Talk:InfoWars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stylization of the title

It has been agreed upon by consensus here that "InfoWars" be styled as "Infowars". I will move this page. Every875 ^{Talk to me} 15:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: I was unable to move this page since "Infowars" and "Infowars.com" already redirect to Alex Jones (radio host). This article should redirect to that page, but for some reason this is not happening. Every875 ^{Talk to me} 15:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have never tried it yet, but in theory page movers should be able to overwrite a redirect. However, I unfortunately don't have the impression of a clear consensus when reading that discussion... —PaleoNeonate – 12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge?

there's not much here. it needs to be expanded or merged with the InfoWars.com page. it'd probably be better for that page to merge into this one. and have a section on the website and the television show. Caesarscott 15:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it was merged in 2006. Now in 2017 it's clear the a separate article for InfoWars is warranted. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Just moved a lot of content about InfoWars from the Alex Jones article to this one. I think InfoWars is relevant enough to have its own article, considering how influential it is. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge

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.

---

we have an article on Jones, is there a reason we need this? Why was it undone?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC) If there is no response within 24 hours I will revert it back to a redirect.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I support your decision to revert the article back to a redirect. Every875 ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason for an article on the show is because it is independently notably of the person. And involves other personalities. Very substantially covered in reliable independent sources. This article is about InfoWars, the other article is about Alex Jones. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FloridaArmy -- Infowars is inherently notable on its own right and should have a separate article. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Alternative journalism organization

Would it be an idea to add the category Alternative journalism organizations to the article? Or else Alternative media? Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's an alternativeto journalism, not alternative journalism as such. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's 100% a good idea, dare I say vital. Like it or not, InfoWars is one of the biggest and most influential alternative news outlets there are. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't think its reliability or whether it's reputable has anything to do with whether it is an "alternative journalism organization." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not "alternative news", it's bullshit. I know that in the current world of false balance "alternative facts" are treated as something other than lies, but this is Wikipedia and we do not need to do that. What InfoWars publishes is not news, it is opinion; it is not based on journalism or investigation, it is very often based on paranoid fantasy. It was a clown show before Trump took office, and it remains a clown show today. The claim that Sandy hook was a false flag operation is not alternative news, it is paranoid bullshit. The idea that the government is using chemicals in airliner exhaust to control the weather and/or people's minds, ditto. You can make a case for Breitbart being alternative news, but not Infowars. Even Jones states in court that he is play-acting. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wether or not you agree with the perspective of InfoWars or its journalistic standards, it meets every credential for being part of alternative journalism. Something with 2.2 million YouTube subscribers, 10 million monthly unique website visits and even White House press credentials is qualified purely by it's influence. You're complaining about its reliability, but what you are saying doesn't exclude it from the alternative media. Kind Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The WH press credentials actually are a very strong reason to call Infowars an alternative journalistic site -- and before someone says "well, it's Trump", White House press credentials are given on a non-partisan basis (I think a non-partisan committee decides these things). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought "alternative journalism/news", like "alternative facts", is a euphemism for "BS"? Infowars is a very dramatic alternative to sources like the NYT, WSJ, etc. I don't think its lack of reputability means we must effectively have an outright ban the word "journalism" or "news" on this article. Let the facts speak for themselves. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. Otherwise, the Daily Mail would be considered a propaganda outlet designed to undermine journalism and blur the line between fact and fiction. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Lets lay of the soapboxing shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is form a summery of the article, if it is not in the body it has no place in the lead. Unless some expansion is done biographically I will start to remove that list of names.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing it wouldn't be appropriate. Feel feel to create an article section for it if you want. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it would be as the lead is about summarizing the article not about emphasizing points.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am going to remove anything in the lead that is not talked about in the text starting now. Expands the body please people.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we please start putting stuff in the body before we put it in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read MOS:LEAD

If we are going to have this article at least make an effort to write it properly. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If content doesn't belong in the lead please move it tp the appropriate section. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Why should people not obey what our article structure is? Why should I have to do what you lot should be doing, I would be happy to have this article deleted. If the article cannot be written (by those who wish to keep it) in a manner that Wikipedia thinks is encyclopedic it is not down to anyone else to do it for you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I said 2 days ago that the lead is a summery of the body, and I was ignored, I repeated this 2 days ago, and was ignored. Material continued to be added to the lead that was not in the body. I have tried to make this article MOS compliant, and have been given no help. Instead I have had to continue to use my time to remove incorrectly placed material, I do have better things to do with my time (after having asked people not to do it, four times). It is not my job to write this article for you, but to tell you how to write it correctly, if I am going to be ignored then I am not going to do any more then the barest minimum to make this article complaint with our instructions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

When I am autoconfirmed, I will expand the page according to what you have said regarding MOS. Many thanks for getting this article up to a decent standard. KU2018 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Para sourced to Breitbart and RT

It need hardly be pointed out that sources like Breitbart and RT cannot be used to establish the factual accuracy or significance of any content relating to a subject like InfoWars. Anyone who wants to include Jones' invasion ot TYT can do so as soon as they find reliable independent secondary sources that describe it and put it in context. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart, fine, remove it, even though it can generally be trusted. As for RT, that’s a major and quite credible outlet, and the referenced article from it isn’t even favourable to Jones. In fact, the first sentence refers to him as a “right-wing conspiracy theorist.” Even if a source is opinionated or biased, WP:IRS says that doesn’t disqualify their use and even says they may be the best sources in some cases. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a Russian state propaganda outlet. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely is linked to Russia and promotes the Russian narrative, but it is credible nonetheless. The article referenced didn't even relate to Russia. Apart from their pro-Russia stance, they're no different to the BBC. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not credible. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Better sources may have mentioned it, if not, it's probably not worth mentioning; and it probably belongs in the Alex Jones or Cenk Uygur articles, if anywhere. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fake news in Lead

There was an RfC at Talk:Alex Jones#RfC regarding description of Infowars.com which established that Infowars is to be called a "fake news" site (or possibly a site which publishes "fake news") there. Do we need another RfC here? Although the sources for the Chobani section say "fake story", which seems close enough to "fake news". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Srsly? Of course not. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) has reverted my changes twice. To avoid edit wars (and possibly violating my restrictions in American Politics), I thought I'd bring it up here to determine consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear why. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well until someone can produce an RS contesting the claim I see no reason to change existing consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Hitler still alive" misrepresentation

The cited news source (slate) and the Wikipedia entry gives the idea that infowars reported that Hitler "is" [still] alive (ie at the time of reporting). The slate article's headline is "Trump-Endorsed Media Outlet Reports That Hitler Is Alive". This is a serious misrepresentation. It should've been "was" instead of "is". They were quoting from the jfk files. Unlike the cited news source, the Wikipedia should stick to it's policy of 'neural point of view'. Given that Shroyer's running commentary was not the best in conveying the ideas with clarity. But in no way can it be said that they were reporting that "Hitler is alive". Now, Shroyer himself was misrepresenting the contents of the jfk files by saying that the govt was lying about Hitler's status. It was only a rumor that an operative was investigating. The correct reportage on the jfk files - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adolf-hitler-escape-nazi-germany-rumor-cia-documents-jfk-assassination/ See Shroyer's take on it (VIDEO) - https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/11/02/reporter-alex-jones-infowars-says-hitler-alive-and-us-government-covering-it/218435 Infowars clarified their reporting the next day - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rbcfcRrmxw ToMt (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. The MMFA source and accompanying clip both supports that Shroyer said that Hitler is alive. Was it ambiguously explained by Shroyer? Sure, but I'm not sure that's good enough. He said the US government was covering this up, but as the CBS story points out, there's nothing to cover up. The CBS story doesn't mention Infowars at all, either, so this isn't really usable for content here. In the rebuttal, Jones accuses MMFA of taking the quote out of context, but the 1:20 minutes of video provide enough context to see that Shroyer did say that Hitler was still alive if we take his words very literally. In context, he reasonably could've meant at the time of the report, but he wasn't clear at all. Perhaps Shroyer merely forgot to take his Brainforce™ soy pills, but it's not really up to us to say. Instead of attempting to interpret every unusual theory said in passing by anyone on Infowars, we rely on reliable sources to do this work for us. Since reliable sources comment on it, we should reflect those sources if we're going to mention this at all. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

If you watch the 1:20 minute video, there's no way you are gonna get the idea that he meant Hitler is still alive. But, it can be misrepresented that way by saying that he literally said the words "Hitler still alive". His emphasis of those words after "the jfk files being declassified" is pretty clear. Enough context is there in that video to see that Shroyer was saying that Hitler WAS still alive according to the jfk files. The CBS story was included to show what exactly was in the jfk files, as after hearing Shroyer's running commentary, you would want to check what exactly was in those files. Regarding reliability, those slate and MMFA headlines (they are basically just headlines) are written from a biased point of view, it's just emphasizing on the literal meaning of selected words rather than on the context and that's probably the reason the much more reliable CNN didn't run such a story. The problem in mirroring such a narrative on Wikipedia is that unlike those sources, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. From such a pov, the issue here is that Shroyer misrepresented the fact that a CIA operative was pursuing a rumor of Hitler being alive to say that the govt withheld the "facts" from the people. You can't be blind to the "jfk files" part of the story like those "reliable sources" containing just headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToMt (talk • contribs) 11:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This is all very OR'y, we do not analyse a source, we let others do it and report what they say. If RS say someone said something we say " X has something according to Y". However I note that our source is a blog, a bit iffy for a contentious claim (In a BLP as well). If we have other soruces for this use them, and attribute the accusation. If not then I would agree this should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Should definitely be removed. Not only is it a second-grade source (i.e. a blog), but it is incorrect. trainsandtech (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• The sources say it, we report that. If the sources were wrong, in the opinion of fans, that's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• On consideration, I'm inclined to remove it. The part about the Las Vegas shooting can be easily supported by better sources, such as this one. This source could also be used for context.

In the Shroyer clip, he was not a particularly clear speaker, and he was misrepresenting the source (to put it mildly), but even so it's hard to imagine any reliable outlets making a substantial story out of this. It was a single rushed, ambiguous comment made in passing. The Slate article is playing it up for laughs, and the MMFA source says nothing at all beyond a transcription. This is very far down on the list of unusual things Infowars has said, and it seems a bit gossipy to include it without more substantial coverage or context, and the current sources don't justify going into more detail. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

New source

I have found a new reliable source which can be used to expand the 'history' section of InfoWars, especially in relation to Alex Jones. The page can also be used for Jones's personal page. I will use the source for editing over the next couple of days.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/talk-radios-alex-jones-the-most-paranoid-man-in-america-20110302?page=4

KU2018 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a smear piece that is based upon someone's opinion. It's not something that should be added to the "history." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.72.21 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Protection for this article?

As can be seen in the edit history, vandalism continues to plague this article. Perhaps some form of protection could be applied to protect it from vandalism on both sides (i.e. supporters and opposers of InfoWars as a news outlet). Would this be a good step? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You could hep by notmisrepresenting eit disputes as "vandalism", and by not continually reintroducing a section on "programming" that is essentially redundant and of the form "InfoWars broadcasts these nutjobs, source, InfowaWars advert for the programs with these nutjobs". Guy (Help!) 10:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

So it is redundant a "nut job" to include the contents of InfoWars broadcasts? It isn't advertising, it is a fact. You can criticise InfoWars, but it knows its own programs and can be cited for its programming. Nothing about the source of the info is advertising; it is a good contribution to the article. Put your politics aside, okay!? InfoWars having a criticisable track record doesn't change what its shows are. trainsandtech (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Extraneous detail akin to advertising, especially when linked. Trainsandtech, it seems to me you need to get better acquainted with our policies and especially with such things as "reliable sources", which we have explained in WP:RS. I saw this summary of yours, where you referred to Slate as a "second-tier source"; in another edit summary you say "Infowars is a news site". Kindly rethink these statements, lest you run into someone mentioning WP:CIR to you on ANI or so. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Second-tier source for second-tier statement

As it last stood, this article started off with "InfoWars is a right-wing news website." This was perfectly sourced and I could easily find other sources saying the same thing. However, this has been changed to "InfoWars is a conspiracy theorist website," which I find unconstructive and poorly sourced. I believe, in fact, that it is WP:FRINGE. 1. One of the authors of the book was Jeff Schantz. His personal bio on his website calls himself an "anarchist community organizer" and the same website decries the state "murder" of two anarchists who killed people. I don't know of the other author - I can't find much about him. Even if this was reliably sourced, so was the previous, more helpful (in the eyes of the reader) description. Remember that the same section reads later on that "InfoWars, and in particular Alex Jones, advocate numerous conspiracy theories particularly around purported domestic false flag operations by the US Government (which they allege include 9/11 and Sandy Hook). The site has published fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims." Any thoughts? Kind Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't actually need a source in the lede as it is unambiguously established in the body with multiple sources, but fans bleat if there isn't at least one ref to support the sky-is-blue level statement that infowars is a conspiracy theorist site first and foremost. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

First and foremost, it is a right wing news site. Spreading conspiracies is an action it does, but it isn't what it is. There are also plenty of RS that call it a right-wing news site. Perhaps a compromise could be "InfoWars is a conspiracist news website" or "InfoWars is a right wing and conspiracist news site." Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it, though? My assessment of reliable sources is that Infowars is known and described mainly as a conspiracy theory site. Over-priced nutritional supplement sales is competing for second-place with news. Regardless of political orientation, it is not accepted as a proper news source. While I'm sure a glut of sources could be found which use that label, the defining characteristic according to most sources is not their reporting of factual content.

Strictly as an aside, the book in question was published by University of Toronto Press, which is a reputable academic publisher. This is more relevant than any WP:OR about the book's authors. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see your point there. But perhaps it should also be pointed out initially that it is also a news site? In the situation that a reader is unaware of the stated or intended purpose of the website, however unlikely, they should know after reading the first few sentences. If sources support it, it could read that Infowars is a "conspiracy-driven news site" or something like that. But now that I understand your point, I'll let it stay if it must. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that claim it is a news site, without any disclaimers at all? Drmies (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Admittedly not many. An example of one that does is the previous source. I believe it is best to use both sources and describe InfoWars as a "conspiracy theorist and right-wing news site" or something along those lines. That gives a better idea to the reader that one of the site's stated purposes is to provide news (which it undoubtedly does to an extent) as specifies that it is right-wing, as opposed to a left-wing site such as TYT. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's risking false balance to assume there's a meaningful comparison to TYT. We're not obligated to assume that Infowars is wearing a goatee to some other mirror-universe outlet. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Fox, CNN, The Economist, National Review, all of these news outlets have, at various times, been described as right-wing. Infowars is something else completely. Whatever TYT is labeled as should be discussed on that page, based on relevant sources.

The site's... pretense of being a news site is a reasonable thing to include in the lede, but I'm not sure how to do this in a neutral and proportional way. I agree that it is the kind of thing an unfamiliar reader would want to know to understand the site. Linking to Fake news website would be an option.

The substance of the NYDaily article is about accusations of false news and connections to Russian bots. As I said, there are a glut of sources which use the label, but if their using it for brevity, or in passing, we need to look more closely at the substance of what the sources are saying. The NYDaily article appears to have been derived mainly from this McClatchy article. This uses "news" only in the headline, and emphasizes other traits in the body. It says Jones is "known for embracing conspiracy theories such as one asserting that the U.S. government was involved in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." and that "InfoWars.com was a loyal Trump public relations tool." These are not descriptions of a news site. Grayfell (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi, can an uninvolved administrator/regular editor please close the discussion regarding the proposed merging between Alex Jones and InfoWars? The discussion has been going for two weeks with very few recent responses. Opinions seem to be split down the middle so I would strongly advocate a non admin closure. I can't reasonably do it myself as I have participated in the discussion when I was an IP editor at 141.241.26.20 a few days ago. KU2018 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

And there are two discussions about merging the article, both of which have gotten comments in the past few days. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just closed one of them. I was involved in the other. Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will edit this page once I can to try and improve it. The page has got of to a good start - is verifiable and demonstrates notability. KU2018 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Update Youtube might remove Alex Jones Infowars channel due to violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Media platform - News media

Would it be appropriate to wikilink "media platform" to the article on News media? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE - I have gone ahead with this as there has been no objection so far. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this. This link is not appropriate, because "media platform" isn't the same thing as "new media", making this an WP:EGG. Further, as has already been discussed, Infowars is not widely accepted as a news outlet, so this statement should not be (indirectly) made in the lede as a plain fact. Grayfell (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Has been accused...

This is regarding this revert, but the details of who/when are not important here. This is a reasonable edit, but I think it's worth discussing.

I'm not clear on what purpose is served by having "has been accused of" in front of "[publishing] fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims". As one simple example, the body of the article discusses Pizzagate in substance. This was an utterly false story, promoted and later retracted by Infowars. This story led to harassment and worse. There is no reliable source which is disputing either of these points, is there? This is not merely an accusation, this is a simple fact... right?

In this situation, why are we peppering so much of the article with "alleged"s? It reads like the overcautious faux-legalese of police blotters. We have the luxury of taking our time and considering our words more carefully, so hedging every explanation seems like a missed opportunity for clear writing.

If we rephrased every reliable source which calls Infowars fake news to clearly attribute who is making the "allegation", we risk turning this into tediously lengthy paragraphs full of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Attribution is one good way to avoid WP:WEASEL wording, but the overwhelming number of sources suggests that we could instead just say that it's fake news which has led to harassment. In simple language. We could say it both in the lede and in the body. If we need to, a cite-bundle would be easy enough to support this. Thoughts? Grayfell (talk)

I think the issue is an attempt to prevent edit wars between supporters and detractors. I agree no RS disagrees it publishes (knowingly) made up stories (rather then, say, publishing stories without bothering to check them). Maybe we should just only include examples, rather then an overall view.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• The publication of false stories leading to harassment is a matter of fact. We could qualify if at "some of the false stories it publishes have led to harassment" or "some of the stories it publishes, including false ones, have led to harassment". Saying that it ha been accused of this, as if it's a matter of opinion, is WP:WEASEL. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I've made changes simplify the language used in the relevant section. Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Like. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry about that edit. I think one issue at play here is that no RS can really gauge what the motive behind some of the more sketchy stories by InfoWars are. They can say it's either intentional fake news or bad fact checking, but that's only their analysis at best. Wording may be WEASEL, but it prevents continuous controversies and vandalism (i.e. what's happening on the Alex Jones article). This might be a situation where WP:IGNORE trumps WP:WEASEL or it may not. Another idea is to remove the sentence from the first paragraph and let the Controversies section deal with it. Thanks trainsandtech (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the body of the article, and by far the most significant thing about Infowars, according to reliable sources, is it's promotion of conspiracy theories and fake news. If Infowars claims to be a news organization, it it should take some responsibility for what it reports before it reports it. If they fail to do this, reliable sources are allowed to pick-up their slack. Blatantly false information and unsupported theories repeated as facts are not just a difference of opinion at this point. I don't think neutering the article to avoid hypothetical future vandalism will work. Using weasel-words would basically be preemptively vandalizing the article before others get the chance. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is an update https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-man-who-videoed-charlottesville-horror-sues-infowars-alex-jones-n856356

Alex Jones is being sued by a witness to the Charlottesville Riots over defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Far right is white wash of Infowars?

Someone reverted my labelling of Infowars as far right saying it is "white wash". What's up with that? 175.156.32.122 (talk)

Actually it was someone elses edit that was, yours was just caught up in a revert. But we still need RS saying it is far right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't just add that they're far-right, you removed that they're a conspiracy theory and fake news site. "White washing" is a term for that kind of censorship. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I checked the edits, I didn't remove the "conspiracy theorist" and "fake news" labels.175.156.32.122 (talk)

Okay, I think I accidently deleted the other parts. That was my mistake. I prefer extreme ultra hardcore far right myself, but I couldn't find good sources. I have edited it again.175.156.32.122 (talk)

So What's going on here? Reverted again for no good reason. What's the deal here? If no one replies, I am going to edit again.175.156.32.122 (talk)

You need to make a case, I am not going to tell you whether your edit was right or wrong. Rather tell you what you need to do. It is to read what users have objected to and explain why those concerns are not valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Something wrong with the sources? My case is that mainstream sources label Infowars as "far right". Here are the sources I used:

Sandy Hook families sue US conspiracy theorist https://www.yahoo.com/news/sandy-hook-families-sue-us-conspiracy-theorist-151918434.html
Dozens of leading brands pull ads from far right conspiracy site InfoWars' YouTube channel https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/infowars-leading-brands-youtube-pull-alex-jones-a8239371.html
Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/24/sandy-hook-families-sue-infowars-alex-jones-over-conspiracy-theory/641159002/
Conspiracy king Alex Jones fuels America’s crisis of truth https://www.statesman.com/news/local/commentary-conspiracy-king-alex-jones-fuels-america-crisis-truth/nQnBIZ3dCWFYXhIr7CFA8N/
InfoWars media bias rating is Right. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/infowars 175.156.32.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• You need to propose the edit here (the specific change to text) and achieve consensus for it. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So what is wrong with his sources, they seem to call it far right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) My specific complaint was the removal of conspiracy theorist and fake news. The sources in question do label InfoWars as far-right, and they're not unreliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So if everything is okay, please edit in my edit or do I have to re edit it again? Thanks.175.156.32.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

One other user has objected (though not for any specific reason), allow then time to give one.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am OK with far-right based on USA Today and The Independent, I would not use allsides.com, Yahoo or the Statesman, they appear insubstantial. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yahoo source is actually reprinted from AFP. If there's a problem with latter two sources, I will be replacing them with these two:

Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/technology/youtube-ads-infowars-alex-jones/index.html
InfoWars, Alex Jones sued for defamation over Charlottesville claims https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/13/alex-jones-sued-charlottesville-claims-459244

175.156.32.122 (talk)

If no one else has any objections, I am editing in the far right label soon. 138.75.61.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This User talk:JzG reverted my edit again saying that "it's not helping". It seems like he doesn't have any real reasons to block my edit and he doesn't even want to discuss it here on talkpage. He is making trouble here. What to do about him and preventing his troublemaking?138.75.61.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit warring. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

The term "fake news" is biased. Infowars' article is biased against it. Needs a more neutral tone. 91.92.199.101 (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Multiple reliable sources use that phrase. The phrase is in line with wp:neutral point of view. Jim1138 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG, why are you blocking my edits with lame excuses? Why are you avoiding talkpage?

You said "take it to talk". So I am here on talk, but where are you? Why are you blocking my edits with no proper reasons?138.75.61.138 (talk)

Upon further reading of the page history, it seems there is some controversy about your edits listing the site as far-right. From what I can see, they seem well-cited. However, it would be best to determine consensus on whether these edits should be kept. I recommend editors of this page in relation to this dispute read Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Okay, now I'm going to stay out of this. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

As I read it there was consensus for it's inclusion, and I am wondering what the new objection is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, there's agreement of a couple of editors (including me) but I think it needs more based on past history. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What? So you do not disagree, I do not disagree no one who has commend disagrees, but we need to wait in case someone does?Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Because there are about three of us here, and this article has a lot more editors than that, and because we know form long experience that applying the label "far-right" to any article is controversial. I think that agreement of the handful of people who happen to be active on a talk page on a given day is a dangerous substitute for consensus.` Guy (Help!) 18:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So what, if someone disagrees with it they can revert, that is what BRD is about. But you should really have more reason to revert then "just in case someone might disagree with it".Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is under PC. That implies consensus *before* addition. A huge number of edits are rejected for this article, and there is no doubt at all that if we include this we will end up with anons removing it almost immediately - there's an imbalance then because anon edits are usually rejected here. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to put this issue to vote. I see no reason to block this edit. ALL requirements have been fulfilled.138.75.36.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to an RfC, as a means of gauging actual consensus and forestalling the inevitable subsequent disputes. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then let's bring it on. How to bring it about? Hope some editor can help arrange a vote.138.75.36.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just start an RfC. Use {{rfc}}. It's dead easy, there's one below already. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Infowars is not a fake news website

Sock blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can you please explain to me how infowars is a fake news website? Creating a conspiracy theory is not fake news. Reporting something as factual when it's not is fake news. Vincecrystal (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Because RS say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC) @Vincecrystal: This is just bringing you one step closer to a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC) @Ian.thomson are you threatening to block me for asking a simple question? That is an abuse of power. Vincecrystal (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC) @Vincecrystal: Were you seriously defending a website that claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting victims are just faking it and that a random pizza restaurant owner is running a secret Satanic child-rape ring for the DNC? Oh, wait, that was before Jones's lawyers said that he was just playing a character and not presenting anything that a reasonable person would consider news. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Two things, number one, you have anger management problems. Number two, Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. He does not declare anything as fact, he just uses hard evidence to back up is theories. There is so much evidence that suggests that sandy hook was a hoax, but I am not going to get into it, because I do not want to offend this generation of children and their liberal values. Also, Jones was not the one to start the pizzate conspiracy, that was wikileaks. Vincecrystal (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Congrats, you earned a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added?

There is a clear consensus that the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook should be added.

The specific wording of the addition is being discussed in the open RfC at #Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Cunard (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added? Jim1138 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The suits seems quite notable and is on many major news sources. There appear to be numerous lawsuits and plaintiffs involved Google search: "infowars lawsuit" Google search: "alex jones lawsuit I will add this to the talk:Alex Jones article as well.
What should be added? One suggestion:

• A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation.

Pinging recent editors @Pythoncoder, JzG, Slatersteven, Sweeps1979, Grayfell, and Ian.thomson: Jim1138 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support because it has received coverage in reliable sources. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the usual caveats about exactly how. Not in the lede, though, I think. That would only really be justified if they succeed. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support That sentence has a lot of pretty blue numbers at the end of it. But yeah, not in the lede. Could we adjust to mention the specific number of lawsuits? Grayfell (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Not in lede, but definitely in body. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Complete, total and thorough Support as sources are mainstream and reliable. Need to arrange a vote on the "far right" label issue also. Seeking help for an editor to arrange a vote. 138.75.36.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support (invited randomly by a bot) One sentence in the body. Jojalozzo (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support in body. (Summoned by bot)
• Yes; recommend WP:SNOW close - invited by bot, clearly noteworthy, suggest WP:SNOW close, also include pattern and practice of targeted harassment. EllenCT (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

• comment I would rather wait until we know how far these actually get. But will not oppose inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Per arguments above, include since its covered significantly in reliable sources but not in the lead. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Opposish - a bit offtopic in considerations, and this lacks RS content appropriate for this article. It seems Alex Jones being sued is said, and most google hits for infowars is getting side-hits "Alex Jones of Infowars" or "Infowars host Alex Jones" and not content about lawsuits to corporate entities. There is some minor mentions that it's more than him but just not much. Hartford Courant hasd passing mention of the name in a list of those being sued, USAtoday said affiliates meaning multiple companies, but just not got anything from most or much to say. It would seem better to have the Alex Jones page also say it in passing as "Alex Jones, Infowars.com, and ... were sued'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Alex Jones is Infowars, the content is WP:DUE here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

User:K.e.coffman DUE refers to showing all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence in published RS. Obviously there is not prominence of Infowars in the news pieces, nor is there prominence for the figurative assertion that they are one and the same. If there were agreement they are the same-thing, we would only have one article and not two. So... only RS that explicitly say Infowars goes here, the rest is OFFTOPIC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• I suggest making it clearer what we mean by "Sandy Hook" e.g. "A number of dafamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax." Jojalozzo (talk) 12:08, 4 June 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.

Facebook .... struggles to explain why InfoWars isn't banned

Good RS for use here:

• Facebook touts fight on fake news, but struggles to explain why InfoWars isn't banned

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure the popularity of that page and the click rate of the ads on it had nothing to do with their hesitancy to remove it... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what this has to do with improving our article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a potential source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

For what?Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The article. Duh.

If you happen to be able to peer into the future and thus know for sure that we will never once have to add the claim that Facebook waffled over whether to remove Infowars in mid-2018, then please tell us everything you know about this article's future state so we can just go ahead and fix it now. Also get me some winning Florida Lottery numbers, please. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep it civil you knew full well what I meant. So there is no suggested edit. You are correct we do not know if this will not be a thing, but we also do not know it will. We do not know whether or not the Tioome Tommorow will carry a story saying that Jones has admitted to publishing fake news, nor if this [1] means that My Cohen will end up working for Jones. We can post random news stories about infowars with the line "it might one day be relevant" all the time. It clutters the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

1) Your "counter example" isn't even about Infowars, and your suggested hypothetical edit is blatant WP:OR anyways, so even if that article belonged here, the claim you use as an example wouldn't. So yeah, I agree with you that you example doesn't belong here. But your analogy is so bad that this doesn't say shit about Bull's link. Apples and Oranges.

2) Whether or not Infowars gets banned by FB is -without question- a subject with enough due weight to be included here.

3) There was nothing uncivil about my comment, so please stop with that tripe. You know better than to try this kind of newbie crap.

4) This section consisted of three lines until you decided to jump in, complaining about it. So the best way to keep sections like this from "cluttering the talk page" would be to not start a stink about them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Or not to post "future" controversies. We do not engage in crystalballing. This is my last word on this other then to say at this time I do not see how or why this should be added to the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The only crystalballing I saw here was your implicit insistence that this source has no use and never will. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo

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.

---

First one may not have been closed or anything, but it's clear enough that something is going to be included. This RfC is based on the results of both Talk:Alex_Jones#Should_the_lawsuits_regarding_Sandy_Hook_be_added? and Talk:InfoWars#Should_the_lawsuits_regarding_Sandy_Hook_be_added?, in case you see something referenced here that's not on this page.

• Which phrasing should be used?

A) A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation.

B) In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors.

C) In March 2018, six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting.

D) A number of defamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.

E) In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.

F) Something you should have suggested during the previous RfC... >:/

Reasoning behind this RfC

Initial suggestion was: A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation. However, there were issues raised with phrasing as well as to what extent WP:NOTNEWS applies. With regard to phrasing: The particular points raised were regarding "number of" and the unqualified "Sandy Hook families." The alternate phrasing brought up was: In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors. The last part ("claim that the 2012 slaying... paid actors") should probably be a link to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories if it's not already linked in the article before that point. I kinda feel (per WP:GEVAL and WP:PROFRINGE) like we should emphasize that the 'paid actors' claim is utter bullshit, so I'd suggest In March 2018, six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. A number of dafamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax. was also suggested. Combining that with the other suggestion that's not mine, we get In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax. With regards to NOTNEWS: Filling in the gaps in the implied reasons given on both sides, I'm vaguely seeing the suggestion that the "routine news reporting" and "breaking news" parts of NOTNEWS applies if this is is presented as yet another lawsuit against Jones, but that it qualifies as the "recent developments" part of NOTNEWS (i.e. not NOTNEWS) if presented as a continuation of his claims regarding Sandy Hook. The consensus of the last RfC almost unanimously to include it, which would mean that it'd have to go in the School Shootings section (the only place to include it in the InfoWars article anyway). Refs involved: References Additionally, this New York Times piece has been suggested as a possible source. At the very least, it'd be useful to bludgeon any InfoWars fans who want to argue that the lawsuit is fake news or something. There was additionally a single suggestion for a Times of Israel piece to try to frame this as part of Jones going after people, but this would seem to fall under WP:SYNTH with the sources given and no one responded to this suggestion.

Pinging everyone who participated in the last RfC on either page: @Atlantic306, Bennv3771, BullRangifer, CNMall41, DrFleischman, Dryfee, Elinruby, EllenCT, Grayfell, HouseOfChange, Jim1138, Jojalozzo, K.e.coffman, L3X1, LivinRealGüd, LM2000, Meatsgains, MrX, Niteshift36, PeterTheFourth, Pythoncoder, Slatersteven, StuHarris, and Wumbolo:

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Weak C or E - I'm not caffeinated enough to care but I think C probably the most complete phrasing, followed by E. Mostly !voting to just get this started. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• C or E. Including the wikilink is a good idea. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• C is probably best, though B with the wikilink would be at least as good. E is OK. Rest are, well, acceptable, but only that. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• C, or B as a second choice.- MrX 🖋 16:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• C and E combined including wikilink and all facts of both statements; include long-term pattern and practice of targeted harassment elsewhere in the article. EllenCT (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• C, or B Dryfee (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• C . Nice flow and covers the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• A , but as I said I still think it is a bit early, so I think as little detail as possible..Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• E I like as it covers specifically what the theory is (that it was a hoax) rather than something potentially more benign (the shooter was actually a hardcore communist etc.). C is good though! PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• E - PeterTheFourth makes a good point. C is fine, too. There all fine, really. Lawsuits might feel like they take forever, but they rarely do, so it seems a bit odd to be getting attached to any specific phrasing. Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• C (Summoned by bot) just like other one. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• C has a good flow. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• E even though C has a better flow, because E mentions InfoWars and C does not. (Summoned by bot) HouseOfChange (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• I prefer E because passive voice is evil and it seems the more complete of the two statements that don't use it. I am an uninvolved editor summoned by the bot. I am not familiar with the discussions that led up to the RfC so I suppose I could be persuaded to other wordings but of the choices above that is my vote Elinruby (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) B, C, or E are all fine. Darx9url (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) E as base with C for additional information. Not because I hate the passive voice reflexively (it has its uses), but solely because E flows well. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• F, of course. Just kidding. I think C reads the best. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• A mix between C and E ac C has a better flow but does not mention InfoWars, which is the subject of this article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I'm going to try to stay out of these discussions in the future where possible, so as to avoid feeding the troll(s). It's fine to take me off the ping list. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please see the comment that I left at Talk:Alex Jones#Threaded discussion, which applies equally to this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 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.

Categories

We had two mutually contradictory categories: Category:American news websites and Category:Alternative journalism organizations. I have searched for reliable independent sources that call InfoWars either of these things, but am struggling to find any. I cannot, for example, find any good references for Infowars as a "news website" which do not preface this with "fake". In fact, Wikipedia seems to be the leading source for Infowars as either a news website or an alternative journalism organisation. These categories should not be added unless there are reliable independent sources that characterise InfoWars as either. And we don't count "fake news" as "news", obviously. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Infowars hires journalists and correspondents, and it is without a doubt an alternative news source. Simply because there is fake news on Infowars does not mean we can't label it as "(alternative) news" and "alternative journalism." Anyone who reads the article would instantly find out about Infowar's accuracy. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

But if no source labels it as alternative news then we have no reason to add that label. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Here’s some sources - http://antimedianews.com/2017/01/11/infowars-is-anti-semitic-but-pro-israel-alex-jones-goes-anti-palestine-under-trump-counter-current-news/amp/ and https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/04/26/look-incestous-alternative-media-echo-chamber-winning-over-online-audiences/216158 Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The first clearly fails WP:RS. The second, don't know, it's highly opinionated. Not that it matters as it does not call InfoWars either alternative news or alternative journalism. Guy (Help!) 01:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice bit of WP:OR there. {{citation needed}}. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, I can see no valid reason not to have both categories. They are not mutually contradictory.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than the lack of any WP:RS that applies them, thus making it a violation of foundational policy, neither can I. Guy (Help!) 01:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to include Infowars in a category as a news aggregator website than a news website? Does the site do news reports? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they maybe Jones ranting, but they are still reports.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources. This is Wikipedia, remember? Guy (Help!) 01:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Infowars entry was categorized as an American news website until current agendas surfaced. Now biased phrasing, calling Infowars "fake news", is acceptable. Any removal of said biased language, to restore neutrality, is removed in favor of upholding clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeph1 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it was classified as an unreliable cesspool of conspiracy theorism with no understanding of fact checking, until the phrase "fake news" became more popular. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Classified as" based on individual bias and agendas motivated by the current 'social' atmosphere. To deny that motivation doesn't change reality. Otherwise, no one would have felt the need to reclassify Infowars as fake news in the first place. People could at least be honest. Zeph1 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There was no reclassification, it's has never been accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. The only thing that changed is that more people became aware of it, and they immediately got that it's nothing but tinfoil haberdashery. If you have a problem with that, you need to find a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not about if Infowars has ever been seen as a reliable source or not. It is not a linked 'source' in this context. This is a full article about Infowars. Despite the attempts at making an excuse for bias, it doesn't make reducing neutrality of this article acceptable. Furthermore, nothing says openness like telling people to leave a site over simply just trying to highlight neutrality versus bias. At least you've indirectly admitted that there there is a bias here within the Infowars entry. Zeph1 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what neutrality is. When pretty much any non-conspiracy theorist source refers to InfoWars as fake news, it's perfectly neutral to state that that's the assessment. It's not neutral to try and hide that just because it might sit on one's side of the political spectrum. Neutrality does not mean creating artificial balance between truth and falsehood, nor does it mean disguising obvious facts as political opinions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So 'neutrality' has a shifting definition then? One that's fully determined by the tone and wording of biased (predominately left-leaning) sources? Got it.Zeph1 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality means that we balance competing views in relation to the prominence those views hold among mainstream reliable sources. That is Wikipedia policy. It is the foundation and framework for what we do here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't you label other news organizations as fake as well, since they also publish fake news, such as the Russian Collusion story?Rfulvio (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

iTunes podcasts following suit

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45083684

The lead section can have the iTunes/podcast info added in the corresponding lead section Edaham (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

Wikipedia's use of the words "hate speech" is dangerous as it allows those who decide what "hate" is to determine what is harmful. Many involved in this attack on hate speech typically do not use the same terms with organizations that are politically aligned with themselves. ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter, for example are rarely considered as engaging in "hate speech". As of this date, the assignment of the term has had a devastating impact as Facebook (also aligned with the thinkers of wikipedia) has pulle Jones's pages yet allowed ANTIFA pages and Black Lives Matters pages intact. bot have engaged in actual violence and terrorism while Alex Jones has been engaged solely in broadcast and voice. 68.229.220.149 (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources describe Infowars' rhetoric as hate speech. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Comparisons to other topics are irrelevant, and also false equivalence. Wikipedia is not responsible for other sites, such as Facebook. Do not reopen this request without making a specific request based on reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it accurate and verifiable to call InfoWars a "fake news" site/source etc.

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.

---

Following a slew of POV edits, warring and subsequent blockings on the article space, It might be reasonable to have a consensus forming thread on the talk page, both for naysayers to attempt to adequately explain themselves, where at all possible, and to have something to point to when reverting. It has been requested (and ignored) that users wishing to edit the lead use the talk page to establish consensus. Possibly the effort of starting a new thread was too much.

The question for which consensus is required is: Should the term "fake news" be used in the lead of this article to describe the subject and it's published material?

• yes - thread starter. It's factual, abundantly sourced and verifiable Edaham (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, though there are more terms, stronger terms, that might be appropriate. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Several sources available at InfoWars#Fake news and List of fake news websites. —PaleoNeonate – 03:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• No shit! - That's why InfoWars is listed as a perennially unreliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Like, I get that we're doing this just to reaffirm the obvious, so that we can say that all proper processes have been gone through -- and I do think it's a good idea and want to thank Edaham for starting this thread -- but I cannot emphasize enough that trying to downplay or censor the fake news aspect of InfoWars suggests a user has a "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention" in editing, and any such attempts should be treated as vandalism. Yes, we should explain and warn on the off-chance we're dealing with someone who is only accidentally ignorant of the facts instead of willfully delusional, but we don't need to let the willfully delusional bludgeon us with process. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Obviously. It's a well-sourced, verifiable description. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Per above and at Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 14#RfC regarding description of Infowars.com, consensus has already been established. But sure, let's reconsensualize it again, if it will help. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 7 August 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.

Yet again sources for far right

[2], [3], [4]. Will; three suffice? Now any RS that say it is not far right?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well RS say it was, so what did they say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Censorship

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 morning Alex Jones and Infowars was banned on almost every major social media platform. I use the word censorship because according to Merriam-Webster censorship means "the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively" which is exactly what happened to him and his network. Spotify gave the reason as “hate content” despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of "hate speech". I have never heard him even mention anything hateful before except for anti-islam which isn't really hate considering the fact that islam promotes the killing of homosexuals. All of the companies have an extreme liberal bias further supporting the argument that this was censorship of political ideas. Based off the reasoning given on his banning it sounds like he was banned for some "outrageous" things he has said in the past. Alex Jones is playing a character in most of his viral and "controversial" video clips. I do believe that he does believe a lot of what he say but he is a salesman and the more news outlets that report on "this crazy conspiracy theorist nut" the more money he makes. He was clearly banned because of the upcoming election the United States and that his political options directly counteracted these companies' opinions. As he is or "was" friends with president Trump this might add fire to the investigation into social media censorship of anything not extremely left of center on the political spectrum. Even if you believe "huge" private companies that boarder on monopolies have the right to censor who ever they want, which is a valid debate that has and will happen in the U.S. very soon, I feel this should be added to the infowars wikipedia page because this will be extremely important in the history of infowars and maybe even the political debates on current laws and regulations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Microbe (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

The article already mentions this. It however cannot be transformed into a conspiracy theory piece; there were valid reasons for material to be removed that violated the policies of those sites. —PaleoNeonate – 23:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We are a policy-based encyclopedia. For Wikipedia to say, in its own voice, that Alex Jones has been "censored" would require multiple high quality reliable sources all explicitly calling it censorship. A talk page argument comprised of WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:SYNTHESIS isn't how editorial decisions are accomplished here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Alex Microbe, did you really say "...despite the fact that there is no actual evidence of "hate speech". I have never heard him even mention anything hateful before except for anti-islam which isn't really hate considering the fact that islam promotes the killing of homosexuals"? So, first of all, because you didn't hear hate speech there was no hate speech, and hate speech against Islam isn't hate speech because Islam etc.? Where to start? Your original research is unacceptable, as are your unwanted generalizations against a religion. I wonder why you are here. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

He's still on youtube here:

• The Alex Jones Show (Redacted)

175.156.30.195 (talk)

I half expected that to be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ this link. Instead it's just one of many unauthorized repost accounts which plague Youtube, and is a WP:COPYVIO that shouldn't be linked here per WP:ELNEVER. One obvious red flag is that the channel claims "fair use". Jones doesn't need to claim fair use on his own content, because he already owns the copyright to it. This is not an example of fair use, regardless. Grayfell (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss what you think about Alex Jones being taken down. I don't agree with taking him down either, but the SOAPboxing in this comment bleeds with POV. It's just silly to think that a collegian policy-based encyclopedia should include a rant about how every tech company and every media company all have an extreme leftist ((centrist really)) agenda and they've plotted to take him down citing hateful rhetoric. Look, as much as I loathe the content put out by Jones, out of principle I'm actually a staunch opponent of wiping his content from every platform, but that doesn't mean I support injecting POV-loaded rants into this article. We should never use Wikipedia's voice for something contentious or highly subjective unless there's a clear consensus that to not use Wikipedia's voice would give undue weight to an objectively inaccurate position. Simply tell the readers what happened and let them draw their own conclusions about whether or not this action constitutes mass censorship. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:21, 8 August 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2018

why is this listed as a FAR RIGHT website, and why is it labeled FAKE NEWS? who are you to decide whats fake news?? Mainlymusic1 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

See above.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2018 (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. This has been discussed in detail. O3000 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I propose it be changed to "considered by some a fake news website". The fact the site contains some fake news does not make it a fake news website. Marky 09:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No but the fact no RS have challenged this means there is no counter POV we need to take into account.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• "The sky is considered by some to be blue." "Water is considered by some to be wet." "The President of the United States is considered by some to be a publicly elected office." "Infowars is considered by some to be fake news." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2018

Please update the outdated Alexa rank shown in the infobox.

Old

alexa = 3,579 (February 2018)

Current

alexa = 3,475 (August 2018) DirkDouse (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. It looks like its rank actually became a bit higher (lower number) since you requested the edit to be made, so I made the edit but slightly modified it accordingly. Special:Diff/854822701.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

this conversation long since reached WP:STICK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A user(s) in the past has violated the NPOV policy. Please read at least all the way through "Explanation of neutral view" before disputing this comment. The issue is mainly with the opening statement that states: "Infowars is a far-right American conspiracy theorist and fake news website. The editor who originally put that in chose a small minority of websites which list it as the neologism "fake news", over the vast majority of sources who do not. NPOV regards these kinds of sources to be opinions and "should not be stated with Wikipedia's voice." Regardless of whether you consider them opinions or not, the NPOV article also states that editors must proportion "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This policy also cannot be superseded by any other policy or consensus. Here are some sources that do not refer to Infowars as 'fake news": New York Times, USA Today and BBC. There are countless others. Someone please change this statement to something that abides by the policies, such as "...often regarded as fake news" or "...sometimes regarded as fake news" and add my sources, or similar ones. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC) We are (and have) been discussing this already. We do not need multiple threads on it. [[5]] is about the sea, it does not say it is wet, does this mean the sea might not be wet?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Your points have been addressed already. See WP:REHASH. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC) And the same could be equally said of you, you are rehashing what we have already said above. Just becasue sources do not say X does not mean that they are saying "not X".Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC) @Slatersteven: Check the usernames again. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Check what again?Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I would appreciate help, not antagonization. I am bringing up a separate argument, not repeating myself. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC) "s. (Let's not argue too much on this tangent.) Another fact is that there are many reliable sources which take a more neutral point of view to Infowars, such as Breitbart, Fox News, CBS articles, ABC articles, NBC articles, CNN articles, etc., that refrain from using the neologism "fake news" to describe it. I". So yes you have already made this argument, not have you address the issue of the fact that do not deny it is fake news, they just do not (in these articles) call it such. Not saying X is not the same as saying it is not X.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, I realized you are actually sort of right. My original intention was to have a more focused section on NPOV. I don't believe there is a policy on creating a separate thread.--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC) On both sections, users have decided to veer of my point and antagonize me instead of offering assistance or insight.--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC) We have offered insight. You just didn't like it. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Not as such, but there are policies which come into play if a user continues to argue the same point over and over again despite consensus (and starting up thread over and over again on the same issue can be seen as an example of that). Nor is this a NPOV issue, as you have no provided one RS that contradicts the POV the article has. You have refused to address the points we have raised, so I will point you to wp:or and wp:v, find an RS that says it is not fake new.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) If anyone wants to provide consensus or disagreement for my edit without making false or extremely exagerated accusations and threats, feel free to provide it.--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC) We have made one point over and over again, you can only say what RS actually say. Your argument is "because some source do not say X I can say X is not true" this is not the case (as you have been told). NPOV means we put all significant viewpoints. If no RS has said X then X is not a significant viewpoint, as no one has said it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I was really close to leaving this argument here, but the fact that you said NPOV means "we put all significant viewpoints" made me unable to resist. I encourage you to read the NPOV link I included far above. Nonetheless, you and I won't reach agreement on this issue for now. I'm accepting that. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC) One can only hope that you might also accept the possibility that the reason everybody is disagreeing with you is that you are wrong, but I would settle for you to [A] stop telling people that they haven't read a policy just because they disagree with your misinterpretation of it. and [B] stop using bold formatting as if your words are more important than the words of other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wild Bias

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:STICK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While it may be fair to refer to Jones and InfoWars as being promoters of conspiracy theories, they do not outwardly claim their theories as fact and it is therefore unfair and defamatory to refer to Jones and InfoWars as being propagators of fake news. InfoWars was rightly held accountable for the "Chobani incident" and the label "fake news" should be removed. I will make this change shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmezh (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC) I would advise against that, we have RS saying they publish fake news, the fact that infowars does not claim they are true is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia is not the place for political bias. It is unequivocally not fake news by any definition of the term. If you can't handle being honest and nonbias with editing, you shouldn't be on here. Mikereynolds4444 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC) If reliable sources say it, the article should echo that. The lead is also the summary of the article, so if it's in the article's body and considered important, it can be in the lead. —PaleoNeonate – 04:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC) How is Alex Jones a "Fake News" when You don't have "CNN" tagged with "Fake NEWS"! Just one example, there is a video proof for CNN doing Staged news coverage? Look at the "News" that showed "muslims protesting terrorism after Ariana G show in London" Wikipedia is being used by "Real FAKE Creators and Editors" Shame on You for Calling Alex Jones a "FAKE NEWS". It proves that you are in not reliable anymore. Wikipedia is being infested by Globalist spin doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.120.113.113 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC) CNN hasn't accused people of running child slave colonies on Mars. InfoWars is not even news, it's fantasy. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppet at DRN

So I spotted this on the DRN [6] - it's interesting because the user who posted it claims to have discussed the issue here on talk, but they have no previous contributions prior to that DRN request. Sock puppetry will get you banned so whoever it is might want to stop before they end up in trouble. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone must be using multiple accounts as this was posted at the help desk and uses the same language. It appears to me that TruthEdits1 and TruthSeeker369666 would be the same editor. NZFC^(talk) 18:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well now that we have two accounts I guess we could ask for a checkuser. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've personally never submitted a request before, you happy to do it for these users? At the moment they haven't done much really, that DRN will be chucked out fast. already reverted for being wrong place. NZFC^(talk) 18:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hold on. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've already put it up. Sorry @Drmies: I was doing the sockpuppet request while you made your "hold on" edit. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, just note there that I blocked the older one, User talk:TruthEdits1. And the requests are so out there they'll be shut down immediately. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"?

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.

---

Just scrolling through here, I noticed that there was a debate a few months ago about whether the phrase "far right" could be used in the intro to describe InfoWars like so:

InfoWars (stylized as INFOWARS) is a far right American conspiracy theorist and fake news website and media platform owned by Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC.

based on the WP:RSes:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/infowars-leading-brands-youtube-pull-alex-jones-a8239371.html

• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/24/sandy-hook-families-sue-infowars-alex-jones-over-conspiracy-theory/641159002/

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

• https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/13/alex-jones-sued-charlottesville-claims-459244

It seemed like most editors in that discussion agreed with the descriptor, but because of historical objection decided to hold off until it could be properly decided by an Rfc. Then no one started an Rfc. I hate unfinished things, so here.

Should the first sentence of this article describe InfoWars as "far right"?

Justin Kunimune (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey (regarding first sentence)

• Support as the most concise descriptor. Conspiracy theories are very rarely not political, but they come in both left- and right-wing varieties. Infowars deals almost exclusively in the right-wing variety, and adds far-right-wing commentary to the mix, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seems supported by RS to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Reliably sourced, wp:DUE Jim1138 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Accurate, reliably-sourced, and a description they'd be proud of. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• I was the original poster that wanted to add in the "far right" label for Infowars. I delayed doing the survey because I felt that I lacked sufficient sources to cite, so I waited in order to collect enough sources before doing the survey. But since the survey has already started and events have moved beyond my control, under such circumstances, I thereby declare as follows: I Completely, Fully, Wholly, Totally and Thoroughly Support with FULL FORCE the motion to label Infowars as "Far Right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.33.12 (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2018
• Very Weak Support Whilst we can find some sources for this claim I am not sure it is all that clear cut. I actually lean towards oppose but a quick search throws up some more sources for this. As such it is clearly sourced, I am just not sure it is actually true.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think that Infowars is not far-right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As this is not about what I think (wp:notforum) I wont answer, other then to say I was explaining why it is only a weak support.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced that you're wrong to say "Infowars being labelled far-right by RSes is factually inaccurate", and I'd really like to hear what your reasoning is, so if you could answer at my talk or in a new section here, I'd really appreciate it. This isn't a forum discussion, because if you have truly compelling arguments, it could influence how we treat the sources here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is perfectly cromulent. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support It is universally agreed that InfoWars is far-right. (I will avoid discussing whether or not the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are actually valid, since I personally believe these terms are misleading overgeneralizations that do not accurately reflect the complexity of views on political and social issues.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Is this seriously in dispute? Gamaliel (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please use below sources in article heading as citation:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/infowars-leading-brands-youtube-pull-alex-jones-a8239371.html
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/24/sandy-hook-families-sue-infowars-alex-jones-over-conspiracy-theory/641159002/
• https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/technology/youtube-ads-infowars-alex-jones/index.html
• https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/13/alex-jones-sued-charlottesville-claims-459244
• https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/03/families-sandy-hook-victims-could-force-alex-jones-admit-his-outrageous-lie/v8XhEH3xdfnMtWNdbsPz0O/story.html
• http://time.com/5294192/tommy-robinson-jailed-trial-roseanne-barr/
• https://www.cbs19.tv/article/news/nation-now/republicans-press-social-media-giants-on-anti-conservative-bias-that-dems-call-nonsense/465-d7f91036-0959-4015-9563-127e614b01ed
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-rep-matt-gaetz-finally-rebukes-alex-jones-and-infowars
• https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/18/zuckerberg-facebook-holocaust-deniers-censorship
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-years-crisis-actor-smears-sandy-hook-conspiracy-targets-ask-n892926
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/sandy-hook-families-sue-us-conspiracy-theorist-151918434.html
• https://www.spin.com/2018/07/mark-zuckerberg-holocaust-deniers-facebook/
• https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/13/five-years-after-its-first-report-facebook-diversity-barely-budges/
• http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/37639680/advertisers-flee-infowars-founder-alex-jones-youtube-channel
• https://www.rt.com/uk/429890-tommy-robinson-lie-fake-caught/
• https://www.recode.net/2018/7/16/17577426/media-left-right-facebook-define-journalism
• https://gizmodo.com/one-strike-away-from-youtube-ban-alex-jones-begs-parkl-1823365098
• https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/tommy-robinson-moved-muslim-prison-14786200
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/07/26/why-youtubes-infowars-ban-is-meaningless/#36ba51a265af
• https://www.enca.com/life/spotify-dumps-specific-far-right-alex-jones-podcast-episodes
• https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/pro-trump-redditors-fcc-alex-jones/
• https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-yanks-alex-jones-and-infowars-from-podcast-directory-2018-08-06?mod=newsviewer_click
• https://www.voanews.com/a/facebook-apple-drop-alt-right-conspiracy-outlet-infowars/4515704.html
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-removes-infowars-from-podcast-directory-1533538681
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/technology/facebook-banned-infowars-now-what.html

138.75.33.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added it. I didn't use all of your sources, @138.75.33.12, because WP:OVERKILL. Actually, it might be overkill as is. Other editors can add or remove sources as they see fit.

12:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinkunimune (talk • contribs)

• Oppose What bothers me even more is phrases likes these ones: "Jones runs a website, Infowars.com, devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news.", "InfoWars (stylized as INFOWARS) is a far right American conspiracy theorist and fake news website and media platform owned by Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC.", "Britain First is a British fascist political organisation formed in 2011 by former members of the British National Party (BNP)."

Do you guys realize that a lot of the sources you quote belong to the far left? Of course, they will not speak favourably of Alex Jones, InfoWars, Paul Joseph Watson, Britain First, Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Aldo Sterone, Brigitte Gabriel and so on—just because of differing opinions!

Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist, and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.

The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Far-right_politics'

Pretty harsh, eh? I've been following those people mentioned above for awhile, and I never heard them condone Nazism, neo-Nazism (some of them are actually Jewish and they all support Israel), fascism, violence, etc. Sure, they have a strong opinion on massive/excessive immigration, radical Islamization of the West, they can be critical of certain aspects of Islam, they strongly condemn horrendous crimes committed by certain migrants, radical Islamic terrorism, and that's okay! They never expressed total opposition to absolutely all immigration, they never opposed systematic hatred of anybody who is Muslim or thought to be so... No! They only have a problem with the radicals.

Why are those commentators so controversial, then? Because they go against the narrative of the far left? Something to think about... Also, I've noticed that Wikipedia articles can be quite biased against such commentators, and that's not fair! I find this rather immature and not encyclopedic. And I'm not some ole conservative but a young LGBT (and pro-LGBT) man. Now, I do not necessarily agree with everything those commentators have to say just like I do not necessarily agree with everything certain LGBT activists or commentators of the Left have to say. Not everything is so black or white! I hope I'm making sense! Israell (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If I played a "spot the POV pusher cliche" drinking game with this wall of text I'd die of alcohol poisoning before I got to the end. And fix your damn userpage: Wikipedia in not the place for you to promote yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't even edited my user page in years! (Like 10+ years...) So much for "promotion". And you know what? Fuck you! Who the Hell do you think you are? I took part in the vote, was polite in my arguments, did not attack anybody, and I a got rude, asinine, condescending and impertinent response from you. And for what? I don't your share YOUR political opinion. Shame on you! Israell (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is palpable. Please read WP:PROMO and go fix your damn userpage or I'll ask an admin to delete it. Nevermind, I see an admin already noticed it. So I guess good luck with your campaign to convince people by repeating the same crap we've heard a thousand times from random IPs and new accounts that get indeffed after 10 edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

My God! Obsess much! lol Okay... I've read the rules and republished my page—without any link to my portals—. For example: a five page résumé and advertising for your band will probably be too much, a brief three sentence summary that you work in field X and have a band named Y will be fine. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages Once again, I was never even using that page, and I completely did forget about it.

So, the moment somebody's views are any different than yours, it's "crap"? I thought Wikipedia was a neutral place for unbiased information... Is that so? It's so fucking ridiculous, especially since I was always a liberal. Why the Hell did I write that was so controversial? Let me guess this straight. Wiki editors are invited to vote, but all editors should have the same vote ("Support") and the exact same opinion. Okay... Israell (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a neutral place for unbiased information. That means we are expected to base our !votes on sources and policies, not trite, partisan, political hyperbole and my-first-day-on-wikipedia arguments. Also, you should probably read WP:NPA; you already know the admins are watching you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for years! I just don't edit all that much! Pot... Kettle... Israell (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't know how to properly indent talk page discussions (look at the diff of this edit for an example) and you don't know what "pot calling the kettle black" means, either (I was commenting on the qualities of your argument, not attacking your lack of experience, and that would not be hypocrisy even if it were what I was doing because I have something like 12 times as many edits as you). Do you need mentorship? If the issue here is a severe lack of experience, I would be happy to help. I presumed from your editing history that you would be well aware of what you were doing, but as that presumption was apparently wrong, I'm perfectly happy to help you learn the ropes. I will explain exactly what was wrong with the argument you posted and why you should avoid them if you want to be taken seriously here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

By "Pot... Kettle...", I was referring to your assertion that I was personally attacking you when I was just (honestly) responding to what was quite a rude response to my initial post. Speaking of sources, the President of the United States himself, Donald Trump, repeatedly called out CNN for fake news, but quoting Breitbart is forbidden, no matter how accurate and factual the article is. I could go on and on, but I've made my point. Israell (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Fuck you" is a personal attack. "Your argument is crap" is not. I've already explained this in my last comment, though it's clear you did not understand me then. This is why I said you don't know what the phrase means. Speaking of sources, Trump is as completely unreliable a source as there can be: he has repeatedly been caught lying and never admitted to any wrongdoing (or indeed, admitted to any fault whatsoever, no matter how obvious said faults are to any disinterested observer). Compare that to CNN, which is a widely respected journalistic enterprise that regularly corrects their own mistakes without any outside prompting. Similarly, Breitbart has been caught lying numerous times, even more than the president, despite being subject to less media coverage. Breitbart is as unreliable as the POTUS. I'm quite you you could go on and on, but you should be aware that if you do, you will quickly find yourself blocked or topic banned, as have the preponderance of other editors who insist that CNN is "fake news" and that Breitbart and Trump are reliable sources. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:IRS, because it's quite clear you don't understand our sourcing policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose First, let me be very clear: I thoroughly despise the content pushed out of InfoWars, and I strongly disagree with the rationale of the oppose !vote, find it absolutely laughable that the argument was that those outlets were "far left", and have no sympathy for the obvious personal attack of other editors. With that being said, I don't think we can accurately give InfoWars any political assessment other than declaring them conspiracy theories. My thoughts are similar to those of Slatersteven, and I was originally going to give a weak support as well, but out of principle I can't do it. I have to admit that more often than not when it comes to labeling any individual in US politics as far (right/left) I'd normally be against it out of principle, as it's often used only as an attempt to dismiss or smear them as being too far gone, and news outlets are not infallible when they describe them as "far right/left." Similar discussions on whether or not to label Steve Bannon far-right or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez far-left resulted in the realization of something that seems to be heresy on Wikipedia: news outlets, however trusted their name is, are not infallible when discussing something as subjective as how fringe someone is or is not, and we need to have editorial judgment in deciding whether or not to include these labels. There were in fact a handful of sources from various outlets that labeled social democrats like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders as "far leftists", and there were also sources that declared Steve Bannon to be "far right." However, there's an obvious question that needs to be raised here: What does InfoWars believe in? That's a question that I'm starting to believe literally doesn't even have an answer. There was a time when Jones at least appeared to be leaning towards the libertarian right-wing of the United States, supposedly being against interventionism and at least appearing to be against NSA spying. This is no longer the case. The rhetoric of Alex Jones consists of rants about literal demons and blood-sucking vampires. Where does that fall on the political spectrum? It doesn't. It's clear that he's not on the left because of how he regularly does segments dedicated to opposing various left politicians and he's a steadfast supporter of Trump, but based on what can we say he's far right? What, if anything, has he said that falls under the far right wing end of the spectrum, when it's almost unheard of for InfoWars to provide anything coherent enough to fall anywhere on the political spectrum at all? Conclusion: Continue to identify Jones as a conspiracy theorist, don't bother trying to identify their political stance. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Levin, Sam; Solon, Olivia (18 Jul 2018). "Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 August 2018. Facebook's decision to allow the far-right conspiracy theory website Infowars to continue using the platform, saying the social network would try to 'reduce the distribution of that content', but would not censor the page. (Emphasis mine.) —PaleoNeonate – 00:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support, extremely well-cited. Most of the objections above smack of editors bringing their own WP:OR takes on political positions to the table; but we have to go with what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  I base my oppose !vote on previous discussions regarding whether to call Steve Bannon far right or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez far left. It's an exercise in editorial judgment, a practice that should not be confused with original research. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as this is how it is described in the majority of non-partisan reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose

1. The term "far-right "is difficult to define, used colloquially rather loosely, and often misused, especially as a pejorative.

"Before discussing the ‘far right’ in general, a few words about fascism itself are in order. The term was most widely used to refer to the movement surrounding Mussolini, although some other right-wing Italian groups in the years after the First World War also employed it. It described the bundle of rods, frequently accompanied by an axe, which was a symbol of discipline and unity, and was associated with the legacy of the Roman Empire. Fasces or fasci were groups of people bound together in solidarity, like the Fasci di Combattimento, the cabal of ex-soldiers grouped around Mussolini and like-minded critics of the Italian state in 1919. Indeed, as early as the 1890s, the term had been used by left-wing peasants who formed a solidarity group called the Sicilian fasci. Stressing his unique commitment to truly disciplined struggle and solidarity, Mussolini gradually commandeered the term for his own movement and, eventually, for his system of ideas. It subsequently came to be associated with the Nazi regime in Germany and others that emulated these dictatorships. With a genealogy like that, fascism was never going to be easy to pin down.

Since the end of the Second World War, the problem of definitions has been further complicated by the widespread, but often careless or inaccurate, use of the word as a pejorative term of abuse directed at people who are conservative, right wing or authoritarian in the traditional sense. It can be used even more widely to refer to simply disagreeable people or opinions. Indeed, left-wing political activists have often used it to denigrate one another. Such extremely loose usage does no justice to the historical record and conflates important concepts whose nuances should be of concern to the serious observer of history and politics."

The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right. ISBN 0­415­21494­7 

2. Media outlets are not the strongest sources for defining who or what is "far-right," given many media outlets have significant political leanings that color their political commentary.

   Pew Research Center

3. It would probably be more accurate and nuanced to describe InfoWars using Religious Studies terminology such as "Contemporary Millennial Conspiracism"

"Although generally considered religious phenomena, teleological narratives and prophecy are widespread in the conspiracist milieu. This may be because identifying a conspiratorial Other and their supposed ‘‘plan’’ necessarily leads to extrapolating that plan into the future,as ‘‘[c]onspiracy theories locate and describe evil, while millennialism explains the mechanism for its ultimate defeat.’’Traditionally, these teleological narratives have been apocalyptic—i.e. positing an impending destructive teleology—predictions of the imminent enslavement of society by one or another hidden, all-powerful group. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, these were typically constructed as groups such as the Freemasons and the Illuminati, often with an anti-Semitic element, but these were generally replaced (or sometimes combined) with more vaguely constituted ideological groupings like Communism and Zionism in the post-war period. In the 1970s, following the Watergate scandal’s exposure of high-level corruption in the United States government and the Church Committee Report on the activities of the intelligence services, conspiracist narratives were increasingly adopted by the political left as well as the right.Since then, conspiracist prophecy has also increasingly included more millennial (i.e. transformative rather than destructive) declarations of a looming ‘‘global awakening,’’ wherein the mass of humanity will realize their enslavement and overcome their oppressors."

Silver Bullets and Seed Banks A Material Analysis of Conspiracist Millennialism David G. Robertson Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 19 No. 2, November 2015; (pp. 83-99) DOI: 10.1525/nr.2015.19.2.83

4. Alex Jones himself is unlikely to be best described as "far-right" (i.e. fascist)

"However, it would be wrong to portray Jones as a Republican demagogue; his output has been openly critical of both the Republican and Democratic parties and their recent presidents, and he today describes his political position as Libertarian or ‘‘paleo-conservative.’’ Indeed, Jones sees both parties as equally complicit in a grand conspiracy to destroy the United States from within. In Jones’ grand narrative, the United States represents liberty, freedom, and a free market economy—the opposite of the conspirators’ ideals—and therefore is the prime target and principal hurdle towards their totalitarian agenda. In the quote that follows, Jones outlines the agenda of the conspirators, who he refers to variously as ‘‘globalists,’’ ‘‘banksters,’’ or the NWO"

Silver Bullets and Seed Banks A Material Analysis of Conspiracist Millennialism David G. Robertson Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 19 No. 2, November 2015; (pp. 83-99) DOI: 10.1525/nr.2015.19.2.83

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3nails (talk • contribs) 19:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - seems well established by many, many reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Reliable sources certainly identify Jones as far-right. Furthermore, his own description as a paleo-conservative mark him as a member of the far right. Keep in mind that the Richard Spencer fronted National Policy Institute was founded by a former member of the paleo-conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute. So to imply that a self-identified paleo-conservative is not a far-right figure based on identifying as paleo-conservative seems... odd... Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose

Well cited or not, the term is hardly neutral. And "conspiracy theorist" as a label for Alex Jones who runs the site is also misleading.

Many sources that wikipedia use are inherently political and as such are full of bias. Infowars is opposed by the liberal establishment media who smear it with the term "far right". I know you will not listen to me, but you should just state that it is "right wing". That is enough.

I certainly don't think it is "far right". Of course, liberals who hate Jones will want him to be smeared with that label, and it seems Zionist (see Jimmy Wales' views) wikipedia is only too willing to indulge them. Jones is opposed to American interventionist wars. That is not conspiracy. That is fact. And I (who support both left and right wing views at times) strongly agree with that position. John2o2o2o (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

                      Trollometer 
   
   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10
   ___________________________________________________
   |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |
   ---------------------------------------------------
        ^
        |
   

Looks like you barely hit a one on the Trollometer with your "Zionist Wikipedia" and " 'conspiracy theorist' is misleading" comments. Sorry, try a little harder next time. Thanks for playing! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is the purpose of an encyclopedia to comment on nonsense like this. I don't particularly care what he thinks. If you want to treat what Alex Jones says that seriously then what can anyone say? He's a larger than life media personality who loves attention. What do you expect? He's not any sort of Nazi. Actually, he might like being called "far right", so your attempts to smear him with that label may be backfiring on you.

Indeed, the fact that so many people have an opinion on this issue is in itself a reason to oppose the label "far right". It is clearly not a universally accepted description for Infowars and Alex Jones.John2o2o2o (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC) deleted comment restored after discussion close Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Lol, thank you. How sweet. I'm very flattered. Ad hominem attacks are very typical of liberals. So you're only proving my point really, without adding anything of use to the debate. I suppose you think it's clever. Jimmy Wales has on twitter has expressed support for Israel. My purpose in mentioning it was to highlight that Wikipedia could be argued to be right wing on the basis of it's founder's views in the same way that Infowars could be argued to be right wing. I daresay that people like yourself will defend it's neutrality.

I'm not a fan of his. I don't take him seriously really. Nor Alex Jones for that matter. My point regarding balance and the media seems fair enough and you are apparently unable to challenge it with reasoned argument. So I think I win that one don't it?John2o2o2o (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Entering debates with random trolls is not why anybody is here on this page so no, you win nothing. You just are being annoying. That's not winning. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC) And I don't trade insults with people like you sir. You are whom? John2o2o2o (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support See https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/14/alex-joness-infowars-conspiracy-website/ and note who Infowars claims is attacking them. (On the plus side it looks like Alex Jones has finally won his war in Info.) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not relevant. The question is whether "far right" is an appropriate description. John2o2o2o (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I would remind all eds this is not a forum, so please keep your opinions of other eds, Jimbo Wales to yourself or Kevin the magical hamster, no one cares.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's rather familiar. Are you a personal friend of his? I have no opinion about Mr Wales good or bad. I was merely making a point. I take it I am allowed a voice? John2o2o2o (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I note that you have censored my last comment. Thank you. John2o2o2o (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never met Mr Wales (and my opinion of him is irrelevant). We should not make personal comments (or even comment about users) on article talk pages, this applies to everyone (not just you) and I am asking everyone (not just you) to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Slater did no such thing. That was me who reverted you for trying to !vote twice. Please stop with this battleground, forumy arguing or I will start enforcing WP:TPO and reverting all of your comments here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop harrassing me. I am finding this very stressful. I have attempted to debate respectfully and concisely. Someone is removing my comments. I am not trying to vote twice. For the last time. The fact that so many people have an opinion on this matter is in itself reason not to use the label "far right" as it is clearly controversial. Please leave me alone now. I mean it. You are harrassing me.John2o2o2o (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:V. If a preponderance of reliable sources calls InfoWars "far-right" (and it does), and no reliable sources dispute this (and none do), then our policy is to call InfoWars "far-right". Your highly partisan and antisemitism-flavored comments above are 100% irrelevant to this discussion. Furthermore, you are not being harassed in any way. Your arguments have been viciously attacked as worthless: I and the vast majority of experienced editors would agree that this is accurate, even if we acknowledge that the manner in which your arguments were responded to was one which needlessly escalated tensions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Rhododendrites and many others, and also because it's just so 'the sky is blue' obvious that I can't believe we're having this RfC. Girth Summit (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• support per reliable sources already cited. First sentence is correct. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 15 August 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2018

Not going to happen, and believing InfoWars is an enormous RS is a red flag for WP:CIR issues. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Guys....serious !! this is all suggestive and if you follow InfoWars as I do than you know it is. It is obvious a political brainwash story. No news site was always 100% right...but InfoWars is far away from fake news compare to the so called "sources" that were used. Get this off, it is offending to millions of people whom loves Infowars or I will stop contributing and stop calling Wikipedia a reliable source. Please stay independent ? 83.128.132.139 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Not just  Not done but hell no. If you follow InfoWars, you never had any idea what a reliable source is. Reliable sources don't claim there are child slave colonies on Mars, they don't accuse kids who got shot of being "crisis actors," they don't accuse random pizza chains of being fronts for pedophile rings run by half the US government. Reliable sources (hell, decent people) don't tell people to go shoot up their local news station. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC) You know, if you actually listen to the video, it's amazing. I'm actually a bit in awe of the mainstream media's ability to perfectly coordinate tens of thousands of outlets both major and minor to completely deny coverage of an event where, apparently, Antifa "beat up reporters, beat up women, children" at the White House. And the media apparently were so thorough that no outlet covered it, no victim came forward, no cellphone video emerged, nothing. They were so damned good at covering it up that only the incredible Alex Jones reported on it. And of course, he did so by urging his followers to take up arms and go on the offensive against the entire industry that he views as his competition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC) [ec] Here is what actually happened.[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Oh the humanity! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC) In a sane world, if I had a large following and I told that following to get their rifles and "preemptively defend" themselves from an industry that is generally regarded as providing a public service, I could be prosecuted for inciting domestic terrorism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC) The key phrase being, of course, "In a sane world". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Why not mention there was already a discussion and explain the rules? No need to be rude to an inexperienced user just because they watch a certain media. -GDP⇧ 06:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Er, what? Have you actually read this article? Anyone who believes a single word InfoWars says has no business editing Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC) You mean that the US government can't "create and steer groups of tornadoes"?[8] Also see: https://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ --Guy Macon (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC) If I remember correctly, you've never watched them. I have. Although they say some crazy things, most of what they say is the same stuff you hear on Fox News. Whether Fox is crazy is an opinion. Regardless, just because 83.128.132.139 (talk) has a different opinion, he's not necessarily bad. I think him and you want the same common goal here. Cheers, -GDP⇧ 10:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC) If this thread's original user doesn't come back by tomorrow, perhaps we (or I) should close this discussion? -GDP⇧ 10:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I think we can close it now really as it is clearly not going anywhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it., your message seems a little offensive to some people. And why have you reverted my closure? I don't think this is a real closure... -GDP⇧ 12:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Come on GDP Growth, lighten up. This was never going to go anywhere, it was a silly request; a bit of humour doesn't hurt anyone. If anyone is offended because someone makes fun of InfoWars, they should take a moment to think about all the things InfoWars has said about victims of shootings, innocent pizza vendors, NASA employees, etc. A bit of light joshing pales into nano-scale insignificance. Girth Summit (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fake news?

Where are the sources that confirm InfoWars published fake news? The n. 23 reference don´t show any factional proof that InforWars is a fake news agency or promote fake news. It´s just a statement without proofs. A reference with actual examples of fake news should be mentioned - if it exists— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.63.225.195 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Check references 3 through 14. Also, InfoWars was responsible for propagating 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and conspiracy theories accusing victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting of being "crisis actors." It is obvious fake news if one considers that. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If we going to argue at every mistake, then it should be fair for everyone. CNN, FOX News and all other should be marked as fake news as well, which is especially both CNN and FOX are widely known for. Elk Salmon (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to insist that InfoWars' propogation of conspiracy theories and straight up bullshit is just a "mistake", then you shouldn't be editing political or conspiracy-theory-related topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for political or conspiracy-theory-related topics at all. It's an encyclopedia. It should maintain NPOV for everything inside and should not be used as a propaganda or repression tool. Elk Salmon (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No Wikipedia is a place where we say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Elk Salmon: What exactly is being repressed here? The narrative that InfoWars sells is nothing but commercially-packaged paranoid fantasies (that Jones may not even believe) about child slaves on Mars, kids pretending to get shot at school and their parents pretending to grieve as part of some FBI plot to take our guns, the Democratic party running a pedophile ring through pizza shops, and the US government committing the largest act of terrorism its own citizens experienced -- that's the sort of bullshit that InfoWars sells. If we're not supposed to have conspiracy-theory-related topics at all, (nevermind WP:FRINGE), then we just need to delete the article. However, InfoWars does meet WP:GNG as the McDonald's of fake news. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we're supposed to pretend that it doesn't meet that guideline, it doesn't mean that we need to present "both sides" between reality and obvious lies, it just means that we're supposed to neutrally summarize what the sources say instead of reducing the article to "InfoWars is a collection of obvious bullshit, the influence of which is a possible sign that the American experiment has failed." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Elk Salmon: Our neutral point of view policy expects us to be neutral with respect to the sources, not the subjects of our articles. Thus, if the sources lean left, we lean left. If the sources lean right, we lean right. If the sources all say that InfoWars is a fake news site (and they do), then we say that InfoWars is a fake news site. Oh, and I completely agree with you that Wikipedia "should not be used as a propaganda or repression tool". That's why we do anything to lend credence to InfoWars, which is chock full of propaganda and urges to repress the voices of the mainstream (read: reliable) media. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the original post. To add the "fake news" reference is a violation of the Biography of Living Persons policy. Everyone wants to put their own political spin on this article. In objection to the Ian Thomson, two of the points you mentioned are controversially considered conspiracy theories. Most people believe that 9/11 was in inside job, and many people believe that David Hogg was a crisis actor. Although BOLP policies allow anyone to remove the fake news claim without consent, I would like you to consent to removing that reference and replacing it with "...widely considered fake news." I don't have the authority to change it yet, but perhaps one of you could. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we've probably had enough discussion on this subject now. I'm speaking without a great deal of fear of contradiction when I suggest that we can probably close this thread and move on. Edaham (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Intellectual Property Theft: Arguing "Many people believe that David Hogg" to legitimize a slanderous attack on a child (that has lead to death threats) while also saying that we can't call the website that cranks out said conspiracy theory (run by someone whose lawyers call an actor) is putting politics before BLP.

It is a fake news site, per sources. Quit wasting everyone's time with your advocacy for an obvious fake news site. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, not what the bloke down the pub thinks.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of "advocating for Infowars". And please AGF. We are all trying to make this article more neutral. We just have different ideas of going about it. The fact is that there is very divided opinion on David Hogg, as portrayed by reliable, mainstream sources, such as Fox News and Real Clear Politics. (Let's not argue too much on this tangent.) Another fact is that there are many reliable sources which take a more neutral point of view to Infowars, such as Breitbart, Fox News, CBS articles, ABC articles, NBC articles, CNN articles, etc., that refrain from using the neologism "fake news" to describe it. If someone chooses a very tiny minority of antagonizing sources over the vast majority, it's hard to argue that that doesn't violate the NPOV policy. "often regarded as fake news" would more closely portray the sum of reliable sources, which is necessary to consist with policy. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The only possible division over David Hogg (activist) among the reality based crowd is reflective of one's own views on gun control -- it is sheer delusion to accuse him of being a crisis actor.

Not calling InfoWars "fake news" is not the same as saying it's not fake news. The majority of sources that address the issue call it fake news.

Should we say that the sky is often regarded as blue next? Ian.thomson (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

More to the point not all sources call the sea wet. does this mean they are saying the sea is not wet? If Some RS say it is wet, and some make no comment the ones making no comment does not mean there is any kind of disagreement.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

IPT's statement above kind of begs the question whether Fox News and Real Clear Politics constitute reliable sources for much at all. Certainly I would be hesitant to trust a Fox News source for anything other than the opinions of Fox News staff, where relevant. RCP is, if I recall, somewhat worse. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It is irrelevant this article is not about Hogg.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Liberal bias

Why is Infowars Wikipedia page labeled as fake news and locked from editing? I don’t see huffpost and msnbc being labeled fake news and having their Wikipedia page locked. Ryanw5555 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

First it is locked because a lot of IP editors and new editors come on and make unhelpful changes. It is labeled fake news as that is what reliable sources say it is (A number of both newspapers and books). If you can find sources that are independent and reliable that Huff Post or MSNBC are fake news then you are welcome on those articles to try have the information added there. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 03:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please also read the above discussions and the talk page archives. —PaleoNeonate – 05:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ryanw5555: Huffpost and MSNBC haven't claimed that there's child slave colonies on Mars. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

SO THERE ARE??? WHAT ELSE ARE THEY KEEPING FROM US!!!— Preceding unsigned sarcasm added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

Alternative 3?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh FFS, the reason we call InfoWars fake news is because all the reliable sources agree that the child slave colonies are on Venus. This is incredibly easy to verify. Mars is where they put the genetic engineering facilities to produce those alien-human hybrids that have amazing jawlines. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• From NASA Denies That It’s Running a Child Slave Colony on Mars: "A report on Alex Jones’ InfoWars claiming child sex slaves have been kidnapped and shipped to Mars is untrue, NASA told The Daily Beast on Thursday. 'There are no humans on Mars. There are active rovers on Mars...' "

...Which is exactly what an organization that kidnaps children and ships them to mars to work as slaves would say... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Y'all are just gay out of your skulls because of the chem trails. Vapor trails? I forgot. I learned from a scientist at the Max Planck Institute that they no longer put the gay toxins in drinking water. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fluoride? That's old tech, now they inseminate babies with autism instead. —PaleoNeonate – 01:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that comes from the vaccines. They're made that way, so big pharma can profit off all those autism drugs they sell. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The error that these people make is it’s not the fluoride that is poisonous, it’s the water. That’s why Stewball never drank water. [9] O3000 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

It's indeed very chemical... —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2018

Info wars is a far right news source run by alex jones 72.18.46.167 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Article already says that. Like, right there in the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

The icon next to the Alexa ranking in the infobox should be DecreasePositive, not Increase, according to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Infobox_website

Also, while we're at it, the latest ranking from https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/infowars.com is 3,125 now, not 3,442 Thisdangguy (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done and updated citation access date. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018

Flinging abuse about is not going to get you anywhere, except possibly blocked.

Please change conspiracy theorist and fake news to real news and anti propaganda news from main stream fake news media Please change The site has regularly published fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims to This site is always accused by the fake news main stream media of publishing fake news stories but the fake news media never show any evidence they only show bogus law suits against Alex Jones which is always thrown out of court Please change was accused of discrimination and sexually harassing employees to has never been accused of discrimination and sexually harassing employees Everything you libtards are saying about him is false, pull your head out from your arse Wernersunkel (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)  Not done - Please seek consensus before posting an edit request. Also, you get more bees with honey than with vinegar.- MrX 🖋 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Well, I would reference every video that directly contradicts almost everything in this article. Unfortunately leftists FASCISTS wiped YouTube. You guys even lie about fascism being a far right ideology when it is DIRECTLY related to Marxism, communism and socialism. Hence the FACT that Nazi is the German abbreviation for the National Socialist Party of Germany. This article is full of inaccuracies, fallacy, and deceit and is being driven directly by FAR-LEFT fascist organizations that are fake news such as CNN, Boston Globe, and USA Today. Who have been caught in lies repeatedly over the years. Lies they actively perpetuate and drive to force division in America. Llabyrd (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"In July 2018, YouTube removed four of InfoWars' uploaded videos featuring hate speech"

This is an extremely biased statement. Just because YouTube claims he made hate speech doesn't mean it's true. Often, "hate speech" simply means anything liberals don't want to hear and could include simple factual scientific statements like "There are only two genders."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.197.200 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Hi, firstly could you please add four tildes (~) to the end of your statement so that we can know who this is? Secondly, if you believe hate speech was not made you should provide evidence supporting this from a reliable source. The claim that hate speech was made is supported by two sources, for example from this URL: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/alex-jones-slammed-with-30-day-ban-from-facebook-for-hateful-videos/. The article states that "One of those videos, titled "How to Prevent Liberalism," which showed a young boy being pushed to the ground by an adult male, is no longer hosted on InfoWars' Facebook page.", in my opinion this makes a strong case that Infowars is publishing hateful content. Thirdly, your last sentence seems like a straw man argument and it doesn't really make any sense. If hate speech really means "anything liberals don't want to hear" perhaps you should provide evidence to back your case. Cheers. Joelson98 (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Joelson, isn't it considered original research to make that claim based on the source you provided? Cheers, -GDP⇧ 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No more then the OP, which is equally based upon what they view as hate speech.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the above reference to the video of the kid was also played on multiple news outlets BEFORE Alex Jones played the same video. And none of the others were called out for "hate speech."

In the video he never once directly threatened a single person or a group. You might infer the kid, who is the subject matter, was hateful. That however does no automatically pass on to anyone showing the video unless they condone the kids actions. As for the adult, who was one of many according to the police report to be attacked, you at most could say he overreacted when he defended himself. The kid was uninjured. Llabyrd (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The OP misquoted the article. It says YT removed the videos because they violated YT policies. YT makes YT policies, not Wikipedia. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit: revision ID 856108408

I have previously attempted to edit the leading paragraph of the article in this way [10] which reorganize three leading paragraphs into two paragraphs and attempted at moved the information about fake news from the first line to the second line. And wording have been changed from "fake news website" to "regularly published fake news". However, the edit have been reverted on the ground of established consensus. I believe my edit could make the paragraph be more understandable by more people as there are people who doesn't seems to agree this is a site that publish fake news based on some published story that are not 100% fake, unlike some other sites like the onion that are completely fake. Therefore I believe by changing the description to it being a website that publish fake stories instead of directly characterize it as a "fake news site", and also immediately attach supporting statements behind the claim, would be much more helpful in gaining readers understanding in this matter than the way it is currently written. Please consider do you think it is a good idea to make modification similar to what was shown in the edit. C933103 (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You have Fake news and News satire mixed up.

The Onion regularly touches on real news in a satirical manner.

InfoWars says, with a straight face, in earnest (maybe) that there are child slave colonies on Mars, the US gov't was behind the 9/11 attacks, and that murdered children are really actors hired by the FBI. If they bother to report on anything real, it is something cherry-picked to fit an inherently delusional and ludicrous narrative. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As much as I would like to take InfoWars as a humor site, that’s not the purpose or effect. I agree with Ian. O3000 (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Read this page. 90% of all the threads on this page and in the archives are people complaining about the "fake news" label and getting shut down by a clear consensus against it. Stop trying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that 90% disagree is 100% proof that there has not been any consensus. I've even had comments deleted within the discussions qhich proves an attempt to silence the objectors without recourse. Llabyrd (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. Especially when the holdouts believe in InfoWars. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that 90% disagree is 100% proof that there has not been any consensus. If this statement is indicative of your level of knowledge and critical thinking skills, then you have no business editing this project. That is not how consensus, evidence or proofs work. If you continue to disrupt this page, I will ask an admin to force you to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is not based on the number of people but also on the quality of their arguments, the sources used and their reliability. Similar is the spirit of WP:!VOTE. —PaleoNeonate – 23:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: if that was not the case, imagine the fiasco that would result with off-wiki canvassing, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 23:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Don’t have to imagine it. That problem is increasing and I’d guess the trend will continue. O3000 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not trying to remove the word fake news from the lead, however I was trying to think about how to make such information being more digestible to those who believe in it and won't mentally oppose to description on the article once they see the description on the first line, by reducing the distance between the claims and the sentences that support those claims. The shortcoming of my proposed edits seems to be a reduced emphasis on it being a fake news website which is not really intended but I can't really think of a way to achieve both together. Maybe someone can come up with a way that can make the explanation more direct to readers? C933103 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Our job is not to salve the preconceptions of our readers. We go with what RS say, not what people want to think is true. To a degree I half agree with you, it would be best if we did not say it was fake news (it is after all only an accusation). But we also have policy, and that says "if RS say it we cannot question it".Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that while I agree that it would be preferable to state things in a way that is more "palatable", that this suggest is, in effect, a suggestion to (partially) re-write the article with a persuasive tone. That is not our job. We exist to inform people of the truth, we do not exist to convince them of the truth. Allowing people to be wrong is, in fact, one of the principles behind the consensus-building that makes this project work so well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

FAQ

We need an FAQ, addressing why we mention "fake news" and "conspiracy theories" in the lede. Addressing each individual POV pushing newb is tiresome and old. I would rather close such threads with a note to read the FAQ than continue to engage (or watch other good faith editors engage) these sorts of problem editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be a great idea if the POV pushing newbs would actually read a FAQ. How about an edit notice that says "if you came here to complain about Infowars being called a a far-right American conspiracy theorist and fake news website, that debate has long been settled, so don't even think about it. Oh, and have a nice Wiki day ." - MrX 🖋 22:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to wish them a Wiki day? How about just a day...? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the spirit of a FAQ but am also concerned that it may not change much... If the aim of visitors is to stir controversy that'll persist. However, it may help with prompt WP:NOTFORUM enforcement. Maybe worth it... —PaleoNeonate – 00:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Try to find a way to work a good "Go fuck yourself" in there and I could get behind that suggestion.

In all seriousness, I think that a mix of the two (setting up a very short FAQ as an edit notice) might be the best route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You have my support. - MrX 🖋 00:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Worth a try, if only as a collected reference to the endless circular discussions. Guy (Help!) 07:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If I find time tomorrow, I'll start a draft. If someone beats me to it, post a link here and I'll help get it together (gathering up some sources and such). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Go for it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've taken a stab at it, setting it up more like an edit notice. See User:MPants at work/sandbox. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a good start. Jim1138 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I like it. Especially the color. But also the clarity. If we use this, we can use the edit summary "Revert [..] See yellow block at the top of the page." --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I like your FAQ. The first word could be a little less authoritarian and I've made a suggested edit. I agree with others here who mentioned that the people who want to come here to whitewash the article probably can't actually read that well. This might help somewhat. Edaham (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Very nice. I noticed that they include sources, except the "conspiracy theory" section, which could likely also point at some? Many thanks for working on this, —PaleoNeonate – 07:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it seems to be popular, and I've already gotten some folks helping tweak things, I'm going to go ahead and make the last change (adding sources to the conspiracy theory section) and then create the edit notice. I'll post a link here, but there will also be a tiny little "Edit" link at the top. (It took me like two years to notice that, myself, lol.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

Remove "fake news" from the article. Crazyguy3333 (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done these sections are referenced, and your edit request doesn't really speak to what exactly you want changed, we're not just going to find that word and delete it. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

I just removed an edit that categorized Infowars as a Holocaust denying websites because I could find no evidence of that. I did find this; https://www.infowars.com/he-survived-nazi-concentration-camps-he-has-a-message-for-those-who-think-america-runs-its-own/ which criticizes a democrat who compared Trump’s immigration detainment policies with the holocaust, with the implied assumption that the holocaust happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This is InfoWars we're talking about - just because they write an article saying something doesn't mean they don't have a dozen articles directly contradicting it. Nevertheless, you're absolutely right that we can't label them holocaust deniers without reliable sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Does seem an accusation to far.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Whilst it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if InfoWars had published something like that, I suspect that the category is due to articles like this and this which deal with Facebook's response to the two issues of Infowars' lies about Sandy Hook etc. and, separately, Holocaust deniers - not Infowars talking about Holocausr denial. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Infowars never claimed Sandy Hook was fake for other than 2 minutes on Alex Jones radio show, which he walked back the next day, they never reported Sandy Hook was fake as a news story, you lie Exterminateprogs (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. See:

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45358890
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-defamation-suit-sandy-hook.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/04/17/heres-why-sandy-hook-parents-and-others-are-suing-alex-jones/

-Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliability of InfoWars

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.

---

There is a request for comment on the reliability of InfoWars:

1. Is InfoWars a generally unreliable source?
2. Should the use of InfoWars as a reference be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist?
3. Should InfoWars be used for determining notability?
4. Should InfoWars be used as a secondary source in articles?
5. Should an edit filter be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use InfoWars as a reference?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on reliability of InfoWars. — Newslinger talk 07:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 247#RfC on reliability of InfoWars to see how that turned out.

My RfC comment:

• Kill it. Kill it with fire. Lets see... Infowars claims that the government kidnaps children and makes then slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, 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 Temple of Baal arches will be put in multiple large cities around the world, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government committed the largest act of terrorism its own citizens experienced, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell... Sounds legit to me!

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 16 September 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.

PayPal bans Infowars for promoting hate

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/21/17887138/paypal-infowars-ban-alex-jones-hate-speech-deplatform

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Article focuses almost exclusively on 2016 to present

Additional history is needed for the 2001 to 2009 period, before Obama was sworn in, and after 9/11 happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugevas (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree, any suggestions? Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede could be written better.

Calling Infowars a "fake news" website is inaccurate and misleading. It's much better listed as a "shock" or "extremist politics" website. My specific reasoning:

1. Alex Jones is already listed in the "Shock Jock" article.

2. Business operations: Most Fake News sites tend to base their entire functionality around SEO (Search Engine Optimization) keywords, as their goal is to obtain maximum clicks either onto their website or onto a fake ad that steals credit card/personal info. As mentioned in the Infowars article, AJ's business operates through a mix of ads, subscriptions, syndication and sponsorships. He is running a much more professional business, one where the term "fake news" doesn't accurately represent what he is.

3. Politics: most fake news sites don't want to push a specific agenda, especially if they're made by foreigners (such as Russians) who don't understand American culture or society well. AJ is different, Infowars is explicitly his personal political vehicle and he has instant reactions to any event that occurs in America. This makes his news much more than just "fake", it's meant to be taken completely seriously. Jones's editorial standards are also much higher than "fake news". By the same token, news sources like Sputnik International are not "fake news" either, even if they are still horrible, awful sources for extremely biased news. SI, like AJ, has a specific brand of politics associated with it, which most FN sites do not.

4. AJ is not the face of fake news, we know this but many people do not. Labeling him as FN in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article, which is what shows up in a Google search, will confuse people who don't know. AJ did not create fake news either, nor is he it's biggest proponent.

5. Nowhere in the Infowars article does it mention that AJ considers himself a "performance artist", as is mentioned in AJ's own article. Putting this specific information in the lede is more accurate than "fake news" since it lets people know that AJ isn't a serious newscaster (some people think this). Additionally, FN sites are not "performances" nor are they "art", since they don't feature a named head and are run anonymously.

6. Labeling AJ as "fake news" uses the definition of FN President Trump promotes, which is news/opinion that is just poorly sourced rather than outright fake (as in: completely not real) news. This only causes confusion when people are looking up what "fake news" is, and find AJ being wrapped into the same places as random blogs pusing autogenerated content (ala elsagate)

7. As concerns over "fake news" spreads, so will local definitions of it as countries start regulating online content. Throwing AJ as "fake news" only creates a situation where someone outside America might stumble upon the article and not understand what's wrong with it. Having a separate "fake news" section in the Infowars article would probably alleviate this, where it would be stated which countries Infowars is considered "fake news" in.

To be clear: I personally don't like Infowars or AJ and it's perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to point out that his opinions are controversial and often simply not based in reality. But "fake news", the noun, doesn't apply to him. Personally, I would rewrite it as:

"InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy fanatic website and fringe media platform owned by shock jock Alex Jones's Free Speech Systems LLC.[14] It was founded in 1999."

73.189.217.205 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Did you not read the bright yellow edit notice when you were writing this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• 73.189.217.205, let me clarify something about Trump and "fake news". You wrote: "Labeling AJ as "fake news" uses the definition of FN President Trump promotes, which is news/opinion that is just poorly sourced rather than outright fake (as in: completely not real) news." Trump does not use that definition. When he uses the term, he means any news which portrays him in a negative light, even though it is abundantly true and well-sourced. He misuses the term.

  OTOH, AJ's mind just makes up shit, IOW real fake news. The dots in his theories may be true events, people, and places, but the connections are his own invention, connections often disproven by the facts. He just ignores the evidence and plows on. That's muddled and deceptive thinking. His followers lack critical thinking skills and seem to have no crap filters. Wallowing in conspiracy theories is a bit addicting, and is often a form of childish and immature contrarian anti-authoritarianism. It's a lot more fun than the boring facts and simplest explanation based on those facts. These people feel that freedom from facts is liberty.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything posted here about InfoWars not being fake news, and one of the citations given actually comes from an arguable rival CBS simply listing it as fake news with hardly a decent explanation as to why. IW is sort of in a weird category because it is a "news" site that's wrong so often but it doesn't quite fit the conventional definition of "fake news". Politicalaccuracyisimportant (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

CBS is a "rival" to InfoWars in the same way that Microsoft is a "rival" to some schizophrenic guy who thinks the voices in his head taught him Malbolge. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

But we also have more then one citation, that is the point this is not just the view of one media rival (or even media organisations that could be realistically called rivals).Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC).

Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts (also InfoWars)

Press coverage

References

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2018

InfoWars has issued corrections and retractions for some of its more controversial opinions. It is a strong proponent of free speech and a free press. It is an alternative news source. As with any news source, including Wikipedia, the reader is asked to use their common sense and do their own fact checking. It is not in the interests of a free country to live with censorship and blacklisting. Those are the tactics of oppressive regimes. A civil society demands we include all points of view, even those we disagree with. 72.73.87.84 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done. This request is not actionable. Please present edit requests in the form "change X to Y based on Z source". Please note that sources must be reliable, independent and secondary. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

InfoWars has issued corrections and retractions for some of its more controversial opinions. ; Also provide evidence supported by reliable sources that portray InfoWars as a credible news source. It is not in the interests of a free country to live with censorship and blacklisting. Please provide evidence and reliable sources about government-enforced censorship of the free press in relation to InfoWars. What we so far know is that specific corporate media outlets have removed material or banned accounts for failure to meet their policies. —PaleoNeonate – 13:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

https://xkcd.com/1357/ --Guy Macon (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Update Alexa rank

Infowars is currently rated 2,699 on Alexa, a fairly large increase since August, could someone update this? Underneaththesun (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

is this author biased infowars provides proof of everything they say yet you site several left wing news as sources which several have been proven to be liars and twist and omit facts 108.59.48.3 (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Declined - Please propose a specific change. –dlthewave ☎ 05:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

This view of InfoWars is politically biased, it is not alt-right as you describe it, nazi is short for national SOCIALIST and the team are as far from national socialism as it is possible to get 51.9.19.203 (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: This is well sourced. Also, the concepts behind Nationalsozialistische are not that simple. The Nazi Party was far-right. O3000 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

New edit request

the link to contributor "David Knight" points to a totally unrelated page - i'm assuming the result of multiple article merges/redirects. i don't think Knight is notable enough for his own page, but either way that link should be removed or replaced with a red placeholder. Nonononocat (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nonononocat: Please place new requests (or any new discussion) in its own new section at the bottom of the page.

You're right that Knight is not notable. However, the page that it links to is not unrelated: he did run as a Libertarian candidate in a 1992 race for an NC representative office, which is what the link points to. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

Attempted rewrite of article that reads like a press release. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

InfoWars] is a libertarian conservative American news broadcasting and freedom-fueled website (InfoWars.com]). It was founded in 1999 by Alex Jones, and is owned by Free Speech Systems LLC. Talk shows and other content for the site are created primarily in studios at an undisclosed location in an industrial area outside Austin, Texas. The InfoWars website receives approximately 15 million monthly visits, making its reach much greater than some mainstream news websites such as The Economist and Newsweek. In August 2017, Jones announced the launch of NewsWars.com [link redacted], a site Jones said was intended to battle the fake news media.

Thesourwarhead (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thesourwarhead: Not just  Not done, but hell no. Wikipedia is not here for Alex Jones to advertise on. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

As I expected, the content was actually advertising, i.e copied from Infowar's about page Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, would you redact the previous two revisions as copyright violations? Thanks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: the new URL has been added to the spam blacklist. --Calton | Talk 17:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2018

The first line of the page states:

InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website.[14] It was founded in 1999, and is owned by Free Speech Systems LLC.

This should be changed to alleged fake news.

Since the site pushes conspiracy theories by nature it could not be labeled fake news unless the theory unequivocally proven incorrect. A theory is just that, a theory, they are not stating that for sure their theory is correct because by definition a theory is an estimated guess. It is misleading to label a person, publication, or any other item as fake news unless you can unequivocally prove that what was presented as news is incorrect and on purposefully misleading. If Infowars believes their theory to be true then it cannot be fake news. We aren't inside their heads therefore we cannot know if they believe it or not. Fake news is a purposeful misleading delivery of content intended to mislead from the beginning. There is no basis for that claim in this case therefore I suggest the inclusion of the work alleged before fake news. 96.38.211.90 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No we say it because RS have said it.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Owen Shroyer

Is it really fair to label Owen Shroyer as a member of the 'alt-right'. The single source for this claim is taken from the free daily London Evening Standard and the article itself does not even make this claim nor does it offer any evidence to support this label — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.254.182.226 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Card skimming

Apparently InfoWar's Magento webstore was infected with the magecart malware, potentially compromising a few hundred customer's data. This has been reported on by ZDNet, and picked up by Fast Company, Washington Times, and a handful of other tech and security outlets. According to the Fast Company source, InfoWars implies it wasn't really infected and blames a "leftist" conspiracy, naturally.

This seems like a routine business matter, since Magecart has also infected Newegg, and British Airways, among others. I don't think this is significant enough to mention in the article, but I thought I would park it here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Created Web skimming Deku-shrub (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Request: Change the first sentence.

The first line: "InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website." should not be here.

Suggestion: At the very least, change the headline to: "Infowars is a controversial American news company, known for sharing conspiracy theories and fake news, and is widely regarded as far-right."

Infowars does not claim to be a fake news website, or far-right, and until it does this should not be stated matter-of-factly. For instance, The Republican Party do not officially call themselves far-right even though they may be regarded as such... And Democrats do not officially call themselves far-left even though they are regarded as such.

I'm not defending Infowars here, but to keep things accurate on Wikipedia, we can't be branding Infowars something based on opinion. They have to at least claim to be what you're saying before you state it as a matter of fact.

You can absolutely argue that Infowars disseminates fake news, but you cannot pretend Infowars' mission statement is specifically fake news. We've seen CNN spread fake news before, but that's not their stated purpose so you won't find that on their Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:c024:9d00:bd94:51e:8f4a:4599 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please review the talk page archives, linked near the top of the page. This has already been discussed many times. Multiple reliable sources describe InfoWars as a fake news outlet. This is presented by sources as a defining characteristic, not an opinion. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We follow WP:reliable sources, not organizations' self-descriptions, and least of all their mission statements. See Avoid mission statements. Please also consider reading the huge, bright yellow, in-your-face, edit notice that appears when you click "edit"; it contains complete answers to your request. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

Edit: Okay, thank you for clarifying this. I would just add though, there is no need to be childish - there are kinder ways of correcting people than "look at that big yellow button you can't miss it" - knowing full well that I missed it.

The second thing I would point out is that even Alex Jones' Wikipedia page has what he describes himself as, not what people think of him. An excerpt:

"Jones has described himself as a conservative, paleoconservative and libertarian, terms he uses interchangeably. Others describe him as conservative, right-wing, alt-right, and far-right. New York described Jones as "America's leading conspiracy theorist", and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America". Asked about such labels, Jones said he is "proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother"." -OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:c024:9d00:bd94:51e:8f4a:4599 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Infowars claims that the government kidnaps children and makes then slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Temple of Baal arches will be put in multiple large cities around the world, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell... (Sarcasm) I have no idea why anyone would call such an obviously reliable source of purely factual information "fake news"! Its a mystery! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Another mystery is why there are several people who seem to think that "Infowars does not claim to be a fake news website" is a reason to assume it is not. (I heard that one before.) Why on Earth would fake news websites call themselves "fake news"? That would betray their whole purpose.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say "Alex Jones' Wikipedia page has [..] not what people think of him", then you go on to quote it, and it does say what people think of him.

On top of that, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Jones page following another writing pattern than this one would be no reason to change this one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree lets keep it polite, OP you are not going top get this changed. It is too well sourced. Info wars opinion of itself is both irrelevant and fails inclusion policies (read wp:sps and wp:rs).Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

InfoWars is a right wing American news website.[14] It was founded in 1999, and is owned by Free Speech Systems LLC. Holmestyles (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done. See the FAQ. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones is hate speech it should be removed 27.7.33.41 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Its what RS say, many many times.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not doneThat's not what hate speech is. You should go read that article, instead of this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Owen Shroyer page

I think Owen Shroyer should have his own page. He has become a prominent figure on Infowars site and the alt-right movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayfabe007 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

This page is full of lies. 2602:304:B2B2:3A9:93B:A033:7663:3C9B (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We use RS here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Still might be lies, after all Alex Jones might not even be his real name (In would not put it past him for it to be (like everything else he does) for appearances)Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. Unless you are suggesting that we add a note to every statement of fact in the article, you are off topic and treading very close to the WP:BLP line. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Very true, I will strike.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The absolute state of wikipedia

This is worst article I've seen on this website. It's not even remotely neutral and is a total abuse of wikipedia rules. Just read this opening sentence: "InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones". I count 3 factual statements and 3 biased statements. It's a disgrace. And I like the sign on top when trying to write the commentary that reads "we can judge as we please because truth is on our side". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.166.170.177 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest changing it to "InfoWars is an American website owned by Alex Jones often labeled as a source of conspiracy theories and fake news." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.166.170.177 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As the edit notice (The "the sign on top when trying to write the commentary") says, these descriptions are "used by the preponderance of reliable sources, and not contested by any reliable sources". If a preponderance of reliable sources not contested by reliable sources said Info Wars is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would report "Info Wars is a cheese sandwich". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The sea is wet, even if most sources do not explicitly say so, there are enough that say it is for us to take it as a fact for our purposes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

What makes mainstream media a reliable source? Can InfoWars count as a reliable source? Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.166.170.177 (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ask this question at wp:rsn. All I can say is that the community has found many (not all) mainstream media to be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are defined at WP:IRS. Info Wars is clearely not a reliable source, unless you believe there are child slaves on Mars, kids pretending to get shot at school and their parents pretending to grieve, the Democratic party running a pedophile ring at pizza shops, etc. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia about the facts?

I’m honestly wondering if Wikipedia is about presenting the facts of just pushing an agenda.

Love infowars or not, how bout some balance?. I doubt they wound call themselves any of the things that are on the page stated as facts.

Maybe some counter points?.

This is one of the reasons when you bring up Wikipedia as a source, people actually laugh and say, yeah but people randomly edit and who can trust it ?. ZozPrime (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

What counter-points? Do you actually believe that Pizzagate is real, that the HPV vaccine is a secret Communist plot or that Barack Obama is a Kenyan Muslim terrorist usurper? If so, we literally don't care what you think. Please see WP:GEVAL — we do not give equal validity to utter nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No, we are about verifiability.Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't necessarily give equal weight, or any weight for that matter, to both sides. If reliable sources gave serious consideration to the idea that they're not a far right conspiracy theory site, or that there may be a grain of truth behind pizzagate et al, then we would provide a proportional level of coverage. But they don't, so we don't.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2019

info wars is a news site not a conspiracy site unlike CNN CreepplayZ (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Infowars 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 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... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Provide one RS that says CNN is a conspiracy website.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course no such source exists, but it may interest the reader to know what UNreliable sources are promoting the "CNN is part of a conspiracy" conspiracy theory: [11][12][13]

This is not to say that CNN does not on occasion cross over to the dark side[14][15] but they are generally reliable.

"The president of CNN Worldwide, Jeff Zucker, attempted on Wednesday to defuse the brewing controversy over his decision to change the network’s official slogan from 'The Most Trusted Name in News' to 'Holy Crap, We’re All Gonna Die'... 'This exciting new slogan is just one piece of our over-all rebranding strategy,' Zucker said. 'Going forward, we want CNN to be synonymous with the threat of imminent death.' "[16]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of opinions of this or any other topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2019 The conspiracy theories contained within the InfoWars.com website have not been proven false by any sources other than fake sources. These fake media sources include: CNN, The New York Times, etc. and have been proven to post false articles. Therefore, they do not need to be trusted as "reliable sources". If the news sources aren't reliable, Wikipedia does NOT need to make changes because of them. Remove InfoWars.com as a "fake news" website. It makes no sense logically. 206.193.210.134 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Labeling as fake news website

Please read the talk page archives for more information. —PaleoNeonate – 17:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By labeling InfoWars as a "fake news website" you are only showing your own bias. The truth is that on any given day, any given story published in any given news source may turn out to be false. This can be for any given reason, including editorial bias, an unscrupulous reporter, or a source which is believed to be reliable but turns out to be lying, or even an honest mistake. Infowars is more accurately described as a whistleblower website. The nature of whistleblowing is just like the nature of taking in defecting spies from the other side-- a certain percentage of reports turn out to be false, notably the allegation that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged by crisis actors. I would find it acceptable to replace "fake news website" with "often accused of being a fake news website", or even just including the term in quotes to indicate it is an accusation. But dogmatically labeling it as such is inappropriate. You say that it has been documented by "reliable" sources, but the list of "reliable" sources includes the likes of CNN, which has been documented to accept bribes from foreign governments in return for favorable coverage. In fact, Infowars, and other sites like it, often describe and document the bias and misreporting done by sources you claim are "reliable". You claim that this claim does not violate your NPOV policy but I contend that it does, and is not realistic. In fact, a large percentage of news reported by Infowars and branded as "fake" turns out to be true and later confirmed by mainstream media. Here are two examples of Infowars reports that turned out to be true: 1-The contamination at Fukushima was worse than initially reported 2-Donald Trump was illegally spied on during his campaign. Jones originally came to fame alleging 9-11 conspiracy theories. They have not been proven either totally true or totally false and the reality is somewhere in the middle. It has now been established that high figures of the Saudi government were involved in the planning and execution of the terrorist attacks, and this was withheld from the public for many years. In fact the withholding of information from the public for foreign policy reasons is commonplace. Today, Alex Jones and his reporters often document what they say by showing the source videos, headlines, and news stories. Often, he takes a role similar to Drudge Report and shows you what the mainstream media is actually reporting that fits into his theories.139.218.175.37 (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC) We go wit what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC) CNN has not been documented to accept bribes; there is no proof that Trump was illegally spied on, 9-11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories, and there aren’t child slave camps on Mars. We use reliable sources, and they say Infowars is a fake news site. O3000 (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Independent reliable sources (those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy) say InfoWars is a fake news website, packed full of outlandish conspiracy theories. Thus, Wikipedia says the same. That isn't going to change. The article you seem to want to write would better fit with Conservapedia or Metapedia. They have different content guidelines which may better fit your approach. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not all of Infowars content is "fake news"

Although I do agree with the fact that most of the content on Info Wars is probably fake, that doesn't mean every single article that is posted on the site isn't true.

For example, in their Europe division there is an article about UK's main political parties being punished in the recent England council elections. This is a story that has been repeated by many reputable sources, such as The Telegraph.

Another article, also in their Europe division, reports on an investigation being started in France after "May Day" protests where the police where water cannons and tear gas was used. It also presented how the police responded to this.

By describing them as a "fake news website" you are essentially strengthening their points on attack on free speech, deep state and other theories, which are absolutely not true. Instead, I suggest you replace the term "fake news websites" with a sentence that goes along the lines of this: The subject of most of InfoWars' articles and news stories have been proven to be partially, or completely, false. Animal28 (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a particular reason for your belief that it can't be a fake news website unless every single article is fake? Even The Onion sometimes prints things that are true. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The example that you used is described by Wikipedia as a satire newspaper, not an actual news source. Animal28 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nonsense. The New York Times is referred to as a newspaper, even though it also has crossword puzzles and recipes. O3000 (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really a lot to add, a Victoria sponge does not just contain sponge.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I knew there was something amiss in the way I made Victoria sponge cakes.O3000 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a slight different between news articles, recipes and crossword puzzles... Animal28 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It's still broken. O3000 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to get at is if you call it a "fake news" website, it would strengthen Alex Jones' claim that the media is trying to censor conservative points-of-view. We don't want that! Animal28 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That does not make sense in more way than one:

• Calling InfoWars "fake news" is not censorship. Closing down InfoWars would be censorship.

Exactly right. Criticising a news outlet for poor quality is not the same as advocating for censorship. Just as Donald Trump criticising mainstream outlets for poor work is not an attack on the First Amendment nor a call to violence against journalists. You offer a very fair point.2A02:2454:9847:8200:2860:D203:B4F3:7D94 (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Not calling InfoWars "fake news" would be a lie.
• The goal of Wikipedia is not to prevent Alex Jones saying certain things or to manipulate him into saying other things. It is to accurately reflect what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)i

Its actaully a half valid point, just in the same way that calling (say) Mr Hilter (PPC for North Minehead) would be helped if you want on about him being a NAZI, his supporters would go "ohh no he's not!". The problem is that would do that for any claim other then "Alex Jones truth teller extraordinaire". That is the point with conspiracy theorists, anything is party of it unless you say "I confesses!". But the general public are not so easily fooled, and I do not think are going to sympathize with Jones just because we say mean things about him, all they have to do is watch his interview with the loathsome Morgan to decide whatever we say about him is actually not strong enough.Slatersteven (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website because independent reliable sources say it is a far-right, American website presenting conspiracy theories and fake news. If independent reliable sources said it was a grilled cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would report that "InfoWars is a grilled cheese sandwich" then begin a protracted debate as to whether to link "grilled cheese sandwich" to Grilled cheese, Cheese_sandwich#Grilled_cheese_sandwich or Grilled cheese (disambiguation). That InfoWars also includes a side of chips, a pickle and occasional bits of truth is trivial unless independent reliable sources discuss them, then WP:WEIGHT applies. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Love it. Most sandwiches come with a side of chips and a pickle. Just as most conspiracy theories are built on a kernel of truth. The World Trade Center really really did collapse, and John Podesta really does like pizza. Take that, skeptics! R2 (bleep) 18:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I say this not to WP:BITE an apparent newcomer or personally attack them, but I can't help but suspect that the OP (Animal28) might not be here for the right reasons. Aside from this thread they've started, it appears they've tried to create a less neutral version of the Brexit article and removed the speedy deletion tag from it multiple times. To be clear, I am not casting aspersions or accusing them of any malicious intent, but I find this behavior to be worrisome and, if it is found to be persistent, NOTHERE likely applies. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the "Take Note" section above, which you see if you want to make an edit. Wikipedia uses the labels its does about Infowars because a number of leftist outlets that it deems as reliable uses such labels. Basically, "we say so, because they said so". CNN is listed as one of those reliable sources...remember "Hand's up - don't shoot"? That was fake news from a reliable source. What about the report that Trump mocked a physically handicapped man on stage? Fake news again. So mainstream leftists outlets are reliable fake news and Infowars is unreliable fake news. Got it. And I don't mean this as a criticism. Everyone is entitled to his bias. I am just saying let's keep that fact real.2A02:2454:9847:8200:2860:D203:B4F3:7D94 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Other stuff is not a valid reason to say Infowars is not fake new (accepting what you have alleged is true, I have no idea what "Hand's up - don't shoot" refers to).Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: FWIW see Hands up, don't shoot. You know it's fake when Eric Holder found no witnesses confirming it. But this is *off-topic*. wumbolo ^^^ 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the Infowars is not fake news (it used to be much worse) - and what allegations are you accepting? I did not allege anything. What I wrote is confirmed at the very top of this page when you want to edit. Never heard of "Hand's up, don't shoot?". (And I thought I was living under a rock.) Try searching for it on Wikipedia.2A02:2454:9847:8200:39DC:790E:AED8:3091 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I would remind users that wp:notaforum.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

How convenient.2A02:2454:9847:8200:39DC:790E:AED8:3091 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That was aimed at everyone.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones.

It's very misleading to say that Alex Jones is far right. He's clearly a conservative news pundit to label him as far right give the negative connotation that he's this negative alt right person.

Alex Jones talks about conspiracies and often a lot of the time isn't his own conspiracies. Having that first paragraph written in that way is not genuine it to Alex Jones or infowars. Trell Blazing (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2019

Remove the fake news part for Mr. Jones Doesn't create fake news like main stream media he reports the true version that the main stream media Doesn't want reported — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.206.148 (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per reliable sources and multiple past discussions. Grayfell (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Sexual harassment and antisemitism claims?

I think this part belongs to article about Alex Jones, not article about Infowar since the examples are all about Jones. Mariogoods (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that should be in both, if they were carried out against employees that is a company issue, if they were carried out by Jones that is a personal issue.Slatersteven (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Infowars Returns to YouTube... No, wait! It's gone again.

Infowars Returns to YouTube After CEO Said It Will Allow ‘Offensive’ Content -- Update: Shortly after this story was published, YouTube deleted Infowars' War Room channel. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Are we discussing the content of the article?

Discuss content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing the content of the article. Specifically, we are discussing the validity of the constant string of requests that we remove "conspiracy theory and fake news website". No comments about specific users have been made. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing those words is a valid request. You're saying that because some stories are absurd or proven false, that all of their content is false. That is misleading. If you decide to keep "conspiracy theory and fake news website" in the text, I formally request you do the same for CNN's page, MSNBC's, and FOX New's page, as they have also had numerous stories that have been proven false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madscientwist (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite the number of flaws that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX may have, it's a false equivalence to say their news as as fake and conspiratorial as an outlet that warns of an imminent "invasion by South American walruses" (yes InfoWars actually reported that) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Listen to this[17] and compare it with this.[18] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Typo in removal from platforms.

It says Facebbok rather than Facebook. The very last sentence of first paragraph in the Removal from Platforms section. Mandrilltiger (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. Good catch! I am doubling the amount of pay you get for editing Wikipedia. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Proves that Alex Jones is a far-right

I've checked many sources in this articles, web pages which even doesn't have author of the article specified. Where's the prove that he is far right? Since when conspiracies is considered to be a far right activity? Far-right means basically only one - nazism, not else. A hate aimed towards exact nation, and that hate usually should be backed up with actions only. Any hate without actions, can't be considered far-right. I'm not even from USA in here and I just see huge generalisation in this article just because someone has different opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.15.181.121 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia just summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. It does not engage in original research.

The first source cited is titled Dozens of leading brands pull ads from far right conspiracy site InfoWars' YouTube channel. Second cited source starts with the line "Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist behind the far-right site Infowars,". one is about the "far-right website InfoWars and its founder, notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones". Fourth says "far-right news site InfoWars and its leader Alex Jones". And so on and so on... The academic sources (such as Sandlin's Paranoid Pedagogies) likewise describe him as right-wing.

Even if we were going to ignore sources, Jones is fiscally conservative, socially conservative, but still wants a government strong enough to take care of the things he imagines are problems (any desire for lack of gov't interference in his life is not truly a principle of liberalism).

Also, the idea that "hate without actions, can't be considered far-right" is ridiculous bullshit. By that reasoning, Joseph Goebbels was completely innocent. Propaganda inspires actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The first RS that says it [19], want more?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

From A German far right without Nazi ties':

• "Right in the heart of Germany itself, the ascendant new Alternative for Deutschland party, AfD for short, has launched an initiative to attract more Jews. With its new 'Jews in the AfD' section, debuting soon, the party aims to capitalize on what it sees as a historically monumental threat to European civilization posed by Islam."

From Far-right politics#Definition:

• "As they view their community in a state of decay facilitated by the ruling elites, far-right members portray themselves as a natural, sane and alternative elite, with the redemptive mission of saving society from its promised doom. The current political order is presented as needing to be abandoned or purged of impurity, so that the 'redemptive community' can leave the phase of liminal crisis to usher in the new era."

The far right does contain traditional Nazis, but to insist that this is all that the far right contains does not match what the sources say. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

"Fake News" is subjective, reliable sources is ALWAYS subjective! and rationally cannot be "proven" if alex jones is in fact correct about his theory therefore, logic dictates that you suspend the page entirely because it is by law slander against Jones and his staff which also mentions sexual topics that are jones was not convicted of. 205.155.143.66 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please rejoin reality, and do not even imply a hint of things that could be construed as a legal threat or you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

InfoWars is not FAKE NEWS. Everything Alex hones and his reporters have reported on have been proven such as Atrazine does turns frogs gay (Atrazine has been a suspected teratogen, with some studies reporting causing demasculinization in male northern leopard frogs even at low concentrations,[48][49] and an endocrine disruptor.[50] A 2002 study by Tyrone Hayes, of the University of California, Berkeley, found that exposure caused male tadpoles to turn into hermaphrodites – frogs with both male and female sexual characteristics.[51])I can list literally thousands of examples of alex jones being proven right. WitchDoctor61 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Its not how often he is right that counts, even a broken clock is right twice a day. What matters is what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Asked and answered.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Automatically calling InfoWars fake news is proving InfoWars right, yet again, about censorship of conservative & independent media sources. People can make fun all they want but when InfoWars can get things right and CNN has to make retractions it is childish & fascist to label it like this. You can have your opinion. But you're not God and you don't get to decide what's true. Yusaki777 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC) You literally said it doesn't matter if Alex Jones is right. You're basing your judgment on "Reliable Sources". Well according to CNN and MSNBC, Fox isn't reliable. According to Fox, CNN isn't reliable. You claiming deity and deciding who is reliable and who isn't isn't "open". It's exclusionary & one-sided. All I ask for is to allow for the viewpoint of the MILLIONS of followers across the PLANET. Otherwise you're just proving Alex Jones is right when he says mainstream tech & media outlets are coordinating to censor independent conservative outlets. Be fair and open, or make him a martyr & give us more strength. Your move. Yusaki777 (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Infowars is not fake news

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

---

Infowars is not fake news. Articles are backed with sources. Check the sources people. Do your research. Decide for yourself. Dont believe the first thing you hear about someone. Find out for yourself. With any news you read. I think it would surprise you. That or think what a person or people's motives are when they are smearing someone's name. Flange365 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

See [20] O3000 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for fun (and to see if there is anything new) I took Flange365's "Check the sources people. Do your research. Decide for yourself." advice. Here are some sources:

• "...InfoWars.com, a far-right website known for promoting conspiracy theories." -- The Wall Street Journal
• "Don't get fooled by these fake news sites: Infowars.com -- The site is connected to Alex Jones, a radio host and conspiracy theorist who has alleged the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax." -- CBS News
• "Conspiracy Theories Made Alex Jones Very Rich. They May Bring Him Down." -- The New York Times
• "Alex Jones' 5 most disturbing and ridiculous conspiracy theories" -- CNBC
• "Alex Jones Promotes Conspiracy About Death of Sandy Hook Father Jeremy Richman" -- Newsweek
• "Alex Jones — conspiracy peddler, provocateur, Texan — lost easy access to millions upon millions of followers this week when Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify banned much, if not all, of his content. Thinking of Jones’ empire — built on provably false theories and predictably wrong predictions — I wondered about those followers. Who are they? What brings them to his pages? Why do they seem willing to accept fantasy and conjecture over fact?" -- The Dallas Morning News
• " Alex Jones’ Mis-Infowars: 7 Bat-Shit Conspiracy Theories: From 'false flag' attacks to man-made hurricanes, a look at the favorite talking points of the 'most paranoid man in America'" -- Rolling stone
• "Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones blames ‘psychosis’ and Hillary Clinton for his Sandy Hook school shooting claims" -- The Independent (UK)

I agree. check the above sources and decide for yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Flange365: At this point, if you continue to say that InfoWars is anything but fake news, you will be blocked under WP:CIR. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally. Agree. I think there have not been enough discussion about the fact that infowars is prosecuting fake news and propaganda. Also, there have been too little discussion to just decide that this fake-news reference should have been put here on the o so objective Wikipedia. What a shame! This infowars page is infiltrated with left extremism subjectiveness. Nauseating! Joshuabarendse (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Also no evidence that they spread fake news. We should protect this holy place on the internet from these liars. Joshuabarendse (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2019 (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.

FAQ

Could we perhaps start an FAQ for this talk page that echoes the contents of the talk page's edit notice? It seems that editors are coming here and simply ignoring the notice to make the same point that has been repeated throughout the article's recent history. I do not believe that it will stop the editors from repeating the same thing, but I do believe that it will more quickly give them the answers, which they will probably reject. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 06:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That would give them more WP:ROPE for us to make WP:NOTHERE blocks. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The Alex Jones article does have Talk:Alex Jones/FAQ though, —PaleoNeonate – 07:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, yes, it already exists. It was transcluded once I think, same as at the homeopathy talk page. Guy (help!) 14:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 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

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

Contributor

This source comes directly from infowars website and via email correspondence with the company.

Redding Taylor (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

We need an actual web link to be able to verify this information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I doubt we need such a huge list.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I edited the list to the essential people involved. The website is blacklisted so I can't add the source directly. It is infowars dotcom /contributors