Objective3000 (talk | contribs) |
→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2018: rm copied from infowars.com/ about-alex-jones/ |
||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
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 [[Special:Contributions/51.9.19.203|51.9.19.203]] ([[User talk:51.9.19.203|talk]]) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
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 [[Special:Contributions/51.9.19.203|51.9.19.203]] ([[User talk:51.9.19.203|talk]]) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
*[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> This is well sourced. Also, the concepts behind Nationalsozialistische are not that simple. The [[Nazi Party]] was far-right. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
*[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> This is well sourced. Also, the concepts behind Nationalsozialistische are not that simple. The [[Nazi Party]] was far-right. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2018 == |
|||
{{edit extended-protected|InfoWars|answered=yes}} |
|||
{{cot|1=Attempted rewrite of article that reads like a press release. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 20:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
'''[http://newswars.com InfoWars]''' is a [[Libertarian conservatism|libertarian conservative]] American news broadcasting and freedom-fueled website ('''[http://newswars.com 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, [[Alex Jones|Jones]] announced the launch of '''[http://newswars.com NewsWars.com]''', a site Jones said was intended to battle the fake news media. |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
[[User:Thesourwarhead|Thesourwarhead]] ([[User talk:Thesourwarhead|talk]]) 20:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Thesourwarhead}} Not just {{not done}}, but hell no. Wikipedia is not here for Alex Jones to advertise on. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 20:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:57, 3 November 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
- Is InfoWars a generally unreliable source?
- Should the use of InfoWars as a reference be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist?
- Should InfoWars be used for determining notability?
- Should InfoWars be used as a secondary source in articles?
- 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!
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)
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).
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.
[citation needed]; 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)
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)
Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts (also InfoWars)
Press coverage
References
- ^ Cole, Samantha (October 2, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Motherboard. Retrieved October 5, 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|website=
(help) - ^ Smith, Adam (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Breitbart as Source of Fact". PC Magazine. Retrieved October 5, 2018.
- ^ Gilmer, Marcus (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018.
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:53, 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)
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)
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)
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, 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)