Talk:InfoWars

This article was nominated for deletion on August 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect to Alex Jones (radio).

Merge?

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

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

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

Stylization of the title

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

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

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

Merge

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

Please read MOS:LEAD

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative journalism organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New source

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

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

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

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

Para sourced to Breitbart and RT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fake news in Lead

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

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

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

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

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

"Hitler still alive" misrepresentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has been accused...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex Jones is being sued by a witness to the Charlottesville Riots over defamation.

Protection for this article?

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

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

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

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

Second-tier source for second-tier statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media platform - News media

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

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

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

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