Talk:InfoWars
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the InfoWars article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning InfoWars and Alex Jones.
Q1: Is this article biased?
A1: Wikipedia follows the consensus view of reliable independent sources. Sometimes, as with InfoWars, the dominant view is negative. Wikipedia avoids false balance and does not accord undue weight to fringe views. Q2: Should the article describe InfoWars as "fake news"?
A2: Yes. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars routinely publishes entirely fabricated stories, otherwise known as fake news. Q3: Should the article describe InfoWars as far-right or alt-right?
A3: Both. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars's political stance aligns with the far right and alt-right. Q4: Should the article describe InfoWars as promoting conspiracy theories?
A4: Yes. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars promotes conspiracies, most notably the false claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a false-flag operation. Q5: Does the number of editors who complain about bias on the talk page, or the frequency of complaints, matter?
A5: No. WP:CONSENSUS does not work that way. Please refer to Q1 for more information on the requirements for a post to merit consideration. It should cite reliable sources that contradict the status quo. Single purpose accounts are often recognized as not being here to build the encyclopedia, a valid block reason. Editing is a privilege to work on the project where free speech does not apply. Posts considered to violate policies (including WP:NOTFORUM) may be ignored, collapsed or deleted (WP:TPO). |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on August 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Requested edit
editRequesting to change the last sentence of the lede from "On November 14th, it was revealed that InfoWars was bought by The Onion" to "On November 14th, it was announced that InfoWars was bought by The Onion". Revealing implies it was meant to be a surprise or magic trick or something. guninvalid (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest: Change "On November 14, 2024, it was revealed that Global Tetrahedron..." to "On November 14, 2024, it was announced that Global Tetrahedron..." guninvalid (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
History section mentions nothing between 1999 and 2016
editIt just jumps almost 20 years from the founding of the site to the Trump/Alt right years when it started to get in trouble with zero mention of what was on there all that time
Infowars was such a big part of pop culture and the internet in the early 2000s and was a lot more varied and far out along the lines of national enquirer and other tabloid style stories and conspiracies. 2001:56B:9FE6:191D:0:4A:47DA:C101 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following template at top of article, due to the ongoing situation involving an acquisition:
 | This article may be affected by a current event. Information in this article may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. |
BlunanNation (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Current is only for articles with rapidly-changing information. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The website has already been shut down
editThough I can't use the url as a source, I request that you instead visit it. The only thing you will find on InfoWars.com is a message saying "Site unavailable til further notice."Speakfor23 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Typo
edit"It is set to hbe relaunched in January 2025" Tony Sutton (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, change "Sandy Hook shootings" for "the Sandy Hook shooting", as the current wording makes it look like it's referring to more than one shooting. Scs52 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Unsourced claim
editOn November 14, it was announced that Global Tetrahedron—publishers of the news satire publication The Onion—had acquired the assets of InfoWars, with plans to relaunch it in 2025 as a satirical website.
There are no sources for this claim by ViperSnake151, seems like personal conjecture as evidenced by edit summary "I'd consider the "new" InfoWars a separate publication, switch to using past-tense"
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2024 (2)
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence it says it "is a far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website."
Please change this to "right wing conspiracy theory and news website."
Saying fake news is biased and not true since all the news on there is not fake. Some may be just like some on any website can be. It's also not far-right. 117.102.115.148 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Infowars is not dead, it is just being relaunched
edit- Past tense should not used in the opening sentence. Infowars is just being relaunched due to ownership change.138.75.13.45 (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well it has not yet been re-launched so we do not know what form it will take. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Re-launched may not be the correct word as it is likely to be a parody of its past. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate to write that InfoWars "was" a far-right, fake-news website, because it isn't one anymore. As for the relaunch, WP:CRYSTAL dictates that we must not phrase the article to present the event as inevitable or guaranteed. Carguychris (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.infowarsstore.com is still active. Using past tense might be confusing to people. 138.75.13.45 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- This page is about Infowars, not info wars store. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.infowarsstore.com is still active. Using past tense might be confusing to people. 138.75.13.45 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Infowars is restored
editInfowars.com is up and running again right now with the same old content, after a judge blocked the sale. WolfmanFP (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a source to the intro synopsis, e.g. the NYT source that's already used later in the article.
- Replace
and the bankruptcy judge put the sale on hold.
withand the bankruptcy judge put the sale on hold.<ref name=nyt>{{cite news |last=Mullin |first=Benjamin |date=November 14, 2024 |title=The Onion Says It Has Bought Infowars, Alex Jones' Site, Out of Bankruptcy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/business/media/alex-jones-infowars-the-onion.html |accessdate=November 14, 2024 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> - Replace
to be held the following week.<ref>{{cite news |last=Mullin |first=Benjamin |date=November 14, 2024 |title=The Onion Says It Has Bought Infowars, Alex Jones' Site, Out of Bankruptcy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/business/media/alex-jones-infowars-the-onion.html |accessdate=November 14, 2024 |work=The New York Times}}</ref>
withto be held the following week.<ref name=nyt/>91.125.241.19 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the link to the website for the URL. 23.244.167.108 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 11 December 2024
edit
 | It has been proposed in this section that InfoWars be renamed and moved to Infowars. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
InfoWars → Infowars – The lowercase W is the term most preferred by news sources, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NBC News, and Infowars figures, including Alex Jones. In a request to the Supreme Court to stay the judgment in the lawsuit brought against Jones by the parents of Sandy Hook victims, Jones' lawyers name the company as "Infowars" and the company appears to be legally registered as "Infowars". While there are a few instances of "InfoWars" in other lawsuits, it is clear that the website itself is "Infowars", not "InfoWars". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support for the reasons stated. Also on its website (now archived) the organisation refers to itself as Infowars.
- Gatepainter (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Carguychris (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Pizzagate Consequences
editCan someone add that a gunman with an AR-15 actually went to Comet Ping Pong to "investigate" the Pizzagate claims as it says in the NYTimes and Washington Post? I don't think that the "death threats" the article mentions does this justice.
PotatoKugel (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PotatoKugel, the obvious issue with this suggestion is that we need a WP:RELIABLE source that positively and unequivocally ties Welch's actions to Infowars. I can't read the entire WaPo article due to a paywall, but the NYT article definitely doesn't say that. Without a source, tying them together is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Carguychris (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do we need that or can we simply say that Infowars promoted the Pizzagate claim which led to the gunman?
- Technically, the Wikipedia article as it is written now does not source the death threats and all that to the fact that Infowars particularly spread the claim. I thought the way to read the article was that Infowars spread the claim and the claim led to death threats and all that, regardless of whether the people committing those acts found the claim because of Infowars. PotatoKugel (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PotatoKugel:
...can we simply say that Infowars promoted the Pizzagate claim which led to the gunman?
No, that is WP:SYNTH. Crucial point was brought up by @Slatersteven:...infowars was not the only source for that lie.
The rumors spread all over the place. Pizzagate and the assault by Welch predated (and arguably precipitated) the major tightening of controls on misinformation on popular social media. In order to say what you're suggesting, there needs to be clear WP:RELIABLE evidence that the gunman was inspired directly by Infowars, preferably in the form of a well-attributed statement he made. Carguychris (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)- @Carguychris, the article right now mentions "threatening phone calls, online harassment, and death threats". Technically, how do we know that anything particular is directly because of InfoWars? None of the sources in the article right now make the link for anything particular. Why doesn't this also violate WP:SYNTH? (To clarify, I don't think that this line should be removed. I am just trying to get clear why the line discussing the "threatening phone calls, online harassment, and death threats" is not a violation of WP:SYNTH and the gunman incident is.) PotatoKugel (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- By going by what courts (for example) say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I hear that. Do you think the article needs to source some of the court rulings? PotatoKugel (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- No as we can also use other sources, and as far as I know nothing here is unsourced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see any of the sources attribute any specific incident to Infowars. Can you point out which source does this? PotatoKugel (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- No as we can also use other sources, and as far as I know nothing here is unsourced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I hear that. Do you think the article needs to source some of the court rulings? PotatoKugel (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PotatoKugel, a key difference is that the Pizzagate assault was perpetrated by an outside party who could have been inspired by numerous other online sources, and as far as I know, there is no well-attributed statement that he was inspired by any particular one. Additionally, Infowars promptly issued a retraction. In contrast, the Sandy Hook false flag lies were largely an Infowars creation, and when Infowars was asked (relatively politely) to issue a retraction, Jones initially doubled down. In other words, Infowars was clearly the instigator, and this is very well documented. Carguychris (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I hear what you are saying about the difference between Pizzagate and the Sandy Hook Hoax. I was just wondering about the difference between the threatening phone calls, online harassment, and death threats caused by Pizzagate, and the gunman, caused by Pizzagate. PotatoKugel (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- By going by what courts (for example) say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Carguychris, the article right now mentions "threatening phone calls, online harassment, and death threats". Technically, how do we know that anything particular is directly because of InfoWars? None of the sources in the article right now make the link for anything particular. Why doesn't this also violate WP:SYNTH? (To clarify, I don't think that this line should be removed. I am just trying to get clear why the line discussing the "threatening phone calls, online harassment, and death threats" is not a violation of WP:SYNTH and the gunman incident is.) PotatoKugel (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PotatoKugel:
- Yes, I would like to see better sourcing, as infowars was not the only source for that lie. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)