinger talk 02:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I went down this rabbit hole to say the same. 204.10.253.245 (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

THis is why he has been sued successfully. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2024 (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.