Talk:Paul Joseph Watson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

Why was pretty much every post here removed?

Was it because it consisted of so much spot on criticism of this ridiculously biased article that you couldn't let anyone see it?OSB95 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@OSB95: see Talk:Paul Joseph Watson/Archive 1 and Help:Archiving a talk page. clpo13_(talk) 19:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it was archived? I stand corrected, then.OSB95 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by administrators

While trying to bring this article into compliance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, I am continually thwarted by administrators who vandalize the article with biased language. It is a textbook case of Vandalism on Wikipedia. "Fake news" and "conspiracy theorist" are very subjective terms lacking a clear unbiased definition, and won't be included in an article that purports to have academic value beyond an opinion piece. I would revert the vandalism, but that would only lead to the administrator invoking a retaliatory discretionary sanction. I implore more objective administrators to correct the vandalism and abuse of access.

The infowars or prisonplanetlive site are not allowed as sources on this site due to reliability issues, even to the extent of explaining the views of the article's subject. Salon, however, is allowed even though the article on Wikipedia clearly states it is politically progressive and liberal. So, information on the subject must be filtered through sources that are admittedly biased. That is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty and would be deemed censorship if imposed by a government. --BobiusPrime (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

What? Are you talking about this edit which changed "far-right firebrand Alex Jones" to "conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones"? There are six references at the Alex Jones article for "radio show host and conspiracy theorist" whereas "firebrand" does not appear in the article. By the way, WP:VAND is Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and I do not see any recent edits that satisfy the definition. Anyone can make a mistake, but repeatedly referring to good-faith edits as vandalism is sanctionable. Is there a specific issue you want to raise? Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq, The term "firebrand" is basically another term for controversial. I don't believe we are required to use sources' terms verbatim. You are correct that "far-right" may be too subjective a description. --BobiusPrime (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

BobiusPrime, You have to understand that we follow what the sources say about the subject, and like it or not, PJW has been described as a 'conspiracy theorist' by a huge number of sources (both left and centrist sources). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 11:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I haven't seen the "centrist" sources. I will, however, have to remove the "fake news" references to be in line with Wikipedia policy. That is now a political term, not academic. --BobiusPrime (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And others will have to put it back in, because it is supported by a mountain of reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I hope someone updates this page with those reliable sources, without producing undue weight to one ideological side. Most news organizations have published information found to be untrue, so that should be considered when choosing the sources. Thanks. --BobiusPrime (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. But thanks for proving how unreliable all these articles are with your ridicoulous drivel. The fact that this site considers CNN, NYTimes, Guardian, etc reliable is proof that you are not reliable, and your moderation is politically one sided to the extreme.OSB95 (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits absolutely lack NPOV

I have rewritten this section about the Acosta video "doctoring" scandal several times. I have been reverted and versions that appear hyper-biased have replaced it. A casual reading of the articles does NOT form any consensus on the doctoring of the video, but rather shows Twitter posts of non-experts giving their opinion. Circular sourcing does not define consensus, nor does it verify any facts. The NBC affiliate that attempted to verify "doctoring" found differences in the video, but no proof of intentional doctoring. None of the articles provide professional video-editing credentials for the opinions provided, so the next revision will specify the undeniable fact none of the occupants of the "doctoring" echo chamber has a basis for saying so. In addition, the article is about Watson, not about the Trump White House. We will stick to the video in this section. --BobiusPrime (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

BobiusPrime, I agree that characterising it as 'doctoring' isn't a great idea. I remember this story and didn't they basically say that it was doctored but it was really just compression changes during uploading/converting to a gif, etc.? That isn't what 'doctoring' means, and regardless of what those sources say we don't have to use the same wording. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. "Doctoring" would tend to indicate the alteration was for nefarious purposes. The consensus is that the video was altered, which was admitted by Watson. The parroting of the term "doctoring" by news organization who share each other's stories provides no additional verification of fact. Since the context of the paragraph is the accusation, "doctoring" should be presented only as an accusation.--BobiusPrime (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that the video was originally shared from InfoWars, nefarious purposes is far and away the most likely explanation. You do know that InfoWars is a propaganda and fake news site, right? Guy (Help!) 13:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, the article is about Watson, not his employer. I am not a frequent visitor to InfoWars, but I've not seen any "fake" news distributed by them. Again, your consensus (which has not appeared) is not the arbiter of fact. I have seen the site accused of spreading fake news, but no descriptions of alleged fake news are provided. I would tend to believe these accusers are political opponents which would diminish their credibility. --BobiusPrime (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right that your edits absolutely lack NPOV. I rewrote them to follow what the sources actually say, but it appears that you are not prepared to accept anything other than the Fox News line on this.

• White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta
• VIDEO: White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta
• Trump denies doctored Acosta video shared by White House was doctored, then threatens to ban more
• White House defends doctored Trump-Acosta clip used to justify reporter's ban
• Video expert shares how the Acosta clip was doctored to make reporter look like the aggressor
• White House shared doctored video of CNN's Jim Acosta
• White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted a doctored video of the Jim Acosta mic-grab that was shared hours earlier by the far-right site Infowars

The sources say doctored, so should we. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Guy. Although we should paraphrase and not copy directly from reliable sources, we are also not at liberty to change a specific word simply because we may not agree that it was the best word to have used, especially when all the sources say the same thing. They say it was "doctored", therefore we must say that it was "doctored". To use a word with a different connotation would be misrepresenting what the sources said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Fox News is not quoted as a source in my edits. An NBC affiliate provided the verification attempt I cited.--BobiusPrime (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, your edit reflected the Fox News spin on the event, not the consensus view from reality-based sources. You edit-warred to include this event right up until the text was edited to accurately reflect the mainstream view of it, at which point you edit-warred to remove it. Can you see why that might be seen as indicative of a problem? Guy (Help!) 13:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You have me at a disadvantage since I do not know what Fox News had to say on the matter. My notes here have made it clear that I am not interested in their punditry or yours. As you requested, I have brought the matter here for further discussion because I am still rewriting the new version for publication. --BobiusPrime (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Hints for you: do not present this as a valid reason for removing Acosta's press pass, as all reliable sources identify it as a pretext. Do not present it as a "some say the video was doctored" thing, as all reliable sources note that the video as linked by the White House was doctored, the only dissenters are the right wing media bubble. Do not present this as journalism, as it is clearly identified in all reliable sources as InfoWars trolling. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You have presented NO reliable sources for your statements. You ignore the contents of the articles and substitute your own views. Your statements here demonstrate you intend no fair play. This is not what Wikipedia is about. I hope other articles have not been diminished in this fashion. In addition, your reversion of the "Personal Life" edits will be undone. Most such portions of articles contain information that is irrelevant overall, but help the reader to relate to the article subject. --BobiusPrime (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? A couple of lines above there are SEVEN of them. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This is getting silly.

BobiusPrime version:

In November 2018, Watson posted a video of a White House press briefing in which CNN’s Jim Acosta fended off an intern who tried to take a microphone from his hand. Watson’s video was reportedly shared by the White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders demonstrating the justification for revoking Acosta’s White House press credentials. Many media outlets claimed the video was “doctored” to make it appear Acosta’s contact with the intern was more forceful than it was. Watson denied the video was altered or sped up, but stated that he zoomed in on the contact between Acosta and the intern. Other reviewers blamed the discrepancies between the original and Watson’s video on degradation and frame drops due to its conversion to GIF format, reducing it from 30 to 10 frames per second for the zoomed portion. Though differences are apparent, “doctoring” cannot be verified.

References

Competing version (at least 2 editors):

In November 2018, Watson posted a doctored video at a White House press briefing in which an intern tried to take a microphone from CNN’s Jim Acosta's hand; the doctored clip gave the misleading implication that Acosta had reached out to touch the intern. Watson's doctored video was shared by the White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a pretext for for revoking Acosta’s White House press credentials. The White House was robustly criticized for sharing the video, given that it was doctored and that the source was Watson.

References

Problems with BobiusPrime version:

• In November 2018, Watson posted a video of a White House press briefing in which CNN’s Jim Acosta fended off an intern who tried to take a microphone from his hand - this makes it sound as if Acosta initiated the contact. In fact, most observers state it the other way around - thus it should be In November 2018, Watson posted a video of a White House press briefing in which an intern tried to take the microphone from CNN’s Jim Acosta

I don't see a difference here. "Fended off" seems (to me) that the action was initiated by the intern. No problem with my version. --BobiusPrime (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Many media outlets claimed the video was “doctored” to make it appear Acosta’s contact with the intern was more forceful than it was. In fact no reliable source says anything other than this. Some put doctored in scare quotes (which Wikipedia typically does not) but all agree that the video was misleading as presented.

You are incorrect. Scare quotes? --BobiusPrime (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Other reviewers blamed the discrepancies between the original and Watson’s video on degradation and frame drops due to its conversion to GIF format, reducing it from 30 to 10 frames per second for the zoomed portion. This is right-wing apologia from crappy sources. We don't "balance" the Washington Post, new York Times etc. with opinion pieces in PJ Media for reasons that should be obvious.

It is not obvious. Is PJ Media now one of your unreliable sources? If so, have you submitted proof for a consensus to be reached? Wikipedia blocks a number of sources, but PJ Media is not one of them. I did notice that early in the article, an opinion piece by Salon was allowed to stand as a citation to a segment that had nothing to do with the Salon piece. Could your editing be considered selective?

• Though differences are apparent, “doctoring” cannot be verified. Every single reliable source says the video is misleadingly presented. Even the sources you cite undermine this claim. Example: We can VERIFY without a doubt that the video posted by Sanders is different than the recording from C-SPAN and other outlets. There are freeze frames and accelerated motion that don't appear in other videos.

BobiusPrime, you have limited experience of Wikipedia but you need to understand our policies on neutrality and faithfulness to sources. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer a faithfulness to facts. Your assertions are not backed up by the citations beyond the displayed opinions of Twitter followers. Perhaps my inexperience in Wikipedia will be of benefit to it. --BobiusPrime (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A note for the future: It is not considered good talk page behavior to insert your responses inside a comment that you are replying to. I've altered the formatting to make it clear when you've done that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to correct the real world when it is "wrong". Our standard is verifiability, not truth and certainly not Truth™ which is what you are bringing here. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "competing version" needs editing. The word "doctored" is used four times in four lines / three sentences. The BobiusPrime version is not an improvement as it has serious accuracy problems. EdChem (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. My version was:

In November 2018, Watson posted a video at a White House press briefing in which intern tried to take a microphone from CNN’s Jim Acosta's hand. A doctored version of Watson’s video was shared by the White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a pretext for for revoking Acosta’s White House press credentials. The White House was robustly criticized for sharing a video from InfoWars.

References

I will restore that. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some grammar: "of" instead of "at a White House press briefing", "for for", "an intern". Also the WH was criticized not only for the sourcing, but for the fact that it was an altered video, so I restored "doctored" there, although "altered" might be better for the second usage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Did that ("altered"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken, JzG, EdChem, BobiusPrime. This whole thing isn't anyone here's fault, and we need to stop attacking each other over it. The media used semantics to stretch the meaning of 'doctored' to an extreme degree in this case. Saying that zooming and compression or converting to a GIF is 'doctoring' is technically correct in that the video is different than it was before, but also wildly incorrect in the colloquial meaning that it implies (it implies that there was some kind of malicious photoshopping or deliberate falsification, as this is generally how the word 'doctoring' is used). Unfortunately we need to report what the majority of reliable sources said, and Guy is correct that verifiablity is what WP strives for, not truth. If we have one good source that indicates that the meaning of the word 'doctored' was stretched, I would suggest that we add it as an opposing view in a subsequent sentence to what is now in the article. I think it is important that we at minimum display both views in this case, as it is fairly clear that the definition being used here for 'doctoring' is at the very least a bit disingenuous. this Motherbord article, for example, is pretty unbiased in the way it clearly discusses both viewpoints of whether the video was modified/altered/doctord or not. Or this slate article, which also discusses it, conceeding that the new video is different by a few frames, but that the changes could easily be the result of multiple rounds of compression as the video was downloaded and re-uploaded by multiple people and concludes with "there is no real evidence anyone altered the video intentionally". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

First, I disagree that they stretched the definition. This is InfoWars, selective editing and deliberate misrepresentation is what they do. Second, even if I did disagree, the best sources are, as you note, pretty much unanimous. This is, after all, not a "both sides" thing. It's a lie versus the truth. Acosta attacked intern is a lie, as a matter of objective fact. White House promoted doctored video, also objective fact. White House used this as a pretext for getting at Acosta, sufficiently well supported that it may be treated as fact. Watson is a troll, after all, and the consensus view is that his trolling was picked up by the White House. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG Your comments indicate that you have no intention of maintaining NPOV here; but did you read the two sources that I provided in my previous comment? These are not 'objective facts' regardless of the fact that the vast majority of sources displayed one opinion about this. Calling Watson a 'troll' is a BLP violation, please refrain. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 11:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Where do you get that? The consensus view of all sources is that the video as presented by InfoWars is not an accurate reflection of events. Yes, a couple of lower tier sources struggle to come up with charitable explanations for this, but news organisations like the Washington Post, which has a very much higher profile and reputation than Vice or Slate, call it doctored. It is unambiguously clear that the White House's version of events was a lie, and all good sources agree on that. They also agree that the White House did share the doctored video, despite BobiusPrime trying to cast doubt on that fact.

There's no significant informed dissent from the view that InfoWars is a fake news and propaganda operation, and the entire article strongly supports the case that Watson is a troll. Consider his attacks on the BBC over his personal belief that Roman Britain was not racially diverse. He has zero expertise in this area, and his chosen targets included Mary Beard, who is one of the most prominent historians in the UK. Pretty much the only mentions of Watson in his home country are connected to minor controversies stirred up by his making counterfactual rabble-rousing statements. He's a budget version of Sargon of Akkad, basically. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere: I suggest that you check in again on WP:NPOV. It does not say what you appear to think it says, judging from your accusation that Guy "has no intention of maintaining NPOV." In point of fact, he's doing what NPOV calls for -- see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, let me state clearly that I don't think that BobiusPrime's version was NPOV at all. JzG Implying that I did is not correct, all I suggested was adding a bit more to discuss how some experts feel the video was altered or not. WP:FALSEBALANCE does not imply that we should completely exclude the opinion that some experts have said that the changes to the video may have been completely unintentional. This is an opinion that has been published in multiple reliable sources, but doesn't make as good of a headline as "white house shares doctored video". In any case, describing in more detail what happened is a better solution, and I think that EdChem's version below is the best reflection of events. @JzG There is no reason to use derogatory language about the subject of the article, regardless of your personal feelings in the matter, please refrain. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 13:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I did imply that you consider BobiusPrime's version to be NPOV. I don't think any experienced Wikipedian would make such a basic mistake. I dont have an issue with EdChem's version other than that it gives somewhat undue weight to the view that the video was not doctored, since virtually no reliable sources call it anything else. So I would go with generally described as doctored. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

After (edit conflict): Insertcleverphrasehere, I don't accept that I was attacking anyone. I commented that using the word "doctored" four times in three sentences was / is excessive, and I appreciate JzG making changes to the wording. Having said that, further refinements / changes can be made as part of ordinary editing. I remember the story, that there were suggestions about how the changes to the video came about – by deliberate manipulation / doctoring or accident / mistake / incompetence – and whether the WH chose to point to the altered rather than original video. The BobiusPrime version does not reflect reliable sources as I understand / recall them. I'm not sure that JzG's version is fully accurate either, as it reads to me as saying the Watson video was the original which was doctored / changed, rather than the original being from CSPAN or whoever and Watson's version had alterations. Maybe something like:

At a White House press briefing in November 2018, persistent questioning of President Trump led to an intern attempting to take a microphone from the hand of CNN's Jim Acosta. Acosta's White House press credentials were subsequently revoked, allegedly for having "put his hands" on the intern. Watson provided a version of the original footage that was widely described as doctored in support of this claim. In this version, zoom and frame rate changes create the misleading impression that Acosta had behaved aggressively towards the intern. Watson confirmed that he had applied a zoom and denied making any other alterations, though expert analysis confirmed that "the clip repeats several frames that do not appear in the original footage" and that it had been sped up. Whether the changes were the result of deliberate manipulation or were artefacts resulting from accidental degradation during processing has not been established definitively. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders pointed to the video that Watson posted as clearly documenting Acosta's "inappropriate behaviour." The White House was robustly criticized for sharing a doctored video and thereby spreading "actual fake news" rather than using the original footage. A subsequent court ruling found that the action against Acosta was unconstitutional on due process grounds.

This is going from my recollections and based on comments above, so I recognise I could be mistaken in some details. This article from ABC Australia, though, is pretty definitive in citing multiple sources concluding the video was doctored, and supports the quotes I've added above. I think there are RS available to support all of this. Comments / Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

EdChem. I didn't mean to imply that anyone specifically had been attacking anyone else, but just to say that we should lower the heat level of the conversation. Your new version as written above seems to be neutral and and accurate representation of the situation, and I would support it as a good compromise. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

EdChem. I had not intended to focus on the Acosta/White House aspects, but merely the accusation about Watson's actions. Your proposed edit is, however, a good compromise. --BobiusPrime (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not ready to sign on to that bandwagon. Experts have said that it was altered; as far as I know no experts have said that it wasn't, so the section about not being sure seems like special pleading, not NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"The journalist's findings contradicted Watson's claims." This is a strong interpretation of the quoted article. I dont think this statement should be included as it is up to interpretation of the reader whether this was or was not the case as it heavily depends on the definition of "no-go-area". Also did they contradict all claims? Or just parts? I will remove it from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.31.216 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC) — 130.75.31.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Proposed version #27,346:

At a White House press briefing in November 2018, persistent questioning of President Trump led to an intern attempting to take a microphone from the hand of CNN's Jim Acosta. Acosta's White House press credentials were subsequently revoked, allegedly for having "put his hands" on the intern. Watson uploaded a video of the event based on news footage but with zoom and frame rate changes create the misleading impression that Acosta had behaved aggressively towards the intern. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders shared the video via Twitter claiming it as evidence of Acosta's "inappropriate behaviour." The White House was robustly criticized for sharing a doctored video and thereby spreading "actual fake news" rather than using the original footage. A subsequent court ruling found that the action against Acosta was unconstitutional on due process grounds.

Why I think this is better:

1. It's more concise.
2. It does not read anything between the lines.
3. It does not equivocate as to whether Huckabee Sanders shared the video. She did.
4. It does not WP:WEASEL about whether the misrepresentation was intentional, and does not bend over backwards to give Watson's version of events. This is InfoWars, FFS, any time they did anything honest it would be by accident.

Views? Guy (Help!) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we can do without the "misleading impression that Acosta had behaved aggressively towards the intern" bit. I prefer EdChems version. As a compromise I suggest going with EdChems version but changing the sentence "Whether the changes were the result of deliberate manipulation or were artefacts resulting from accidental degradation during processing has not been established definitively." to something more neutral to indicate that this is only some of the sources. Something like "The video has generally been described as 'doctored', though some experts concluded that the changes do not necessarily represent deliberate manipulation but could be the result of artefacts resulting from accidental degradation during processing" or something like that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 15:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, the "misleading impression" is at the very core of the situation, and many reliable sources pointed that out. NPOV doesn't mean that we don't report the facts as published by reliable sources simply because they are conclusionary. NPOV means we say what they say without skewing them to match our own viewpoints. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I hear you. In any case, Edchem's version also has this wording. I've gone ahead and put this in the article with a couple changes as I suggested above. Hopefully this can serve as a compromise and we can be done with this discussion, before it (further) devolves into discussions of the editors involved. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I would feel like this was a useful discussion if the open contempt for the subject matter wasn't on full display. That should not be apparent in your edits, Guy.--BobiusPrime (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@BobiusPrime: User:Bishonen has told you to comment on content and not on the editor, which you said you would do, and here you are again, making a personal attack against Guy. I sense a block heading your way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Content: "This is InfoWars, FFS, any time they did anything honest it would be by accident." I'm sorry, Ken, content was where the open contempt was displayed. I can't make the mental contortions to perceive that as a personal attack. Gaslighting to take the discussion away from the matter at hand is not helpful.--BobiusPrime (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Contempt is the only possible rational response to InfoWars. They have caused harassment of the families of dead children. They have caused a gunman to arrive at a pizza joint to free the children supposedly being abused in its non-existent basement. Jones has given testimony in court to the effect that he doesn't actually believe these things, he's just playing a part for profit. It's cynical and toxic. I am equally contemptuous of Occupy Democrats and many other unreliable sources. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally think Alex Jones is scary and unhinged. I don't much follow Watson's work on InfoWars because of that, but rather his YouTube work. Watson would be wise to distance himself from Jones. Those are my opinions, but the article is about Watson, not Jones or InfoWars. --BobiusPrime (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Watson's stuff on YouTube is not as unhinged as InfoWars, it is merely profoundly ignorant. You know, the way he tried to tell Mary Beard, the world famous historian, that Roman Britain was not ethnically diverse? The history of Britain is one of waves of immigration, something about which he is in abject denial. Much of our language comes from immigrants - Norse, Roman, French and so on. I wonder if he has ever thought about why cow meat is called beef? Immigrants, is the answer. And I don't know what where in Britain he thinks Saxony is, either. The problem is that his followers believe him. That's the problem with all YouTube blowhards,. of course. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixes needed

The changes back and forth in this section have resulted in a few issues:

• The JzG version remains in addition to the revised version. Was there a source that claimed that the White House further "doctored" Watson's video? It states "A doctored version of Watson’s video was shared by the White House..."
• The Insertcleverphrasehere version does a good comprehensive job of describing the entire incident, though I would have made it clear that the persistent questioning was by Acosta, who did not appear to want to relinquish the microphone to move on to the next reporter. But, my initial edit centered around the claims that Watson had "doctored" a video, not a commentary on the whole White House/Acosta kerfuffle.--BobiusPrime (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, how awful that a reporter insisted on asking follow-up questions, as reporters have done for decades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to remove the couple sentences of the previous paragraph from the old version when putting in the new one. I've fixed that now. No need for repetition. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You included the tendentious claim about persistent questioning. The White House mainly resents Acosta because he presses for an answer, which is what he was doing. Absent proper cited commentary on whether his continued questioning was legitimate or not we can safely omit this as, at the very least, open to debate. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe the statement by the president of the White House Correspondents' Association when the White House attempted to put into effect new rules that limited all reporters to one question, with a follow-up question only at the President's discretion, is relevant: "For as long as there have been White House press conferences, White House reporters have asked follow-up questions. We fully expect this tradition will continue." [1]. Authoritarian rulers can punish their enemies and people who annoy them at will, but, fortunately, we still have some semblance of the rule of law here which prevents American Presidents from emulating those despots. As the WHCA president pointed out in their amicus brief in the Acosta court case, ""While he may have absolute discretion to exclude a member of the press from his Trump Tower residence, he does not have absolute discretion to exclude a member of the press from the White House." [2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Having watched the unedited video in its entirety, I found that Acosta failed to pass the microphone after the President asked for the next question. Whether Acosta was grandstanding or truly interested in a follow-up, his time had passed. And again, the article is about Watson and his video, not the Acosta/White House kerfuffle which took on a life of its own. --BobiusPrime (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia actively does not care what you think after viewing the primary source. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• @BobiusPrime:&JzG Oh my god guys... Cool it. There are plenty of sources that use this exact wording to describe Acosta's actions on that day. Including Politico, The Washington Post, and Slate. This wording isn't even necessarily framed negatively; in this Vanity Fair piece, it quotes CNN's President Jeff Zucker saying that he considers asking persistent questions to be Acosta's job, "Jim Acosta holds his own in the briefing room and beyond... Being persistent and asking tough questions is his job, he does it brilliantly, and he has our complete support."[3] This wording of "persistent questioning" is totally supported by both the sources, and even Jim Acosta's boss. Why are we arguing about it? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I remember the days when persistently asking questions the president doesn't like was considered the right thing for a journalist to do. A quick skim of the search results shows a pretty clear message that Trump wanted to remove Acosta's privileges because he persisted in pursuing answers, but the idea that this persistence was part of a single incident is harder to support. Basically the president took against Acosta form the get-go because he would not take the evasive answers that were all the press secretary would give, over a long period of time. This is consistent with the observed fact that Trump does not tolerate any form of dissent or accountability. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the wording is supported by sources and works just fine. I don't really have any strong opinions one way or the other on who is 'right' here, and in any case my opinion is largely irrelevant. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 16:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It gives a misleading impression - and is intended to, by many of those who use it. The intent is to somehow make Acosta to blame for the incident. He wasn't. If any blame attaches, it is to the persistent evasions and relentless lies of the White House. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't see how "asking persistent questions" is meant to be any sort of detrimental thing to be accused of. His own boss has said that it is his job to ask persistently to get an answer out of the president when he tries to worm his way out of answering. If the reader doesn't like Acosta, they might think his questioning is disrespectful, and if the reader doesn't like trump then they might think it is justified and even a good thing. It isn't up to us to editorialise or remove these words; the fact is that a broad range of sources and even CNN support the wording of "persistent questioning". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:26, 27 December 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)

What about the Russia collusion conspiracy? Does the Mueller article introduce Mueller as a "conspiracy theorist"? No, because the sole purpose of the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is to smear the person being targeted. It is ohviously biased, and laughably obvious. Most readers will see that immediately.77Mike77 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sweden stunt

This was added:

While Pool initially reported that he felt safer than he would in Chicago, he was later followed by masked men and had to be escorted by police, reporting "I honestly thought I would be able to walk around the neighbourhood no problems. I was wrong."

References

However, it concludes "indy100 has contacted Tim Pool for further comment and verification of the above information". It is ambiguous in context whether his experience with "masked men" is related to his being a journalist, for example = "A takeaway pizza restaurant owner did not want to let in ‘some fucking journalists’". This is primary reporting and not at all settled. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

JzG, There is a video somewhere of the incident in question, but I don't have the time to track it down at the moment. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. The issue is that the source makes it clear that the problem is not that there is a no-go area, but that there is an area where journalists are unwelcome, and the latter is being used to imply the former. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Salon being used in wikipedia's voice

I challenged BMK on the 'falsely' statement not being in the source (see recent edits), and he added another source from Salon. Salon is generally regarded as an opinion source that should be attributed whenever controversial (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources), we can't use it as a source on Paul Joseph Watson without attribution in the way that BMK wants to. I pointed this out on his talk page but he reverted anyway.[4] Please discuss. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the claim true? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Salon (website) states the site to have "a politically progressive, liberal editorial stance." Unless an article it publishes is explicitly a news piece and otherwise independently verified (not circular reporting), Salon articles cannot be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedic pursuit. --BobiusPrime (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on what is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, that is understandable.--BobiusPrime (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion on WP:RSN from August 2018 says Salon is fine to use as a source with attribution, so I'm going to do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, That's fine. I was only objecting to it being used in wikipedia's voice. Not sure what the point of your previous two comment's were, Of course wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source, but that doesn't mean we should be relying on unreliable sources for info. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, If the quote attributed to the founder of Salon (website) on it's Wikipedia article is correct, Salon is intended to be a tabloid to invoke a visceral connection with its audience. Despite the findings of a small group in an obscure discussion, I do not consider it reliable. --BobiusPrime (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

BobiusPrime, I mean. I don't think we should use it at all either (for the same reasons you just said, but I was compromising because I don't want to start an edit war with BMK over this again. Feel free to remove it entirely if you want, I'd also support that as salon is a garbage source. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Paul Watson on Louder with Crowder.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Paul Watson on Louder with Crowder.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

unfair article

I think it is a plain lie to say he is a conspiracy theorist. I checked out the footnotes that supposedly prove this accusation and they are laughable. He is a guy with opinions. Nothing more. He is also very funny. I have been watching his vids and he is quite intelligent and funny. I would describe he more as a person who wants us to reassert our common sense. Is Wikipedia so leftwing nowadays that it can't be saved? --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:5926:E027:D2A4:DC70 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Some person who would not give his name erased the above observation. I would tell this person that I am looking to get the article more fair to the subject and thus a better, more encyclopedic entry. Its time to clean up the dog shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:747f:cd3f:5926:e027:d2a4:dc70 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2019 (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) blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toma1999!

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)

This 'reliable sources' argument you people keep using in defense for these ridiculously biased and non objective articles of right wingers is nothing more than a load of Orwellian garbage. Every single one of these so called reliable sources are sources who has an extreme left wing bias on pretty much every single subject matter. The fact that a lot of your sources consists of headlines like 'PJW gets shooled/owned by professor' and whatnot is definitve proof of this. OSB95 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The term "fake news" is a highly subjective term and cannot be part of an encyclopedic article. Even if a number of opinion sources use the term, the fact exists that most news outlets release information that is eventually found false or unfounded. Unless it can be shown through reliable sources that Watson published news he knew was fake, the term cannot apply. You will not achieve NPOV with its use. --BobiusPrime (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Saying something is "highly subjective" is also highly subjective. Many reliable sources discuss Infowars as fake news in factual terms. According to reliable sources, Infowars regularly publishes information which is either blatantly false, or which is extremely implausible and also totally unsubstantiated. This is a defining characteristic of the site according to many reliable, non-opinion sources, and Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. You are attempting to pass an opinion as if it is "non-opinion." The term is highly subjective. --BobiusPrime (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources cited have been proven to be activists for liberal ideology. I would suggest using real journalistic sources and quit with insinuations. Stressengr (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

An attack written by liberals

Everything stated is factual with a liberal spin to discredit him. This seems to have been written by CNN political hacks.

This needs to be rewritten in a classic journalistic style. Who, what, when, where and how. Subjective comments and insinuations have no place in an encyclopedia.

This is a hit piece. Stressengr (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Stressengr, though I agree with you, correcting this article is a frustrating task. You will find that only left-leaning sources are considered "reliable," and others have been somehow banned by a "consensus" somewhere. I have some updated information I'd like to add, but I cannot find articles from approved "sources" to support it. Please do not let these folks discourage you or run you off. Also, be careful how you complain here. Feel free to contact me on my talk page. --BobiusPrime (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is supposed to be in an encyclopedic style not “a classic journalistic style.” at least familiarize yourself with the basics of Wikipedia before attempting to force your own bias on other editors. As for BobiusPrime calling centrist/center right news organizations “left leaning” isn’t helping your case, you should avoid distorting reality to suite your own views. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I found his birthday

But I don't know if you want to use it. It claims he was born on May 24, 1982. Here's the link:

https://www.starsbiowiki.com/people/paul-joseph-watson/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fcc8:ad08:ec00:55e:c29f:7ea5:e699 (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but that is not a reliable source. If you know of a source which has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, please present it here. Alternately, if you know of a place where Watson himself has publicly said his birth date, that could work to. Sources for info like this need to be high quality, per WP:DOB. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Birth date and ethnicity

Paul Joseph Watson was born on May 24, 1982. Also, he's of Scottish heritage, though he lived his life in England. I tried to make those corrections without success, so I'll let the moderator fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:346F:8017:60CD:DA07 (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot. Have any of the moderators heard Watson speaking? He has a distinct Scottish accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:346F:8017:60CD:DA07 (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any citations from reliable sources to support these assertions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is Geni family tree, a well-known genealogy site: https://www.geni.com/people/Paul-Watson/6000000043556714876

Also wikiquote lists that birthday: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson

As for his being Scottish, Watson is a very Scottish surname. The current Mayor of Edinburgh is George Watson. And as I mentioned, I've heard him speaking on youtube and when he's animated, his Scottish accent is impossible to miss. If there are any moderators from Scotland, they could verify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:AD08:EC00:346F:8017:60CD:DA07 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

None of these qualify as WP:Reliable sources, and "Watson" is a not uncommon name in the England and the US as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:DOB, sources need to be both reliable, and also demonstrate that this is public information. IMDB is not usable. We cannot use court documents or similar for privacy reasons. Genealogy sites also lack privacy, and are also notoriously inaccurate even when WP:CIRC isn't a concern. Per WP:DOB, if Watson has publicly mentioned his birthday in the past via twitter or similar, that might be sufficient for this one detail. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Watson should be referred to as a British Youtube personality rather than an English Youtube personality. It's not known for sure that he's of English heritage, though he probably has some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fcc8:ad08:ec00:55e:c29f:7ea5:e699 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:ETHNICITY, the lede should not include someone's ethnicity or heritage unless it's part of why they are notable. He's from Sheffield and lives in London, so... Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

I wish to change the current article on Paul Joseph Watson, because it is outdated and uses extremely biased, secondary sources. CWEED18 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 23:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

His views on social media

I think it would be good to add a section under 'Views' titled 'Social media'. Partially as he has been quite vocal on how he views social media and how it's controlled by far left activists. His newest video 'Press F to Pay Respects' can be a good source of information for this. I cannot edit this article as I haven't achieved enough edits yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokii192 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Please find reliable sources discussing this. We generally should not cite his own social media for his views, except in limited cases. We are looking for sources about Watson, not sources from Watson. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

But in this case, we're talking about his own views. How can using a source from a different author be more reliable than using one which is from the person himself which can accurately tell us how he feels? Lokii192 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thats not the point... How he feels is only notable if its reported on by a WP:RS. Lets examine a hypothetical: say George Cloney blogs about baking bread, that doesnt mean that a “Bread baking” section needs to be added to his wikipedia page. However if the NYT runs a feature piece about his newfound love of breadmaking and his adding a sourdough making room onto his mansion then a “Bread baking” section would most certainly be warranted. If a reliable source comments on Watson’s views on social media then by all means include it.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes but that doesn't answer my question, how is an outside source better at supplying information which is about someone's thought process than the actual person him/herself. The sources in the 'Views' section make use of news sites taking his social media and commenting on it, surely you wouldn't think that using an article from a news site would be reliable for a section on views? In addition to this, the views page should be about stating the views of the subject, not about making comments about said views as it introduces bias. The user can make their own comments, they don't need you doing it for them. Lokii192 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources if you do not understand what I have explained so far. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have nothing to contribute, then don't reply. Pasting links doesn't really help reinforce your point Lokii192 (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The only source you have provided here was when you mentioned a video, so it's perfectly reasonable to explain how citations work. WP:AGF is policy. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Watson is reliable in some very limited cases, but his opinions aren't significant just because he expresses them in a video. If you know of source indicating this is important, let's see it. If it's just his latest video, that's not good enough, because he makes a lot of videos about a lot of things. We need reliable independent sources to decide which belong here and which don't. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes but then you rely on an author to compile tweets into an article (as is done in the current sources), picking what he/she finds more significant. This in itself also introduces bias. I could just as easily make an article about Donald Trump and find tweets where he says he doesn't support Putin while ignoring all of the tweets that say otherwise. Tweets can be as conflicting as YouTube videos are, so why would they be in any way better? Lokii192 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we rely on reliable, independent sources to compile primary sources for us, which is standard for tertiary sources like encyclopedias. Journalists and academics perform research, and we attempt reflect that research. If we instead compile primary sources ourselves, and then use that to make a point, or to selectively highlight an existing point, that is original research, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This is helpful, thanks. This article feels difficult as most of the independent sources you do have are news sites which aren't going to be particularly reliable when it comes to a controversial figure. Lokii192 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

In some respects, I agree. This is an ongoing issue across many articles on recent politics and social media celebrities. Wikipedia is not well-equipped to handle this kind of thing, but that's because the sources we usually rely on aren't well-equipped to handle this, either. It gets frustrating pretty quickly. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Salon

According to Salon magazine, the claim is false,[49] an assessment which is supported by a study published in Critical Studies in Media Communication.[50] Why does it matter what Salon says? The assessment of Critical Studies in Media Communication should be solely cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:1E08:B01:94B6:AAF6:F65D:35DB (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)