Jump to content

Talk:Paul Joseph Watson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Initial text

Please be sure to maintain WP:NPOV and WP:V when writing biographical articles. I've made some edits to this effect, and to help avoid WP:VANITY. --mtz206 15:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this guy notable enough for an article? He has written one non-notable book (self-published) and he is a webmaster for Alex Jones. Not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget that he is the main article writer on the website. --Striver 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The only articles I see identifed as written by Watson are those in special archive of his work. What source do you have to indicate how many articles he writes? -Will Beback 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Just being a regular reader of prisonplanet, he writes all daily articles there. --Striver 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Maybe if you add some references it could be notable? But right now, nothing here is notable or worthy of a wikipedia article, this reads like PR. Jooojay (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues

Rather than linking to his public facebook profile, I thought I'd just quote here that on November 28, 2013 he posted: "Being libertarian and living in the UK is like being the only sane person trapped inside a lunatic asylum." confirming his status as a 'British Libertarian'.

I'd like some help understanding issues around WP:BLP for controversial subjects like this. I believe the page on Alex Jones might be a good template for this one, and am just wondering at what point the "BLP issues" tag could be removed? Watson is pretty straight shooting with his views, and accordingly I'm not sure the article currently violates WP:BLP. But I'm not an expert, so any pointers would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources, unreliable sources, and original research

While Paul Joseph Watson is an authority on his own positions, he is not a reliable source for statements of fact. He has supported many positions, offensive or not. The way to determine which are significant enough to include in the article is with reliable, independent sources. Since he is a prolific self-publisher, any position he advances should be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources to establish due weight, otherwise the article becomes an indiscriminate collection of posts based on editor opinion. It's plausible that since an Infowars story was removed, he must have realized he was hoaxed, but it's still WP:OR. If reliable sources comment on this, we can discuss further. I don't think that Mashable meets WP:RS guidelines, and at a glance it looks like WP:RSN agrees, but this should be discussed further before being restored. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The above assessment by Grayfell seems accurate to me. Mashable is more of a blogging site than any kind of reputable journalism. InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to include information that relates to him, not that his opinions are 'fact' in the sense that you are describing. These are not my opinions, they are his. It is factual that he has said these things on his YouTube channel, but not fact that they are true, and on the profile of a person, quotes by that person is normal. That is the nature of quotes - he has said those things about Islam and Jay-Z, for example, just as he said the things about counter-culture which are included on his page. There seems to be a bit of double standard, unless you can explain the difference to me.
With regards to Mashable, this is not true and it sounds like you are making a subjective statement. Mashable is read and trusted by tens of millions, the same as the other sources approved on the page, and so again it seems odd to discard them as a blog. Read their Wikipedia page as it gives a comprehensive overview of what is a reliable source. If you can explain why, other than you feel they look like a blog, they are unreliable that would be appreciated.
Tom230184 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to provide an example where there appears to be double standard:
In a 2016 tweet, he said he no longer considered himself a libertarian because Gary Johnson "made the term an embarrassment."
I'm not tying to start edit warring, trust me, but I think this information is valid.
Tom230184 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate that. The problems with citing his own channel is that he's said so very, very much. Which parts belong and which don't? Wikipedia has basic standards for how WP:PRIMARY sources are used, and for what belongs in a biography. Watson's own social media is used to support his birth-place, because that's fundamental to any biography and nobody is contesting that. The Libertarian thing is sourced to Salon (which is more of reliable source than Mashable? Probably?) but as a political commentator, his party affiliations are... arguably also fundamental. I could see a good case being made for removing that also, but WP:BRD is good advice, and it means we should handle one issue at a time and build consensus for changes to existing material. That does, indeed, sometimes feel like a double standard, but I don't think it actually is. Regardless, it's what we've got to work with.
The number of readers doesn't matter. For example, Huffington Post and Forbes are both wildly popular, but many of their articles are blogs or bylined to "contributors", and are unreliable. The bit about being "counter-culture" is sourced to The Independent, which has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, an editorial board, issues retractions, etc. Mashable doesn't seem to be the same thing, but I could be convinced otherwise. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Tom230184 In general, an individual can be used as a source on their own article, as long it is not controversial and meets WP:WEIGHT. Generally, I would say that to meet weight we need a secondary source talking about something, then we can add a quote or source from PJW himself, for his views on the subject. This explains the 'double standard' you mentioned above, another source described him as a libertarian, so it is ok to put PJW's latest comments about the issue in (i.e. it meets WP:WEIGHT). If we can find a reliable source discussing his strong views on Islam, then it might be appropriate to link a quote of his (though this would still be context dependent). The sources you are adding also seem to be trying to synthesize a point (that he has supported many conspiracy theories) by cherrypicking specific posts of his. In the absence of a secondary source using those posts to make the same point, the material is inappropriate. InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks to both for the explanation. I will add extra sources to accompany the quotes. However, with regards to Mashable, as far as I'm aware it isn't seen as unreliable in the sense of The Daily Mail and hasn't been 'voted against' - http://mashable.com/2017/02/08/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliable-source/#pg98_zzq8Oqc (Feb 2017). I can find nothing to suggest that Wikipedia feels that it is an unreliable source. Tom230184 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The daily mail RfC is an exception, not the rule. If you would like to ask about mashable, you can post over at WP:RSN. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Tom230184 It isn't so much that it is an 'unreliable source', it is that it is not a 'reliable source' (there is a difference between an unreliable source and one that simply does not meet the criteria of a reliable source. Mashable is a socialmedia-esque blog site that publishes opinion pieces, it is not a journalistic site. Even the page for their editor-at-large which outlines the roles of their senior editor, describes his role in editorial control as: "Lance acts as a senior member of the editing team, with a focus on defining internal and curated opinion content." The policy that disqualifies mashable as a source for BLP articles is WP:RSOPINION. InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tim Pool mention

The main Tim Pool article mentions this: https://www.thelocal.se/20170301/police-told-me-to-leave-rinkeby-us-journalist-tim-pool but this one doesn't. I'd suggest it be worth adding as a minor mention as it appears to be Paul Joseph Watson's point. 81.159.148.35 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

For example, why is his claim that conservatism is counter culture not hyperlinked with any of his YouTube videos talking about the subject, but rather some biased article made as a counter point?

So is this entire article worded to make him look as bad and unreliable as possible. There is for example no proof that it was his loss of followers that made him jump off the Trump train as this article suggest. That is speculative to say the least. As a matter of fact he had long discussions afterwards with people like Bill Mitchell to re-evaluate his opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSB95 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC) OSB95 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)OSB95

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2017

The current version of the article states:

Watson, while criticising Islam in the context of terrorism, was accused by The Guardian of inciting hatred against Muslims.[16] In a YouTube video, he described Islam as "an intolerant, radical, extremist belief system" and stated that rape "is the culture of Islam".[17]

However, the Guardian article does not actually accuse Watson of inciting hatred against Muslims. The Guardian article states:

British writers on US “alt-right” websites used the attack to incite hatred against Muslims. In a video on InfoWars, a site that published conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health during the 2016 election, Paul Joseph Watson argued that it was time to “acknowledge that Islam is not a religion of peace and in serious need of reform”.

Note that the Guardian article does not state that Watson incites hatred against Muslims. It only implies this by summarizing Watson's article in the same paragraph. Both the first and second sentences of the above paragraph from the Guardian are true statements. However, the Guardian article does not claim Watson's article is an example of an article that incites hatred against Muslims. This distinction is important. The Guardian does not do this because it is simply not true. If you view the referenced video by Watson, there is no evidence whatsoever that he incites hatred against Muslims. If the Guardian article were to state so, it would be libelous. There is really no need to view Watson's article to determine that The Guardian does not claim it incites violence against Muslims. But I think it would be useful for you as the editor of this Wikipedia article to view Watson's InfoWars video objectively to determine for yourself whether you think it in fact does incite hatred against Muslims. I believe that such review of this video will show why The Guardian is careful not to directly make this claim.

Please replace the following paragraph of this Wikipedia article:

Watson, while criticising Islam in the context of terrorism, was accused by The Guardian of inciting hatred against Muslims.[16] In a YouTube video, he described Islam as "an intolerant, radical, extremist belief system" and stated that rape "is the culture of Islam".[17]

with the following content:

Watson criticises Islam in the context of terrorism in a YouTube video where he describes Islam as "an intolerant, radical, extremist belief system" and states that rape "is the culture of Islam".[17] Jharvell (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This isn't to say your suggestions doesn't have merit, only that it should be discussed, first.
The current wording seems like a simple and direct reading of the Guardian to me. The next paragraph cites James Delingpole as the only other example of a British writer for an American website. We should give them at least some credit that they said what they meant, for better or worse.
You have replaced "hatred" with "violence" about half-way through your argument. The Guardian doesn't claim he incites violence against Muslims (which has much stronger legal implications), it claims he incites hatred. The paragraph from the Guardian you cite directly supports that the newspaper is saying he incites hatred.
The wikilink to Hate speech probably could stand to go, however, as that does have legal implications. That's reading too much into The Guardian's single paragraph on this.
I also propose removing the quotes supported by his own youtube clip. This is debatable as WP:SELFSOURCE, but it's selected to support a specific point, which isn't neutral. The linked video is from 2015, and is not the same as the video being linked and discussed by the Guardian. The Guardian links to one published two years later, around the same time as the Guardian article. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The full paragraph is "British writers on US “alt-right” websites used the attack to incite hatred against Muslims. In a video on InfoWars, a site that published conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health during the 2016 election, Paul Joseph Watson argued that it was time to “acknowledge that Islam is not a religion of peace and in serious need of reform”." You can equally validly read this to infer that they are referring to other British writers in the first sentence, and noting something that PJW said that is similar in the next sentence, without explicitly stating that PJW incited hatred himself. This is a BLP, we cannot editorialize what the Guardian has said about "british writers", and assume that they also are referring to PJW, regardless of how nearly explicit it is. I am removing the sentence until there is consensus to include it (standard practice for potential WP:BLP violations). EDIT: I also removed the WP:SELFSOURCE as the context is no longer relevant after the removal of the guardian sentence. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist?

People keep inserting 'conspiracy theorist' into the lede sentence in wikipedia's voice. This is contentious material, and this description is only used by partisan sources such as vice that could be described as his political opponents. I think that this sort of statement needs attribution "He is described as a conspiracy theorist by X". Considering that we already have a statement saying that he has written articles supporting some conspiracy theories, I think we are good on that front. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 18:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If we agree that he's supported conspiracy theories, doesn't that make him a conspiracy theorist? You say this is contentious, but who, exactly, is contesting this description?
Many reliable sources describe him as such,[1][2][3][4] and being a partisan or political opponent doesn't actually make a source unreliable. Taking a position against falsities is exactly what reliable sources should do, so if anything, a willingness to accurately label his activities in plain language arguably makes them more reliable. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a difference between being the first to cover rumors that turn out to be false that end up being called conspiracy theories, and straight up supporting things known to be false. The former is where PJW is at, and the latter would be rightly called a 'conspiracy theorist'. All we have right now are a few highly partisan sources from the opposite side calling him this term as a smear tactic. It is true that he does not fact check before publishing in many cases, but that doesn't make him a 'conspiracy theorist' any more than it makes the daily mail a 'conspiracy theorist' for doing the same. It just makes them bad journalists. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
In any case, the lede clearly calls out his support of conspiracy theories, so I think we are representing the situation accurately. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Not all false rumors are conspiracy theories, and not all bad journalists are conspiracy theorists. Being a "conspiracy theorist" doesn't necessarily mean that he believes them to be false, it just means they are conspiracy theories, which is widely supported by many reliable sources. They are usually false (spectacularly false) which is the reason they get coverage in reliable sources, but that's not what makes them conspiracy theories. If Vox is 'highly partisan', does that mean that the LA Times and CNN are too, because they also use the term? That's the problem: just because a source is highly partisan (which I don't entirely accept) doesn't make it wrong, or even inappropriate to include as a statement of fact. That highly partisan sources use the term doesn't discredit the term when it's used by other sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
CNN and LAT are centre left at best, and I am a little uncomfortable using the term as a descriptor in the lede sentence based solely on sources on the opposite side of the fence from PJW. I would be a bit like using the term "social justice warrior" to describe a left wing commentator in the lede based solely on right wing sources ("conspiracy theorist" definitively holds the same sort of pejorative connotations). However, I won't push the point as it seems I am alone in this concern. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It is hard to deny that "conspiracy theorist" is a loaded term, and therefore a contentious label under Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The first posters suggestion of attribution is perfectly reasonable. 81.233.0.174 (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
If sources agree, and it's factual, simply calling it "loaded" is insufficient, regardless of the supposed ideology of news outlets. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
But if the sources are all left of centre it becomes a WP:WEIGHT concern (especially if its a loaded term). I wouldn't have a problem with using a loaded term if all the sources called him that, but they don't. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
CNN is left of centre? Left-leaning FAIR doesn't accept that. The source used for this accusation in the lead of the CNN article makes it clear that CNN provided substantially more air time for Trump than Clinton, and being pro-Clinton was the key basis for the accusations. Some on the right-wing see CNN as covert socialists, while the left sees them as milquetoast Republicans or worse. In the end it doesn't actually matter. Labeling a reliable source as having a political bias as a way to discount it is not going to work, here.
The centre is a constantly shifting, highly subjective rhetorical device used for comparison, not a fixed standard we use to assess reliability. This approach risks of false balance. We shouldn't, as editors, sample from sources we personally think are ideologically diverse to come to a conclusion. We have to accept that some sources are going to deal with topics ignored by others, and use what we have. Multiple sources support this, is anybody contesting it? We are saying in simple language that he promotes conspiracy theories, which is agreed on by many sources. Expecting all sources to call him that is an unreasonable hurdle.
Conspiracy theorist is not on the same level of subjectivity as "social justice warrior". We're not calling him a "conspiracy theory warrior". Wikipedia calls people this frequently, when appropriate. We have Category:Conspiracy theorists, which has specific criteria for inclusion. Watson passes due to his support of the Clinton health thing, among others. Grayfell (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I only argue against calling him a conspiracy theorist without attribution as a descriptive term as part of his occupational description. I am fine if we say later (even in the lede is ok) that "sources X, Y and Z consider him a conspiracy theorist". I think this is the correct way to address this in an unbiased manner befitting an encyclopedia. Using loaded terms as descriptors without attribution and in wikipedia's voice should, in my opinion, only be used in the most obvious of cases and where there is a broad consensus among all reputable sources that it is the case. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my concerns. Why are we attributing this if not to cast doubt on it, or at least to imply that it's a subjective label? This isn't a subjective label in this case. Conspiracy theories are a real thing and Watson has built a career on promoting them, both directly and indirectly. Yes, it has strong connotations, but I don't see that as being enough to dilute it like this. Is there a more neutral way of describing this that isn't weasel-wording? Hedging words like this is not unbiased, it's concealing bias by making it less obvious. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We are attributing to make it clear who calls him a conspiracy theorist. It is necessary (or at least highly advised) because it is a loaded term and not all commentators use it to describe him. I thought this was perfectly clear in my comments above. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I do not accept that it's "loaded". He has, as a factual matter, promoted multiple conspiracy theories. Yes, it's relatively strong, but "conspiracy" doesn't mean "bad thing". Expecting all commentators to use it is wildly unrealistic. How would a standard like that ever be met for any article? Is there any reason, other than editor opinion, to think that he isn't a conspiracy theorist? I'm not asking to prove a negative, is there any specific reason to think these sources which use the term are wrong or otherwise unreliable? Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your resistance to simply state which sources actually consider PJW as a conspiracy theorist is absolutely ridiculous. Whether you agree or disagree with that term, the problem is that you are not intending to simply state a fact in light of other facts; rather, you are picking which facts are, indeed, true. It is true that some or even a majority of news sources consider PJW as a conspiracy theorist. However, it is also true that other news sources do not consider exclusively PJW as a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, your job is to reflect what is true, so if you want to use that term to describe PJW, then you must include which news sources agree and disagree with that. Or you should not include mixed facts in a page that describes a person as a matter of fact on the same level of his birthplace. Cremeanj (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Even something like "and is considered a conspiracy theorist by many media sources" would work. I don't agree with what Grayfell is saying, it is not appropriate to outright state that he is something if all the sources don't agree (especially if it is a loaded term). I have tried this wording as a compromise option. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Which sources disagree with this? Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You now really are asking to prove a negative. However,I cannot find sources from the right wing, such as Fox calling him a conspiracy theorist. The vast majority of sources will say something like: "works as an editor at conspiracy site Infowars" or some such, but do not use the term "conspiracy theorist". The recent change that I made represents this the best: he is considered a conspiracy theorist by many media sources, and he is and editor at info wars, which sometimes publishes conspiracy theories. My concern is that we are using wording in wikipedia's voice that is controversial and this is a BLP article after all. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
How, exactly, is this controversial? If sources agree that he's known primarily (exclusively?) for his work with Jones and InfoWars, which sources agree is a conspiracy theory website, what is the controversy? Those who support the theories are not denying that they involve conspiracies, are they? Should we accept their word if they are, or is that just WP:FRINGE? Some sources spell it out that he is a conspiracy theorist, while others merely support that by commenting on Jones or InfoWars as the source of conspiracy theories. I don't recall having seen any reliable sources that challenge this. As the site's editor, he's not known for his fact-checking skills, or his ability to copy-edit. He is known for spread and commenting on conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not just settle for a term that both parties in this discussion would be more inclined to accepting, like "political commentator" and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:400:B610:C447:31A2:AB3F:AE90 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I am inclined to drop the issue. While I don't precisely see things from Greyfell's point of view, he has convinced me enough that I am willing to accept that there is enough reasonably unbiased sourcing to justify using the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe PJW without attribution (even in light of potential BLP issues with the loaded term). In any case, during this conversation quite a few additional reliable sources were uncovered referring to him as a "conspiracy theorist", so many that it would make attribution of the term ungainly at best. I think we can consider this issue resolved and let the current wording stand. Thanks to Greyfell for the comments on this issue. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of your comments. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is definitely a "loaded" term often used by leftists to smear non-leftists. The phrase conjures up an image of someone who rants about the Illuminati, Freemasons, secret cabals of bankers, shape-shifting Reptilians, crashed flying saucers, etc., etc., none of which has ever been promoted by PJW. All the hot air in the world cannot hide the fact that this is a smear piece, and that the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is part of what makes it a smear piece. The US "mainstream media" cannot be considered "reliable sources" when discussing Trump and his supporters, nor when pushing their own conspiracy theories (e.g. Russia stole the US election). I agree with a statement like, "Some mainstream media sources regard PJW as a conspiracy theorist," but to simply claim it as an undisputed fact is farcical.77Mike77 (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses "mainstream media" as a major provider of reliable sources. If reliable sources say something, we reflect that. What the term conjures up in your mind is your business, but it's not necessarily what reliable sources have to say about it. It's not a particularly flattering term, but neither that, nor it's association with more fringe ideas gives us a sufficient reason to undermine this. As for the Illuminati and shape-shifting reptilians, as editor of Infowars, he has been an active participant in spreading both of those theories,[5][6] and I'm sure many other far-fringe ideas. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The mainstream media may be reliable concerning traffic reports, natural disasters, etc., but they also are also filled with partisan political commentary. What you are saying is, "I saw it in a newspaper, so it must be true," and that is no way to assure quality control in an article passing itself off as encyclopedic. PJW's political detractors spout the opinion that PJW is a "conspiracy theorist", but that does not make it a fact. An encyclopedia should distinguish between fact and opinion. Or are you advocating for making Wikipedia another politically partisan arm of the media? Maybe change the name to Wikimedia if all you're doing is parroting the partisan newspapers.77Mike77 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel like I must point out that Wikipedia's parent company actually is called the Wikimedia Foundation. Centrist sources also refer to him as a CS, it isn't just highly partisan ones. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It is still cheap name-calling. The fact that a few media conglomerates target the same people for character assassination does not mean that their epithets are "factual" or that they are "reliable sources" regarding partisan issues. The proof is that those who promote the farcical conspiracy theory that Russia somehow stole the US election for Trump are never referred to (in either Wikipedia or its so-called "reliable sources") by the abusve term "conspiracy theorist". It is absurd to have the word component "-pedia" in a site based on cherry-picking political opinions from the media.77Mike77 (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

From the man's own mouth he appears to be distancing himself from his conspiracy theorist material, noting he doesn't believe the same things he did ten years ago. I think it unreasonable to continue to label him in this manner if he really has changed his perspective. I strongly recommend amending the description to better fit what appears to be an evolution of opinion. Heck, even 'former conspiracy theorist' would be more appropriate. 86.156.166.18 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This violates NPOV

This is an opinion and can not be proven. It should be removed. "After noting a decrease in Twitter followers," 172.10.237.153 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Over two months later and it still stands. It's blatanly obvious there is an partisan agenda behind this article OSB95 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)OSB95

30 citations and the majority are from left-wing political opponents such as The Guardian, Salon, Buzzfeed and the Daily Beast. Most of the pejorative language - justified or not - has entered into the article. Regardless of what folks think of the man's political opinions, one has to admit that this is dangerously unbalanced and resembles more a hit-piece than a carefully researched and balanced article. 2A00:23C5:9489:FA00:785E:E56F:9D4E:CB83 (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Any article on a public figure who is not left-of-centre is bound to be a hit piece here.77Mike77 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  08:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Using media sources that describe a person as "alt-right" is a smear tactic often used by the left though not limited to them. Such allegations need to be critically examined. The writer by posting such controversy in the first paragraph --at best-- inadvertently is misleading the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.165.171 (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Conservative or 'far-right'

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on at the moment, with editors tying to change 'conservative' to 'far-right' in the first statement of the lede. First, please don't say that you are making a 'typo fix' when you are making a change that describes someone as a member of a group which literally includes Nazis (big potential for BLP violations here). Second, 'far-right' is not the same as 'alt-right' and to my knowledge no one has referred to PJW as 'far-right' in reliable sources. Third, even the claim that he is 'alt-right' is disputed (see the article), therefore it is far better to use the more inclusive 'conservative'.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Far-right politics often involve a focus on tradition, real or imagined, as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism." - from far-right wikipedia article.

This is a suitable definition of the ideology Paul Joseph Watson advocate for. Using the label conservative as a felicitous label would further mislead the readers into believing his ideas fit this political paradigm. For instance, he is well-known for his anti-muslim stances, calling refugees "rapefugees" to stimulate the animosity toward this peculiar community. In his website (www.prisonplanet.com), he castigated repeatedly against multiculturalism presenting it as a source of "crimes, rape and terror". The tenets of conservativism don't share this far-fetched assumption which rather seems to fall within the far-right political spectrum.

Paul Joseph Watson also claimed that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a "false-flag operation" orchestrated by Barack Obama to prohibate the usage of firearms in America, in a serie of articles on his website (www.prisonplanet.com) in 2012. On the same website, he proposed to ban the lecture of the Qu'ran and the possession of the book itself to be outlawed. None of his theories have been acknowledged to be veracious by any conservative figures in the political world.

Moreover, he endorsed the beliefs of Milo Yiannopolis (introduced as far-right on wikipedia) and relayed multitudinous claims originated within the "alt-right" universe. He isn't recognized as legitimate by any form of conservative authority and shouldn't be cited as such. MikesWarren (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • This is WP:OR, and is therefore not a sufficient justification for including the content MikesWarren has kept adding (i.e. flatly stating that Watson is "far-right"). I think it would be appropriate to say he is "the editor of the far-right website Infowars" or something like that, as there are RSs that support this description. [7] [8] Everymorning (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that MikesWarren has just made the change again. He is currently up at 4 reverts. Time for a trip to the 3RR noticeboard? (actually I suspect he was the IP editor so 5 reverts) I can't put it back without breaking 3RR myself.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, the word "conspiracy" appears three times in the very short lede. One can't expect NPOV from Bolsheviks. The biggest "conspiracy theory" today is that the Russians stole the US election by hacking into the voting machines, yet the loons who believe such nonsense are never referred to as "conspiracy theorists". This article is an exercise in mud-throwing, and a disgrace to Wikipedia.77Mike77 (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:TPG. The use of "conspiracy theory" is already discussed below, and your opinion about "Bolsheviks" and Russia is totally irrelevant to this discussion. This isn't a forum for expressing your opinions, this is a talk page for improving the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet you keep expressing YOUR opinions, and you actively oppose improving the article with your persistent efforts to retain inflammatory epithets that violate BLP protocols.77Mike77 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Paul is far-right. 90% of his tweets and posts target ethnic/religious minorities. Usually Muslims Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If a person of liberal orientation is giving Paul the "far right" label, then it is a tactical decision to alienate the subject. Wikipedia articles need to give reference in the first paragraph to how the subject views himself. Discussions of how he is viewed by others should be put in an appropriate named section further down the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.165.171 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2018‎

You are responding to comments from August 2017, by the way. "Tactical" implies that this is deceptive, or is only used for emotional impact, but this doesn't logically follow from someone being of "liberal orientation". Far-right has a specific meaning which informs readers about Watson's views and positions. If this description alienates the subject, that is not the project's goal, but so be it. It is also not Wikipedia's job to make readers sympathize with the subject. As for Cjmooney9's comments, Wikipedia doesn't attempt to interpret his twitter feed, because that would be WP:OR. Instead, we use reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Casual joke from a biased article is used as a source for the section intro

The author of the source (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/24/rightwing-pundits-manchester-attack-response) just jokes (since there is no any proof links) about chemtrails and illuminati, and yet his casual biased talk is linked as a realiable source for the introduction of subject "political stance" ("Watson, along with Jones and Infowars as a whole, used to discuss conspiracy theories such as Chemtrails and the Illuminati before switching to material against feminism, Islam and left-wingers"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.16.129 (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah Wikipedia has essentially become "the rational wiki." Same thing honestly Ktm4391 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Is he gay?

According to Nick Griffin's blog post he was outed by Caolan Robertson. PJW claimed Mr. Griffin through that article is too concerned about his own sexuality. The mentioned article also includes PJW's infamous tweet about visiting Prague's gay scene. The link: https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/931646437921878016

--Mateusz Wijata 12:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's married... Ktm4391 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Delete "Conspiracy Theorist" Kieldavignon (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done:: Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
But all those 'reliable sources' are heavily anti alt-right, far-right or even anti conservative. Although let us say 'established' these sources are most often fár from neutral. That is the problem. AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Saying the same thing in multiple places is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Apologies and no offence! AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Alt Right?

How exactly is Paul Joseph Watson alt-right? He claims that he is not an alt righter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.208.59 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The article notes that, but also says 'He has been described as alt-right by multiple sources', which is accurate. On that basis it's appropriate to put him in the category. Robofish (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Robofish. This is similar to UKIP calling themselves libertarians and the disagreement of that by reliable sources; both points have due and fair weight. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Being accused of being a bigot w/o supporting evidence is a very low standard to be labeling him. He does not identify as alt-right. His supporters don't identify him as alt-right. Left wing publications have/do. Either offer a definition and supporting evidence for him being labeled alt-right, or delete. At least consider moving that line from the first two paragraphs. Wikipedia should be careful and specific when labeling someone against their will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.131.10 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The idea with Wikipedia is that we go by reliable sources to summarize an independent assessment of who he is, and why he's notable. The first paragraph of the article already explains that he doesn't associate himself with the label. We are not interested in dividing sources into "supporter" vs. "left-wing", instead, if sources are reliable, we attempt to summarize what they have to say in accordance to how prominent they are. This isn't the place to define alt-right, nor is this a place to provide supporting evidence, because that would be original research. We use reliable sources to do our research for us. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
About that 'reliable sources' idea. Most sources Wikipedia calls reliable are anti conservative, anti right wing. So if these heavily coloured sources libel somebody, it is okay to copy that into Wikipedia. That is not right in my humble opinion, I don't buy that any more. AntonHogervorst (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Broadly assuming sources you don't like all share an ideological bias is a facile rhetorical trick which ignores the specific situation. Infowars and its pundits are not merely conservative, or right wing, they are on the extreme fringes and have well-documented histories of fear-mongering, conspiracy theories, and spreading false information. By definition, a reliable source is going to be opposed to wrong information. A source which actively ignored this aspect would be fundamentally less reliable. This is a feature, not a bug. Grayfell (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
About: "assuming sources you don't like all share an ideological bias". Well in my opinion yóu guys are doing just that. But this is said before by other people too, so I won't have the illusion of changing it. Nevertheless please be aware that at least in my perception, more and more people do not consider Wikipedia neutral any more on political issues. AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:17, 8 April 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)

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)

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)

Ridiculously biased!

NOTAFORUM

Other discussions pointed the general impression that this article is biased and misleading. I won't delve into a full depth analysis or critique, but, instead, I will just point out the presence of bias in the very first sentence. I understand the way that Wikipedia's references work. I won't deny that there are references, which are deemed valid by Wikipedia's standard, which point to the involvement of PJW with conspiracy theories. I won't even make a judgement about whether he did or did not got actually involved with those conspiracy theories. What I will point out, instead, is that all the references provide objective arguments about his involvement with a limited number of conspiracy theories, BUT there are light-years between what the references do argue, and what this article states. To say that someone is a "conspiracy theorist", as a way of introducing that person to an audience, and justify this title with his involvement with a limited number (two are presented in the immediate references) of conspiracy theories, is like introducing someone as a "foot stepper" just because he once stepped into someone's foot! This is a ridiculous and childish form of distorting valid references to introduce bias and strengthen a narrative. The introductory sentence is also not clarifying as to the actual content of the vast majority of content produced by him. What if, instead of "conspiracy theorist", the first sentence introduced him as "YouTube personality, radio host, writer and individual's freedom advocate"? It would make a completely different first impression, right? And it would be faithful to the content of the vast majority of his work. So, bias presents itself both by exaggeration and by omission. And both forms are present in the very first sentence of this article. This clearly casts doubt about Wikipedia's reliability and it's contributor's neutrality and compromise with truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.65.167.146 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

So you're just going to tell us we're biased and misleading, but not actually point to any specifics that refute the reliably sourced content in the article. Let me know how that works out for you. One obvious clue: if someone doesn't want to be called a conspiracy theorist, maybe they shouldn't work for InfoWars. Guy (Help!)
The problem he pointed out was not the reliability of the sources, but the bias in the wikipedia's article. He established a clear separation between what the sources do say, and what the article says. Besides, you just admitted that what the wikipedia's article does is just "name-calling". The point in the construction of a knowledge corpus is not whether someone deserves or not to be "name-called", but which description is more objective and informative about someone's life and career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.158.63.195 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
So, Guy, you are saying that Wikipedia is a name-calling platform set up to allow people like you to verbally abuse your political opponents? A place for highly politicized editors to present smear jobs against those you disagree with? It's looking more and more like you are right. Some level-headed moderators need to step in and put a stop to such irresponsible behaviour.77Mike77 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No, he's saying that Wikipedia is a fact-reporting platform, and when reliable sources publish a fact, we report it as well. It's really just too bad that your guy is what he is, but we're not going to refrain from saying what he is just because he doesn't like it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"Fact-reporting"? "Reliable sources"? You mean lines cherry-picked from opinion columns by political hacks published in partisan rags. You people really can't see how far away you are from being neutral. Pathetic. Nobody believes Wikipedia anymore when it concerns politics, and rightly so. Even your referring to Watson as "my guy" reveals a radical leftist bias that one would expect from an Antifa thug. You'd need a powerful telescope to spot "neutral" from where you are positioned. There is no hope for Wikipedia with radical leftist fanatics crawling all over it 24/7.77Mike77 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@77Mike77 You are absolutely right. It appears there is a relatedly small group of rigid ideologues who maintain a leftist twist on certain articles. They have initiated "discussions" where they have deemed certain sources as "unreliable" with very little input. They maintain an impressive collection of canned excuses to justify defacing articles on subjects they abhor. You will notice that they often break the Wikipedia rules of decorum, but initiate sanctions against you if you express frustration. The point is to frustrate you to the point that you simply go away. My advice is to NOT go away. Keep repairing the articles until more fair-minded editors and administrators take notice and put an end to their silliness. --BobiusPrime (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is not faithful to the sources

NOTAFORUM

I tried to point this out explaining that the article is objectively biased, but the discussion initiated by me was followed by uncivil and inappropriate manifestations by a moderator, and subsequent vandalism (the discussion was removed as a whole). I will try once again. I am not questioning the sources. I am pointing out the fact that the article objectively distorts the sources. It does not state the same things as the sources do. And I am pointing out the fact that the article authors' purposefully omit statements and sources which point to a more complete and objective description of things, which is even more serious considering that no one besides them can (in practice) contribute to the page. So, it has bias both by distortion and misinterpretation of sources, and by omission. I am pointing out that, since the very first sentence, the authors write down their personal opinion, and the sources they provide do not state the same thing as they state. How can one proceed to correct this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.54.224.235 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If you know of reliable sources which you think should be included, let's see them. Saying that these are opinions doesn't explain anything. The article mostly summarizes the professional assessments of journalists and academics, which is standard for Wikipedia. Calling this an opinion is not really helpful. You are free to disagree with these assessments, of course, but to change the article you will need to propose new sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
As stated previously: to use sources which point to a person's involvement with a limited number of conspiracy theories in the past as a justification to introduce that person to a broad audience as a "conspiracy theorist" is like introducing someone as a doctor because he used band-aids, or introducing someone as a philosopher because he posted philosophical texts on facebook. This is not me making an argument here. This is me pointing an objective distortion and the presence of bias on the article. The sources being questionable (and they are) is the lesser problem. The biggest problem is the bias introduced by authors of this article, and the way they exaggerate the content of the sources and filter information in such a way as to construct a narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F1:C080:CF36:3872:9A32:F173:E7D4 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion is to continue trying to do quality edits. This means that many subjective and biased statements from Wiki-trolls will need to be reverted. Please see the "fake news" discussion above.--BobiusPrime (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:No personal attacks. Calling long-standing editors such as Grayfell, Clp13, MarnetteD and myself "Wiki-trolls" is a personal attack. You've just been blocked for a short period for edit warring, so please try to learn something from that: you cannot get away with blatantly violating Wikipedia's policies. I'm not going to report you now, because you're already blocked, but if it happens again, you will be reported. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the "conspiracy theorist" title in the very first sentence should be removed. Four sources are offered to justify this claim. From these, only the first (from Vice) and second (from The Guardian) present PJW as a "conspiracy theorist", the other two only stating his involvement with infowars.com. The articles in Vice and The Guardian do not present any proof or even any argument in favor of referring to him that way, they both simply use "conspiracy theorist Paul Watson" as a substantive. This is not nearly enough to state that this claim is based on reliable sources. Imagine if a Guardian article referred to Donald Trump as "The Buffoon Donald Trump". This would not be enough to present Trump, in a wikipedia article, as "Businessman, television personality, president of US and buffoon". But this here is the same situation. When the Vice's and The Guardian's article present PJW as "conspiracy theorist", without providing references, proof or argument, they are clearly stating their author's opinion, because everything is just an opinion unless it is proved or at least argued. Inside the "News organizations" section of the Wikipedia's page defining reliable sources, we have the following pieces of advice: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact". The authors of this wikipedia article on PJW are clearly violating these rules, because they present the opition of the journalists of Vice and The Guardian as if it was a fact. In the wikipedia's guideline of "Biographies of living persons", it is stated: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.". The inline citations for the first sentence are four, only two of them call PJW a "conspiracy theorist", and these two only present, because it is not otherwise proven, the journalists opinion. Also, the "No original research" prevent authors in wikipedia to make analysis to present a conclusion (like concluding that someone is a "conspiracy theorist"). But this has been done repeatedly in this discussion page. To summarize: if there are no inline sources which present, beyond two journalist's opinion, PJW as a "conspiracy theorist", and if these sources just out-of-nowhere refer to him that way without proof, sources or arguments, then the statement from the first sentence should be removed according to wikipedia's standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.18.194 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The information is sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
As extensively explained above, the way a journalist chooses to refer to a public person is not "information". It is an opinion. Wikipedia's standard asks that the opinion of person X be presented as opinion of person X, not as a fact. Besides, none of the sources even make the claim that PJW is a conspiracy theorist, they (actually, half of them) only refer to him that way, as a substantive, without trying to make an argument, to present proof or to present another source. This means the "information" is poorly sourced and contentious and, according to Wikipedia's standard, should be "immediately removed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.18.194 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not useful to describe every conclusion or professional assessment as an opinion, because not every opinion deserves weasel words. The mainstream expert assessment of a subject is regarded as factual, because to do otherwise would be to validate fringe theories. This is fundamental to the purposes of an encyclopedia.
Further, when describing journalism, a distinction is made between an opinion in the colloquial sense, and opinion journalism. There are many, many non-opinion sources which document Watson's promotion of conspiracy theories as a defining trait. Wikipedia doesn't require reliable sources to back-up every single claim they make to your satisfaction. Reliable sources can, and should, state basic information without insulting readers by documenting every supporting example every single time something comes up.
However, the article already documents many examples of conspiracy theories spanning years from his career. From chemtrails, to unsupported nonsense about Hillary Clinton's health, to fictional No-go areas, to "Cultural Marxism" to Sandy Hook, to incompetent/doctored video clips... Sources describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and so do facts, so there is no discrepancy. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
You are blatantly ignoring wikipedia's rules, already copied above. Yes, the sources SHOULD be provided inline for every disputed sentence stated as a fact. No, the facts do not "describe" him as a conspiracy theorist: to personally reach such conclusions is against the "Original Research" policy. The facts can, at most, describe him as "involved in conspiracy theories". The rational difference between "being" and "being involved" is absolutely not obscure, and jumping from one thing to the other IS doing "original research". If the sources provided inline for the allegation that he IS a conspiracy theorist (not that he "was once called 'conspiracy theorist' by a journalist, not that he 'got involved with conspiracy theories') do not provide proper basis for the allegation, then the allegation SHOULD be removed according to Wikipedia's standard. The ONLY sources provided inline to support this claim do nothing besides refer to "conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson" as a noum, and this IS an objective (not "colloquial") characterization of an opinion. Please play by Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.18.194 (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I highly suggest that matters of opinion and abstract conclusions without convincing sources, such as "X is a conspiracy theorist", be deprecated in favor of crude facts, such as "X was referred to as a conspiracy theorist by such and such journalist" or "X was involved with a number of conspiracy theories". I don't understand the fear of crude, impersonal facts, and the need to distance oneself from the raw observations. Whenever possible, the raw facts are preferable to abstract conclusions, because they are more complete and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.18.194 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Your understanding of Wikipedia policy is incorrect. The information is sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I presented explicitly the points in Wikipedia's policy which were neglected by the article authors, with extensive discussion of the multiple ways in which this neglect occurred. In response, you present, without argument, your personal opinion as a statement of truth, like some kind of oracle. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Hope this discussion will catch the eyes of more reasonable admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.18.194 (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Neither Grayfell or I are admins, we are both experienced rank-and-file editors, Grayfell for almost 11 years, and myself for 13 1/2 years. However, we are both quite "reasonable". Unfortunately for you, "reasonable" doesn't extend to allowing Wikipedia's article to be biased by editors with a point of view to push, such as yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
To ask for an explicit account of facts is not to "push a point of view". It's the opposite. You are the one defending an article which distances itself from facts, presenting personal opinions from journalists as if they were universal truths, and presenting your own abstract conclusions as facts. You make the following reasoning: "if someone has been involved with conspiracy theories and writes for a website which has been involved with conspiracy theories, then this person is a conspiracy theorist". This is or isn't reasonable, depending on one's philosophical inclinations. But you seem afraid to make this reasoning and these philosophical assumptions explicit in the article (maybe because of the "No Original Research" policy), and prefer to simply state your conclusions, which objectively live in an abstract level, as facts. I have no argument against pointing PJW's involvements with conspiracy theories, and I have no argument against the article mentioning that PJW was called "conspiracy theorist" by two journalists. These are the facts. What I do have is a (strong) argument against implicitly reaching abstract conclusions based on philosophical preconceptions and stating those as facts. What is so bad about enriching the article with a complete statement of raw facts in place of abstract conclusions? The inline sources support that "PJW was referred to as a conspiracy theorist by two journalists". So, the phrase "he was referred to as conspiracy theorist by two journalists" is more faithful to the sources and more descriptive of raw, objective facts than "he is a conspiracy theorist". So the question is: why so much resistance against a more faithful and descriptive statement of facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F1:C080:E561:B882:225D:4F52:84C7 (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
If a reliable source says C, we say "X" - we don't say "Y" based on "philosophy". You clearly have no actual understanding of how Wikipedia works, or what its core policies are. Your arguments are totally extrinsic, and worthless in this context.
I'd suggest that you read WP:CPUSH if I thought you were actually interested in editing and improving Wikipedia, but you clearly only care about the results you want to see.
Unless your next comment contains a citation from a reliable source supporting information you believe should be in the article, it will be deleted, as this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The policy reads, in the article about Biographies: "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact". All I am asking is that this rule is respected. The "reliable source A", in this case, say "X", but is not authoritative in this regard. So, according to Wikipedia's policy on Biographies, we have to write "A says X", and not state "X" as a fact. There is a very good reason for this rule, but this is far from being an extrinsic argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7f1:c080:e561:b882:225d:4f52:84c7 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Both of the IPs above are from Rio de Janeiro, so they are obviously the same person (obvious as well from the content). Tese comments have now moved into WP:NOTAFORUM territory, so I'm collaping and archiving. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Joseph_Watson/Archive_1&oldid=1158004715"