Talk:Ben Swann

Archives (Index)

2017/August 2017/December 2018/January 2018/April 2018/May 2018/June 2018/July 2019/February 2019/March

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Conspiracy theorist category

The category Conspiracy theorists has been objected to by an anon IP user; it seems to me entirely supported by the multitude of sources here which discuss his affinity for conspiracy theories. For example, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, His Reality Check reports over the years have often veered into alt-right conspiracy theories.; The New York Times, ‘Super PAC’ Backing Jeb Bush Uses Conspiracy-Minded Journalist in Ad, Mr. Swann, who currently works for a television station in Atlanta, has drawn attention for his focus on conspiracy theories around major news stories., etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that RS support the label. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, but only very tentatively based on the AJC source. Swann's "thing," at least publicly, was always to report on conspiracy theories, not to support or espouse them. That's an important distinction. The New York Times and other sources do not say that Swann supported these theories. The AJC tiptoes right up to the line. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I will do a little more digging tonight. If I can't find more substantial sources, I will rethink my position here. Categories aren't nuanced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm really on the fence about this when when I start thinking about the BLP implications. In fact I'm withdrawing my stated position for the time being while I think about this further. Let me know what you find. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

He's blatantly a conspiracy theorist; this is supported by RS. No BLP issue. Steeletrap (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can revert out of hand to restore the conspiracy theorist label. There doesn't appear to be a consensus here. What sourcing are we relying on? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s simple, as I see it. The burden of proof for a BLP is on those wanting to add the category. That means reliable sources that show he is advocating, rather than reporting. Let’s see the reliable sources. Otherwise this is POV pushing. Jusdafax (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I softened the language in the lede. He doesn't appear to actually generate nutty theories. He just pushes them. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Reporting is not “promoting” as I see it, and the latter is advocating. Again, you need reliable sources to use that wording in the article, or it’s a BLP violation. Jusdafax (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That's my concern too. The guy does seem to be promoting these theories in a backhanded sort of way, but that's just my own personal analysis. I haven't found a reliable source that actually says that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Using “The Daily Beast” as a lede reference is not how we do things here. I’ve pulled the dubious stuff from the lede. This is a clear BLP violation, as I see it. It appears more work will be required. Jusdafax (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the reliability of the Daily Beast source, but it didn't verify the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The name alone does it for me. But fair enough. Jusdafax (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's unacceptable to treat Swann's uncritical repetition of discredited lies about people (c.f. Pizzagate) as "investigating" or "reporting on" these nonsensical, absurd and often-malicious conspiracy theories. He did not do any such thing, and no reliable source treats his "Reality Check" nonsense as "reporting." Rather, he was in fact fired by his employer because the segments were not journalistically sound. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What specific lies from Ben are you talking about? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I also am interested in knowing more precisely what lies you refer to. Jusdafax (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't call him a liar in the lede directly, so I think a more important question is what specific "fake news" do you believe Ben has "repeatedly spread"? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Widely-accepted narratives" is not NPOV, and neither is describing Sandy Hook as a "high-profile controversy"

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

---

The anon IP user seems to believe that the phrase "widely-accepted narratives" is NPOV. It is not. Per WP:FRINGE, we do not describe mainstream points of view as a "narrative," and we describe conspiracy theories as what they are — conspiracy theories. There is no "high-profile controversy" about Sandy Hook - there are, instead, conspiracy theories about it, all of which have been completely discredited as evidence-free nonsense. The viewpoint that there is a "coverup" of Sandy Hook, that there is anything sinister about a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. or that vaccines cause autism are fringe beliefs which must, as per policy, be presented in the context of the mainstream viewpoints about the claims — which is that they are all false and at worst malicious lies. NPOV does not require that we give equal time to all viewpoints, nor does it require that we couch conspiracist beliefs in a shroud of semi-respectability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The IP's proposed language wasn't a complete violation of WP:FRINGE, but the current language is a more appropriate description of these controversies. These minority views weren't just contrary to "widely-accepted narratives." The Sandy Hook theory was a truly unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, and the vaccine-autism theory has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community. We shouldn't suggest that these positions were simply minority views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The specific wording isn't the problem here. The problem is that the lede associates Ben Swann with these conspiracy theories in the first place. The conspiracy theory on Sandy Hook posits that it was a false flag for the purposes of gun control and that nobody actually got killed. Equating that to Ben Swann questioning how many shooters there were in the lede is extremely inappropriate for a WP:BLP, especially since it's based on a minute or two segment in a video with 3000 views while Ben's videos with 100,000+ views get no mention. The lede is actually worse on this now then when this was brought up.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. Neither the lead nor the body say anything about false flag theories or about a video not made by Swann. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The lede says Ben promoted conspiracy theories surrounding Sandy Hook on various platforms. Conspiracy theories surrounding Sandy Hook involve the ones mentioned above. Is it consistent with WP:BLP to have those sorts of connotations in the lede? Is this not a WP:WEASEL issue as well? The implications are very vague and misleading. And do you really not see a problem with the focus on a video with 3000 views when he has videos with 100,000+ views? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is trying to revert my changes to the lede. The concerns were posted here with no response several days ago. The new language I added is consistent with sources given. If Ben Swann has done anything besides question the number of shooters then that needs to be sourced and probably still be specifically mentioned stead of lumping it all into "conspiracy theories" which could mean all sourts of crazy things. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Daily Beast: "On his own YouTube channel he said he had “major problems with the theory” that the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings were each conducted by “lone gunmen.” “There’s a good reason to question this whole narrative: There’s been no evidence so far provided by police, other than what they’ve told us,” he said in his Sandy Hook truther video."[1] The Daily Beast describes him as a "Sandy Hook truther" and Swann clearly says that there is "no evidence" for the official account of what happened. That's promoting conspiracy theories, and we should describe it as such per WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's what the lede now ways. That he questioned the number of shooters. This is the source that calls Ben a "Pizzagate Truther" and pictures him with a tinfoil hat and it didn't even go as far as the lede did with painting him as a conspiracy theorists regarding the shootings. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Swann also says that there is "no evidence" for the official narrative. That's a broader claim than his nonsense about multiple shooters. I don't think we should get into the weeds of what he said precisely in the lede (the body can do that) - it suffices to say that he promoted conspiracy theories about the shootings. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

questioning is not synonymous with conspiracy theories according to Wikipedia's own definition. Perhaps start by editing the wiki on Conspiracy Theory if you think simply questioning a narrative is the same as spouting conspiracy theories.--98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

using facts, which I did, is the best way to maintain NPOV. When you add the language you prefer that strays from facts, then it gets vague and misleading, which is the problem with WP:WEASEL wording.--98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

If I say there is no evidence that the Moon landing occurred and proceed to present debunked nonsense as evidence that the Moon landing was staged by Hollywood, then I'm promoting conspiracy theories about the Moon landing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

that the Moon landing was staged by Hollywood that's the part of "Conspiracy Theory" you are missing with Ben. What was Ben's explanation of the shooting? Conspiracy theories, according to wikipedia, are explanations. If you disagree, take your argument to the Conspiracy Theory talk page. If not, what was Ben's explanation? "on various platforms" is also problematic? Where else did he talk about this besides his own platform? None of these questions are answered in sources --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "on various platforms" and left the conspiracy theory part in there for now. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The removal of "on various platforms" was good. I don't think WP:WEASEL applies to lead content that's merely summarizing what can be found in the body. However I agree with Oklahoma that the sources don't expressly support the conspiracy theory label outside of Pizzagate. I think Aurora and Sandy Hook should be treated the same as 9/11, i.e. Swann questioned the official accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I was gonna say you should make this change because if I did then it would likely be reverted...I was right, but ironically it was reverted by you. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my bad. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Reality, as depicted by mainstream sources, is not a "narrative." Describing Swann's bizarre, false and ludicrous suggestions that the Sandy Hook massacre didn't happen as "questioning a narrative" is unacceptable. Sources describe what he said as "echoing right-wing conspiracy theories." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Where did Ben Swann suggest that Sandy Hook didn't happen? And you're attacking a word(narrative) that wasn't even in the lede. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As per the NY Times, Swann is a journalist who has highlighted conspiracy theories about major news events. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because a source in inaccurate doesn't mean we can be. Define Conspiracy Theory for us Baranof and tell us how Ben's reporting matches that definition --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

If RS use the term, we use the term. O3000 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't repeat false statements under the guise of it being an RS. If it makes unsubstantiated claims than it shouldn't be considered an RS --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is false. We aren't RS. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Prove me wrong then. Tell us the "Conspiracy Theory" that Ben Swann has put forth in his reporting about the shootings. The burden is on you. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The burden is not on us to prove it. We use reliable sources. If you have a problem with the NYTimes, et.al. as reliable sources, this is the wrong place. Take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The burden is on you according to WP:NPOVFAQ. Since this is a BLP, you have even more of a burden than in a regular article. The fact that you can't prove me wrong with your so called RS (which is supposed to prove the claim) pretty much says it all. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no burden on us to prove “truth”. The burden is verifiability and reliability. That is accomplished by using RS. O3000 (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't accomplish it. The idea that you can label an entire publication as an RS and are then able to use any spurious statement that comes out of it without question is absurd. You can't violate WP policy just because a so-called RS does. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Even granting the reliability of the source, it does not direclty support the claim as it should. It makes a vague comment about "major news events". It does not say Ben repeated "conspiracy theories" about the shootings.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, source is questionable according to WP:SOURCE "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context...Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine." The article is about a marco rubio ad and it's contradicted by other sources such as this one https://www.mintpressnews.com/ben-swann-attacked-by-the-new-york-times-for-pointing-out-rubios-voting-record/212801/. Probably shouldn't be in the article at all much less being used to justify contentious material. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several sources that say he repeats conspiracy theories. I just added another. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several hit pieces that say that. And they all violate BLP and are all still contradicted by sources like the one I mentioned above as well as Wikipedia's own definition of Conspiracy Theory --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, we use RS. That is WP policy. If you think the NYTimes and WaPo articles are "hit pieces", take it to RSN. O3000 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that the sources using "conspiracy theory" are wrong is unsourced original research and wishful thinking. That you disagree with the sources is interesting, but of no avail here. As you disagree with my changes, I disagree with your changes and have reverted to the prior, longstanding version per Bold, Revert, Discuss. I ask that you not make any changes without gaining consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

My changes reflected Dr. Fleischman's suggested change. You did not give any further input until now. And this is more than a difference of opinion. I'm not just saying it's wrong. I'm saying your wording is not adequately reflected in the source and it violates BLP. You have no such argument against Dr. Fleischman's suggested wording. If you have reason to believe it violates any WP guidelines than please give it. Until then we will go with less contentious language as per BLP --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Go update Conspiracy Theory to your version, and if the change sticks then I'll concede. Otherwise, it is what it is. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Other articles are WP:OTHERCONTENT and irrelevant. Also, we are not here to judge definitions. We are here to add content using reliable sources. You continue to refuse to accept reliable sources preferring instead to use your own opinions. You are now edit warring against Wikipedia rules. I suggest that you self-revert your edit warring. O3000 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said early, other sources contradict the NYT piece. I was edit warring as much as Baranof who undid the change me and Dr. Fleischman agreed on --74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No, there is nothing which violates BLP about describing, as reliable sources do, his spreading of conspiracy theories about major historical events. And no, again, we do not create false balance with this idea of "official accounts" meaning anything. There is no "official account" of the 9/11 attacks, there is merely historical reality and then there is lunatic nonsense, and the idea that any part of the 9/11 attacks involved a "controlled demolition" is nothing more than lunatic nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oklahoma, you lose all credibility here when you dismiss reliable sources like the New York Times as false and as hit pieces. And you're edit warring too. You need to convince your fellow editors. Ramming your preferred version through will never work and could lead to you losing your editing privileges. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I did never dismissed the NYT. I dismissed that specific article as a hit piece. The claim that it's a hit piece is far more accurate than the claim that Ben has repeated conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep digging. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I see you've already lost your editing privileged temporarily. Hopefully there will be no more edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that Swann has promoted conspiracy theories. However, as I've mentioned, I'm uncomfortable with describing some of his specific pieces as promoting conspiracy theories when the cited sources don't say that. We need better sourcing, or this content needs to be re-written to be more closely in line with the cited sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The weak part, I think, is the bit on autism/vaccines. We have a link to the episode itself, which should probably be removed. I can’t find a reliable secondary source. We may need to remove or soften language related to this conspiracy. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already changed "promoting" to "repeated." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

But he hasn't repeated conspiracy theories by any objective understanding of the word and none of the sources say he repeated Conspiracy Theories surrounding the shootings. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Echoing right-wing conspiracy sites, he has questioned everything from the origins of ISIS to the veracity of the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings to whether Russia was actually involved in the DNC email hacks." [2]. O3000 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Questioning does not make a conspiracy theory. "Echoing" the questions (not the theories) of conspiracy theorists does not make a conspiracy theory. Again, he has not "repeated conspiracy theories" in any objective understanding of the word and none of the sources posted say he repeated conspiracy theories surrounding the shootings. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Echoing and repeating are the same thing. You are not convincing anyone. I suggest you drop the stick. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I edited my previous statement, making it more clear. Your quoted source doesn't claim he echoed conspiracy thoeries. They say he echoed "conspiracy sites", a weaselly way to make it sound like he echoes the theories. Of course, they couldn't just say that because it's not true --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Your language parsing is a bridge too far. The quote I provided is clear, and the context within the article is clearer yet. He repeated nonsense on multiple subjects, including shootings, that he found on conspiracy sites. WP:DTS O3000 (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You may have had a point if this wasn't a BLP, but this is how BLP's are supposed to be treated --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that this sourcing is sufficient. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You've stated twice that you don't agree the sources say that. What changed your mind? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Here I'm speaking specifically to the AJC source and whether the "echoing" language sufficiently supports our "repeated." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"echoing" vs "repeating" isn't the problem. The problem is with "right-wing conspiracy sites" vs. "conspiracy theories". A right-wing conspiracy site could ask why police haven't released a video alongside there actual conspiracy theories and then if Ben Swann asks why police haven't released the video then he's "echoing right-wing conspiracy sites" even though he's not echoing conspiracy theories --74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. The sourcing is sufficient there. The AJC said the echoed right-wing conspiracy sites, so we can say the same thing (or an appropriate paraphrase). If you have a problem with what the AJC published then you can write to their editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You didn't even address what I said. Do you think the above scenario is fair? If somebody calls on the police to release surveillance footage and so does a "right-wing conspiracy site", do you think it is accurate to claim that the person "repeats conspiracy theories"? Or would it be more accurate just to describe what the person actually did? --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

Paraphrasing is for the sake of brevity. In this case, the truth (he questioned the accounts) is just a brief as saying "he repeated conspiracy theories" --98.173.248.2 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

By and large we follow the reliable sources. A professional journalist and their professional editor concluded that it was noteworthy that Swann was echoing conspiracy websites. We don't substitute our volunteer editorial judgment for theirs unless without some compelling policy-based justification. I'm not seeing that, and neither are the other editors here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The policy-based justification is WP:BLP, but that's clearly been ignored for a while. It's you guys who are volunteering your own judgement with your conjectural interpretation, which is a form of OR. And you still didn't address my point btw --98.173.248.2 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

• IP, without reliable sources explicitly disagreeing with the characterizations you take issue with, nothing will be done, and you are only wasting other editor's time by continuing to argue here. So please, stop wasting our time. If you can't or won't stop on your own, an admin can make you stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I already posted this source further up in the discussion https://www.mintpressnews.com/ben-swann-attacked-by-the-new-york-times-for-pointing-out-rubios-voting-record/212801/ --98.173.248.2 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

Ahem, I said reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What makes this source unreliable? --98.173.248.2 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)(74.195.159.155)

Anonymous author on a dodgy website.... i doubt you would get consensus at RSN to include content from that source and certainly not remove content based on it. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That is the entirely wrong question, IP. The onus is on you to prove that the source is reliable, not upon any of us to prove that it is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody here has proved that the NYT's article is reliable or that it directly supports the claim being made. But even though the burden is on you guys, I have demonstrated that it does not directly support the claim being made about Swann because that's how discussions work. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The NYT is an established, highly respected news source with 44 news bureaus and 125 Pulitzer Prizes. MintPressNews is the outgrowth of a blog with a history of spotty reporting, links to hate sites, and accusations of anti-Semitism. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Crappy blogs

have a look at this "media bistro" piece and this from cincinnati.com. They are the same. The first says it was written by Andrew Gauthier and the second by John Kiesewetter. Both link to the same main piece -- Kiesewetter, John (December 13, 2010). "Precocious Texan climbed ranks to anchor". Cincinnati Enquirer. -- which is not online but I was able to get through the library. Most of the cincinnati.com references are dead links and are not in the internet archive. argh. I can send this piece to anybody who wants it. Jytdog (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Dead ref

I cannot find this reference to verify the content. it is not in internet archive and I cannot find it in a library database either. If anybody finds it, great.

During the two and one-half years Swann was part of the news team at WXIX-TV Fox 19, it consistently placed second in ratings in the Cincinnati market.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Challenged claims need to be cited inline

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

---

WP:BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Jytdog has accused me of "edit warring" for adding "citation needed" to challenged material. This is puzzling for a few reasons. 1) It's the first time I've touched the page today. 2) "Edit warring" does not apply to enforcing BLP policy. and 3) Ironically, Jytdog himself has done two reverts on the same material within an hour. That sounds a lot more like edit warring to me. Can anybody tell me why the contentious claim in question (Ben Swann spreads fake news) is exempt from WP:BLP guidlines?--74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom. A slow motion edit war is still edit warring. The content is well-sourced in the body of the page. This is the same issue you have been battering this page over, and the responses are the same as they always where. Bring new sources or new arguments; I will remove future repetitions and if you keep bludgeoning this page saying the same things I will seek a topic ban. I am closing this. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Fake news

I agree there's a sourcing problem here. The lead says Swann spread fake news, but there's no indication which source to look at to verify that. And I agree there's a BLP problem here. I don't think the IP should have been treated so dismissively, despite their sock-like behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you recognizing this, but for the record, I have never made an edit from a phone or any other IP besides the two IP's that are already known. Several other anonymous editors have tried to remove or edit the "fake news" claim for obvious reasons, but they have not been me. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• The lede is a summary of the body. The body describes numerous incidents in which Swann made demonstrably false claims of fact, or emphasized demonstrably wrong interpretations of facts while purporting to report the news. As that is the very definition of "fake news", it is perfectly acceptable to summarize those numerous incidents as Swann having "... repeatedly spread conspiracy theories and fake news..." Remember, accurate summation is not WP:OR, and is required by both our guide to writing ledes and our policies governing copyright. I would also point out that literally hundreds of people have pushed to have creationism or intelligent design labelled a scientific theory, or to have the "pseudoscience" label removed. The number of people who believe a falsehood has no bearing on the truth of that falsehood. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

None of the cited sourced describe his claims in that way. Can you give a few examples so we can discuss them? Baranof (the author of the claim in question) was asked in another section for examples to support similar claims, but gave none. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SKYBLUE. If it is reliably sourced that he repeatedly made untrue claims of fact while purporting to report the news, then it is perfectly acceptable for our lede to claim he "repeatedly spread... ...fake news..." because "false claims made under the guise of reporting the news" equating to "fake news" is as obviously true as "the sky is blue". Even if the sources never call it "fake news". Hell, even if the sources never explicitly state that the claims were false, so long as no reasonable reading of the source could conclude that the claims were true, we can label it "fake news". If our job was to precisely parrot the sources, then every article would consist of nothing but quotes and section headers. Even then: this article would still make it abundantly clear to anyone without an axe to grind that Swann is a conspiracy theorist and a pusher of fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Fake news are not the same as false claims of fact. And no your statement about the "definition" of "fake news" is demonstrably wrong. Fake means something more than false; it means not only false, but fabricated and masquerading as the real thing. When we start labeling things as "fake news" without sources to back ourselves up, we're acting just like our esteemed president. Didn't you work with me on this stuff at Fake news and List of fake news websites? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't checked the sources, but "fake news" is a specific thing that I'm not sure that Swann has been doing. Swann has just been pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Unless RS say specifically that he's been pushing fake news, then it doesnt belong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll not waste my time arguing with anyone who can't be bothered to read my comments, no matter how well we might otherwise get along. Either respond to what I actually said or fuck off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)