Talk:Infowars

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infowars article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning InfoWars and Alex Jones.

To view an explanation of the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is this article biased?

A1: Wikipedia follows the consensus view of reliable independent sources. Sometimes, as with InfoWars, the dominant view is negative. Wikipedia avoids false balance and does not accord undue weight to fringe views.

Q2: Should the article describe InfoWars as "fake news"?

A2: Yes. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars routinely publishes entirely fabricated stories, otherwise known as fake news.

Q3: Should the article describe InfoWars as far-right or alt-right?

A3: Both. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars's political stance aligns with the far right and alt-right.

Q4: Should the article describe InfoWars as promoting conspiracy theories?

A4: Yes. There is clear consensus among reliable independent sources that InfoWars promotes conspiracies, most notably the false claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a false-flag operation.

Q5: Does the number of editors who complain about bias on the talk page, or the frequency of complaints, matter?

A5: No. WP:CONSENSUS does not work that way. Please refer to Q1 for more information on the requirements for a post to merit consideration. It should cite reliable sources that contradict the status quo. Single purpose accounts are often recognized as not being here to build the encyclopedia, a valid block reason. Editing is a privilege to work on the project where free speech does not apply. Posts considered to violate policies (including WP:NOTFORUM) may be ignored, collapsed or deleted (WP:TPO).

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 19, 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Podcasting Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Hanna Kozlowska (4 April 2018). "Facebook has introduced another half-baked effort to fight fake news". Quartz. Archived from the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 21 May 2021. It's also unclear which outlets get the "i" icon, and which do not. For example, InfoWars, a media company that is a well-known purveyor of conspiracy theories, does not appear to have the icon on its posts. That means the user would have to leave Facebook to determine the source's trustworthiness, which defeats the purpose of the feature. Other right-wing conspiracy sites, like Gateway Pundit, also do not have an "i" icon. Both of these sites have Wikipedia pages.
Samantha Cole (October 2, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts (Including InfoWars)". Motherboard. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Alex Jones' InfoWars and the far-right media outlet Breitbart can't be used as a source of fact in Wikipedia articles anymore, "due to its unreliability."
Adam Smith (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Breitbart as Source of Fact (Including InfoWars)". PC Magazine. The right-wing site will still be a source for opinion-related content, but all other citations will be removed. Wikipedia did the same with British newspaper The Daily Mail.
Marcus Gilmer (October 3, 2018). "Wikipedia demotes Breitbart to fake news (Including InfoWars)". Mashable. Retrieved October 5, 2018. Wikipedia, the internet's crowd-sourced encyclopedia, has declared "fake news" on far-right site Breitbart, deeming the outlet an unreliable source for facts.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Infowars is fake news?

Infowars being dismissed as fake news? Sounds biased. Their news is a lot more trustworthy than CNN or Fox. 2600:1012:B33F:2ED4:44C1:9A45:DFF2:437E (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, entitled to your viewpoint that a website with "wars" in its name is a legitimate news organization- but here we summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic- and many such sources say what is claimed here. Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased- any bias in sources will be reflected here; sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media Bias / Fact Check reports it as Very Low (the lowest rating) factuality, while Ad Fontes Media has its articles exclusive on the lower-right part of their spectrum, with the majority landing in very low factuality.

I would say that given comparative sources and using those to compare media sites, yes, Infowars is quite far into low factuality territory, to the point where labelling it "fake news" seems an understandable word to use to explain the concept to a non-knowledgable reader. Carighan Maconar (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]