Talk:Infowars/Archive 2

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change

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

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

To:

Staff The following table lists InfoWars main staff members.

ALEX JONES Publisher & Director

PAUL JOSEPH WATSON Editor, Staff Writer

STEVE WATSON Associate Editor, Staff Writer

ADAN SALAZAR Associate Editor, Staff Writer

KIT DANIELS Associate Editor, Staff Writer

ROB DEW Nightly News Director

DAVID KNIGHT Reporter

LEE ANN MCADOO Reporter

JON BOWNE Correspondent

MILLIE WEAVER Reporter

JAMIE WHITE Associate Editor, Staff Writer

OWEN SHROYER Reporter

DAN LYMAN Correspondent

JON RAPPOPORT Contributor

SHEPARD AMBELLAS Contributor

GREG REESE Contributor ^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

replace Type of site Politics News and opinion

with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“Fake news website”

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please reformat this hatnote should be italicized:

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

I am going to be adding reference to the Steam game launched by Infowars/Alex Jones but I can't determine which article it should be featured under. Any advice? Link: https://www.mediamatters.org/alex-jones/alex-jones-profiting-his-new-game-steam-while-refusing-pay-sandy-hook-families-he skarz (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't its too trivial for words. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

“InfoWars, Haaretz reported in 2017, had accused Israel of involvement in the 9/11 attacks, accused the Rothschilds of the promotion of ‘endless war, debt slavery and a Luciferian agenda’ and US health-care of being under the control of a ‘Jewish mafia.’”

it just doesn’t make sense Kierandude (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to copyedit this into something easier to understand here, not sure if I was successful. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierandude (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why doesn’t msnbc have similar descriptions since they have been proven to have pushed fake narrative surrounding trump Russian collusion and false statements related to hunter Biden laptop that has been confirmed by a court of law to be real 172.97.27.250 (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting? Shocking lol also why post about MSNBC on this article? Talk about irrelevant. 32.220.216.27 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As am I, source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 2604:3D08:3689:C700:65F5:419E:F36E:347B (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not helping. Read the responses above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This says Infowars.com is a fake news website and that is 100% false. Do better Wikipedia! Change it please. 2600:6C5C:6BF0:A3F0:D975:3426:F8A:149C (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Requesting 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)

Done. Carguychris (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It 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)

Though 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)

"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)

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= 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. Its information may change rapidly.

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)

On 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"

76.86.12.109 (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)

 Not done: Calling it a "news website" is biased because it suggests to the reader that it isn't fake news. It is. And WP:RS back that up. And yes, it's far right. Or at least it was until today. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

Infowars.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)

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= 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)

We do. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to InfoWars has been answered. Set the |answered= 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.

1. Replace and the bankruptcy judge put the sale on hold.
   with and 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>
2. 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>
   with to be held the following week.<ref name=nyt/> 91.125.241.19 (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

done. Rainsage (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Can 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)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alex-jones-and-infowars-ordered-to-pay-dollar100k-in-court-costs-for-sandy-hook-case/ Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you put this source into the article? Because none of the sources in the article now directly attribute anything to Infowars PotatoKugel (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It is, I copy and pasted it from our article. It might be a good idea if you read the article before telling us what is wrong with it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't read the article because of a paywall, but it seems that this article is referring to the Sandy Hook incident. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that none of the sources directly link any of the harassment associated with Comet Ping Pong and the Pizzagate conspiracy to Infowars. I wasn't referring to any of the other activities of Infowars. Do you know if any sources link any of the negative ramifications in Pizzagate to Infowars? As of now, none of the sources in the article do this. PotatoKugel (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I meant to read our article, as to the rest. Yes that is what we are saying, there is not evidence that Pissagate was unduly linked to Infowars, which is why your suggestion cannot be acted upon. So I am unsure what you are now arguing for. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why the harassment claims by the Comet Ping Pong employees due to Pizzagate which don't seem to have a source that directly links them to Infowars is being linked to Infowars in the article, but the gunman is not being linked to Infowars. That is all I am trying to understand. PotatoKugel (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I am wondering why the gunman is not being linked to Infowars in the article as opposed to the harassment of the Comet Ping Pong employees due to Pizzagate which is being linked to Infowars in the article despite the fact that as of right now, the article doesn't have a source making this link for either consequence. PotatoKugel (talk) 14:43, 15 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)

Because we have an apology from Jones for doing it. As well as one other example linked to Pizaa gate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Here is the Alex Jones apology:

"I want our viewers and listeners to know that we regret any negative impact our commentaries may have had on Mr. Alefantis, Comet Ping Pong, or its employees. We apologize to the extent our commentaries could be construed as negative statements about Mr. Alefantis or Comet Ping Pong, and we hope that anyone else involved in commenting on Pizzagate will do the same thing." (from the NPR article)

He doesn't mention any specific consequence. He can be referring to the harassment or the gunman.

What did you mean by: "As well as one other example linked to Pizaa gate"? PotatoKugel (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@PotatoKugel, sources have attributed the generalized harassment of Comet Ping Pong and Pizzagate figures to Infowars, which is reasonable considering that these acts were perpetrated by many people and Infowars was one of the most prominent outlets for the story. Attributing a specific act by one particular person to Infowars requires much more solid proof. Carguychris (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know the rules well. That is considered enough not to be violating WP:SYNTH? Meaning, even though no source directly attributes the negative consequences to Infowars, it is reasonable to assume that at least some were because of Infowars.

Also, the NPR article does specifically mention that the shooter was a fan of Infowars and that he regularly listened to Infowars. Is this enough not to be considered WP:SYNTH? PotatoKugel (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

NPR reported on the 5th of February 2025 that the bankruptcy judge overseeing the Jones bankruptcy case appears to have closed off any possibility for a second auction selling off Infowars assets and will only allow the sale of Jone's equity in the company.

Judge Christopher Lopez shut down any arguments from lawyers at the start of what was expected to be a daylong hearing Wednesday in Houston. He immediately ruled that he cannot approve the deal because it relates to assets of Infowars' parent company, Free Speech Systems, which is no longer in bankruptcy. The judge is overseeing Jones' personal bankruptcy, and he said approving the proposed deal would require him to overstep his authority.

[...]

His decision suggests that the bankruptcy auction can sell only Jones' ownership stake in Free Speech Systems, and not any of the FSS assets that were listed for sale in the first bankruptcy auction, such as Infowars' recording equipment, domain names and its vitamin and supplement online store.

"I'm not allowing a sale of the assets anymore," the judge said, only a "pure sale of the equity."

The leading section of the article does not reflect this development, as it still describes the sale as being "on hold".

I ask any interested extended confirmed wikipedians to add the following to the end of the 4th paragraph of the leading section (or something similar, if they feel a different way of wording is more appropriate).

On February 5, 2025, Judge Christopher Lopez ruled that Infowars assets could no longer be auctioned off as Infowars's parent company, Free Speech Systems, was no longer in bankruptcy, only allowing for the Alex Jones's ownership stake in Free Speech Systems to be sold.

Relevant citation: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/g-s1-46738/infowars-alex-jones-onion-bankruptcy-judge-sandy-hook

«ΤΞΔ» - Please mention me when you reply to me or I wont see it! (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Hi «ΤΞΔ», I made the edit but just broke your sentence into two. Lova Falk (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated! Thank you!

«ΤΞΔ» - Please mention me when you reply to me or I wont see it! (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Infowars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

InfoWars/Alex Jones got unbanned from Twitter X by Elon Musk. Can you remove that? 2603:301D:1200:3D00:6FB5:1CAB:D084:1CD3 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done- please provide a reliable source for this information. guninvalid (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/elon-musk-restores-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-x-account-reversing-twitters-ban Coconut0330 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67673623 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-alex-jones-infowars-x-account-restored-twitter-ban-abusive-behavior-right-wing-conspiracy-theories/ More sources/ Coconut0330 (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the website isn't linked in the infobx and there's only an archive link in the external links section? Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Maxeto0910: WP:EL —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 20:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Maxeto0910 specifically (because linking to a giant policy without further explanation isn't helpful) see WP:ELNEVER. Infowars is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, meaning edits containing links to the site are not saved. 9yz (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

For references, this absolutely makes sense. However, there should be an exception for linking the homepage in its own article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Infowars has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the fourth paragraph in Bankruptcy and proposed acquisition:

"Murray also received a $3.5 million cash offer from Jones-affiliated First United American Companies; although its cash value was less, the Global Tetrahedron offer was better for Jones's other creditors because Sandy Hook families would partially forgo payments, but this made the offer difficult to precisely valuate."

to

"Murray also received a $3.5 million cash offer from the Jones-affiliated First United American Companies. Although its cash value was lower, the Global Tetrahedron offer would provide more money for Jones's other creditors because some Sandy Hook families would partially forgo payments; however, this made the offer difficult to precisely value." PlatinumGalaxy (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I hope someone edits his article on Wiki. As of February 2026, this article as it stands is defamation.  ~2026-96319-9 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

No its not. Defamation is a crime, and no one has been prosecuted over this page. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If lawyers from Infowars, Jones, or anyone else wish to sue me, feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia email address so I can agree to be served by certified mail. I wouldn't want you to waste resources on hiring a process server that you could use in your attempt to convince a court to violate my first amendment rights... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

User:guninvalid collapsed two section on this page.

The section above was collapsed with claims of "No sources provided" and "WP:NOTFORUM"

Sources are not required to add comments to an article talk page. That criteria would justify removing 90% of all article talk page comments.

The above collapsed section did not violate WP:NOTFORUM, which says "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion or voicing opinions about the article topic or anything else." Asking that we "remove the 'FakeNews' and 'Conspiracy Theorist' labels" because of Epstein -- even though that isn't going to happen -- is clearly discussing how to improve the article, as is Slatersteven's response that we have many other reasons to retain the labels that have nothing to do with Epstein. guninvalid, please self revert.

The other collapse (which I reverted) was material that has been on this talk page since October of 2025 and on Alex Jones since September of 2020. As says, "This is a long standing addition. You will need consensus to change it." Also see Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 18#Let's review Wikipedia policy, shall we?. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

No sources were provided for any edits related to the anon's assertion that the Epstein files somehow prove the labels "fake news" and "conspiracy theorist" wrong, so there is nothing to discuss there. We can, indeed, discuss changes to the article, but only those changes which are supported by reliable sources, not those supported by bare, illogical assertions by some random anon user. As for the notforum mention, that may well refer to my response, which was to point out the idiocy of the premise of the Anon's message. It would be a valid response, as my reply didn't address edits to the article at all, just the OPs poor use of logic.

The second collapse you mentioned was, indeed, improper and undoing it was the right move.

I'm not sure of why you would even raise these objections. The first collapse you referenced was to a thread that was a complete non-starter, and which should have been collapsed in order to avoid the temptation it represented to become a time sink for editors here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't have commented if it had been closed as a complete non-starter or a time sink. My objection is to it being closed with two reasons, neither of which is a valid reason to close a discussion. You don't close a talk page discussion because a claim has no sources. You ask for sources. You don't close a discussion because of original research. Original research is explicitly allowed on article talk pages. Saying something like "I live across the street from that location , and I can see with my own eyes the page is wrong" isn't usable as a source, but is very useful as a starting point for finding better sources or verifying what is actually in the current sources.

The bigger picture is to discourage the practice of someone being the self-appointed Talk Page Police and closing discussions that should not have been closed or which should have been closed with a valid reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, the accusation that we are "all" "pretending" and that we "support child trafficking" certainly deserved closing if not removal with an edit comment "Try again without the accusations". O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely a good close for multiple reasons. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I provided a possible rationale above, but we would really need to hear from guninvalid on their actual reasoning. In any event, I'm not concerned with a proper close, even if improper reasons were cited. I'm a fan of results more than process. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)