Talk:Paul Joseph Watson

Date of birth and age

Hi! I know there was a discrepancy between the date of birth 1985 vs 1982. There are quite a few citations used to establish a year of birth including news articles with his age and the date of the article, which give a year of birth (1982). However all of this was removed. Can it please be explained? I understand that IMDB is not a reliable source for age, but why are the other citations not considered? Jooojay (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong w/the other sources, but none of the reliable sources say he was born on a specific date (e.g. May 24, 1982). Adding {{Birth based on age as of date}} to the article would be fine, if the sources cited say he was a specific age as of the date they were published. Everymorning (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could just ask him on twitter?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Interestering, on sewp I wrote 1989, from this source. When I think about it 27 seems a bit low actually. FoldupLeak (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.220.82 (talk)

His DOB would be 1982 from this source and this source. Jooojay (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

famousbirthdays.com is not a reliable source. See this RSN discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This article was written in March 2017 and it says he is 35. http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/these-are-the-faces-of-londons-young-altright-a3477731.html So if that one is correct, he is born before May 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.139.217 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Paul said he was not 35. He also say he was a teenager when the London bombing happened in 2005 which makes 1982 too old for a year of birth.OSB95 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)OSB95

In reply to one of the previous remarks above, it's common practice these days for newspapers to take someone's date of birth, such as 1982, and subtract the current year from that to get their age. They don't bother to take the month into account. So the fact that the Evening Standard said he was 35 in March 2017 doesn't prove that he was born before May 1982, it just proves that they did a simple calculation of 2017 minus 1982 equals 35. You see this all the time in the media these days. Ajs41 (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ghouta chemical attack

If you follow his youtube channel you must have seen his latest comment on the 2018 alleged gas attack. On this issue his opinion is consistent with the previous: thinking Assad has no motive to do this, so the attack was probably not done by him, and he would not support Trump if he would again launch attacks on Syria. It is about this piece: "Although he endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, Watson declared in a tweet on 6 April 2017 he was "officially OFF the Trump train" following the president's decision to launch missile strikes on Syria in response to a gas attack several days earlier, believing Trump had reneged on his promise to not intervene in Syria. After a decrease in Twitter followers occurred, he denied he had "turned on Trump," saying he was "off the Trump train in terms of Syria."

I think would could add there that he now again stands with his previous opinions?

AntonHogervorst (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest something like: "On the 8th of April 2018, Watson in reaction on the Ghouta chemical attack, again said he did not support Trump on this issue, and emphasized that Assad had no motive to launch such an attack." And a link to this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNVkEi9LKfI AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting Watson's ideas or opinions, any coverage of this would need a reliable source. Attempting to sift through his channel to determine what does and does not belong risks WP:OR, which is not consistent with Wikipedia's goals. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

He is saying it on his youtube channel? What do you want now, that the Washington Post quotes the youtube channel and then 'a reliable source' confirms this? Don't you think yourself this is getting ridiculous? AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly what changes you would like to see made to the article? Otherwise this is a bit too abstract. He uses his youtube channel to say lots of things. The way we decide which of those things belong and and which don't is generally through reliable sources. This isn't some new standard, this is pretty typical. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I suggested a change a few posts ago. By the way, I know we shall never agree on this, but I fail to see why e.g. this article that is véry opinionated: https://www.indy100.com/article/paul-joseph-watson-donald-trump-syria-u-turn-twitter-infowars-update-7674361 would be a reliable source, while a direct quote from his youtube channel would not. It would mean that when a quote appears in an article to attack somebody it is reliable, and quote directly taken from say a personal website, blog or youtube channel is promoting his opinions. I would think that quotes from such an opinionated article would have a far greater risk of being taken out of context. Please replace Watson in such a situation with someone you do not dislike but admire, and maybe you will agree this is very odd. But if you want another suggestion, make it shorter and say: "On the 8th of April 2018, Watson in a reaction on youtube on the Ghouta chemical attack confirmed his previous opinion about Trump." AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Let me try to explain. It might be ok to cite his YouTube channel for his own views, but not unless it is in relation to some other reliable source's coverage. If some other source mentions him in relation to the attack or lists him as one of the key commentators on the attack etc., then we could possibly a quote from his YouTube for his views on the subject. Otherwise, it doesn't carry WP:WEIGHT. (Similar to how this source noted him as one of the key commentators last time Trump launched missiles at Syria) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Misleading information

I have to tread very lightly here since we're talking about someone with rather controversial views, but this is something that I think should be fixed to maintain the integrity of this site. Simply put, this page contains misleading information. Paul Joseph Watson has not been a conspiracy theorist for a few years now, and furthermore has renounced his old views on multiple occasions. Info Wars is also not a conspiracy organization, absolutely it does have a right wing bias, in the same way that The Young Turks has a left wing bias, but this does not make it a conspiracy organization. They are primarily a news outlet that presents right-wing viewpoints on political issues. Paul himself has not involved himself in conspiracy theories for a significant amount of time, and has even made a video explicitly debunking conspiracy theories about the Vegas shooting.

Furthermore, many of the citations on the page are of dubious neutrality, which primarily label Watson and Info Wars as conspiracy theorists simply because they disagree with him. Some are not even aware that he used to be an actual conspiracy theorist at all.

It would be more honest to refer to him as a former conspiracy theorist than simply a conspiracy theorist, and I would also request that the citations provided be examined with more scrutiny for bias and lack of objectivity. I am unable to make changes to the page due to it being semi-protected, but if anyone who is able to edit the page would be willing to do so, it would be much appreciated, as Wikipedia is a site that I believe should be as objective and unbiased as possible. 176.250.210.85 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed many misleading and bias "opinionated" references on here that are completely invalid, directed towards Paul. "Fake News" is listed multiple times in the page (in his relation to infowars). The fact is, "Fake News" is merely speculative and un-identifiable. CNN holds no increased credibility versus Fox and vice versa. It seems the term: "Alternative Reporting" would hold the greatest validity for starters.

Guitarhistory (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for whitewashing. Watson is the "editor-at-large" of a conspiracy theory website, and as such is active in spreading conspiracy theories. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories are some of the many examples of fake news and conspiracy theories spread by Infowars, and there are countless more where that came from. Let's see the published source where he "renounces" his prior views, and then we can decide if this is significant and if so, how to contextualize it. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Then reference the fake news in which the page is in reference to instead of just calling it fake news. It’s lazy. Wikipedia is better than that. Baron Marquette (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

lockdown

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are all the alt-right biographies locked down? Like, I tried to change one from "conservative" to "far right" and they immediately locked it down. They're not conservatives. They're characters on the fringes of society. Problem really is, that 90% of wikipedia editors are white men, so they can really brigade on this. You just know the vast majority of them will be 4chan reading, gamergaters Cjmonty (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Nonsense, this article is heavily biased against Paul and damning of his character, if anything needs to change, the left-wing bias citations need to be replaced with neutral sources, wikipedia is definitely NOT ran by 4chan users, the bias of the Gamergate article is astounding. Take your racism and sexism elsewhere, this article is locked because a lot of people are trying to correct the implicit bias present, not because you're trying to indict someone by changing conservative to far right, as if a political opinion is even worthy of indictment. 86.144.93.238 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory again

Hi all. I've reduced the number of "conspiracy theorist" wordings in the page (I counted SEVEN, six of which were in the first paragraph. If we're aiming at neutral tone, this very definitely had issues.

I've also removed some very outdated links, referring to content that Watson has himself refuted multiple times (he has said on record, for example, that he is not "alt right"), and I've updated his numbers on Youtube (up from 1M to 1.3M).

I understand this is a topical Youtuber, and people are not likely to agree on a lot of what he has to say, but I do think we need to present him as accurately as possible, the good (as we see it) and the bad (as we see it). Are people in agreement on this? Because without at least an attempt to be neutral, the whole effort of Wiki is pretty much pointless. Thelastauroch (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Thelastauroch

@Thelastauroch: Hello. I hope you don't mind, but I've moved this to a new section, since the old one was a year old. This will simplify talk page archiving, which will need to be set up soon as this talk page is now quite long. I will respond next, but I wanted to explain this move promptly. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As for the changes themselves, I agree that the section is redundant to a distracting degree. Completely removing all mentions of "conspiracy theory" is not an appropriate way to fix this, however. Wikipedia needs to neutrally summarize reliable, independent sources, and those overwhelmingly contextualize Infowars as a fake news and conspiracy theory outlet. As editor, Watson is also discussed in those terms, and Wikipedia should reflect that. We should be cautious of trying to show the good and the bad, because that can lead to false balance. Instead, we should attempt to summarize what reliable sources have to say about Watson. Some sources describe Infowars as right-wing, but many are a lot more specific than that, calling it "far-right", "alt-right", "fake news", "extremist", etc. We're not here to whitewash, so we need to evaluate the bigger picture. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Fake News?

You seem to be mixing conspiracy theories with fake news. Believing in the "Illuminati" has no connection to spreading fake news. That is the opinion of the editor.Toronto2005! (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Regardless, the connections between Infowars, Jones, Watson and fake news is very well documented by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:English nationalists

I removed this category because it is not fully supported by the references. It is like how Category:Atheist feminists is for people who follow the ideology of atheist feminism, not feminists who are atheists. English nationalism is a specific ideology that in many cases is anti-UK and separatist, as practiced by parties like the English Democrats. I'm not going to trawl through everything Watson has ever said but nothing in this article shows me that's the case. It is not a category for any English-born person who is anti-EU, anti-globalism or anti-immigration. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)