Talk:Ben Swann/Archive 1

Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theories
If someone...slanders the victims of the 2012 Aurora shooting or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, they are saying things that are false. This was said in the "Known for promoting false claims" section, but it exposes a problem which deserves its own section. This statement is probably the best evidence of how misleading some of the things in this biography are. The fact that someone can come here and read the article and get that impression shows MAJOR problems with how it is written. We need to start actually taking BLP guidelines seriously and purge everything from this article that that would lead someone to believe such damaging falsehoods. Or at the very least, the article should include Ben's response to such allegations, which is sourced here at the bottom of the article. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The author of the article you linked to also said: Many Americans have been searching for unbiased news for years, myself included. We have found a few outlets here and there, RT, Alex Jones, and others. O3000 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about the author. It's about Ben's response to the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory claims. I have seen Wiki articles occasionally include the responses of the subject regarding claims in the article when they diverge. I think that's appropriate to do in this case. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What O3k was saying is that the source you provided is utter shit, as evidenced by the fact that they find RT and Alex Jones to be "unbiased" and presumably reliable sources of information. I agree with that. Any author who expresses such a view is -in my opinion and likely that of the majority of editors here- immediately disqualified as a reliable source of information. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Use the primary source then --98.173.248.2 (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're not going to take the word of a guy known for pushing conspiracy theories that they're being persecuted unfairly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Take the word of the RS's already cited then. The most virulent conspiracy theory about the 2012 shootings -- the one usually associated with the phrase "Sandy Hook truther" -- is that it was a "false flag" attack, an attempt to move public opinion and allow President Obama to ram through gun safety laws. The wildest theories posit that "crisis actors" were hired to portray parents and relatives grieving for their children, and that no one died at all. As Haberman reported, Swann never said any of that. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To say what? That Swann wasn't the worst offender? Sorry, that's the sort of editorializing we don't engage in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is highly misleading as Habermann said nothing about “false flags” or “crisis actors”. The opinion column you quoted conflated two subjects making it look like she said something she didn’t. The Habermann article was about a SuperPAC dumping on Rubio. It only touched on Swann and did not say: “Swann never said any of that”, which is probably why it isn’t in quotes. O3000 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The "opinion column" is used as an RS in the biography. And surely you see the irony of this statement: This is highly misleading as Habermann said nothing about “false flags” or “crisis actors”. Switch "Habermann" with "Swann" and you can easily say that about this statement from the biography Swann created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse conspiracy theories, such as Pizzagate, and those surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings (leaving aside for the moment that the shootings coverage wasn't even a Reality Check) because everybody that reads this thinks exactly that. The RS I quoted makes a very important distinction that the biography doesn't make. And it further confirms that Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are associated with false flags and crisis actors, an empirically provable fact that I don't know how anybody could argue with. There's a reason why people think that Ben slandered the victims of the shootings after reading the lede.--98.173.248.2 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a reason why people think that Ben slandered the victims of the shootings after reading the lede. Ahh. So it's all WP's fault that the RSes keep bringing up Swann in the context of Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The RSes bring him up in the context of a Rubio Ad and describe exactly what he did, which was questioned the number of shooters at these shootings. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You know you were blocked for six months, right? Now you're block evading, so you're very likely to get blocked for much longer. I've already alerted the admins, so I suggest you say whatever it is you want to say quickly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Last time I was banned it was for replying to your false claim that Ben became notable for Russian propaganda. I'm not sure how that's against the rules. But that's neither here nor there. Do you have a defense for the misleading claims about his coverage of the shootings or not? What is your argument against at least including his response to such allegations? --98.173.248.2 (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"Known for promoting false claims"
Swann is known for promoting a number of conspiracy theories and false claims, several of which are aligned with narratives pushed by his former employer, the Russian state-run RT. These claims need to have a source that confirms them. Otherwise, they are OR and need to be removed. The cited sources associate Swann with conspiracy theories and mention one report that mirrors Russian sources, but they don't show any of his claims to be false much less say that he's "known" for such things. In addition to this, and not having any encyclopedic value, it links to the Conspiracy Theory Wikipedia page, who's definition doesn't apply in this context --98.173.248.2 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that "is known for" should be removed. I also think that there is a case for "false claims" to be removed - because this isn't language that I have seen regularly. There are a lot of sources that mention that he has promoted conspiracy theories - he's gotten fired for it. The rest of the content looks appropriate.


 * How about:
 * "Swann has promoted a number of conspiracy theories, several of which are aligned with narratives pushed by his former employer, the Russian state-run RT."?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any use for the entire statement, it seems like this stuff is already summarized in the lead, but that would be better than what's there now. I see an issue with linking the "conspiracy theories" to the Wiki page, not the words themselves (though it feels like you guys are beating a dead horse. I think people will get it from the other 11 times it's mentioned) --98.173.248.2 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed "known for promoting" to "has promoted". Tornado chaser (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit, TornadoChaser. It makes sense to have a lead in to this section that details the various theories, 98.173.248.2.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The "false claims" part needs to go as well. That's something that literally any editor could feel justified in saying about any journalist they don't like. People on the left think right-leaning journalists promote falsehoods and people on the right think left-leaning journalists promote falsehoods, but Wikipedia is not the place for these sorts of allegations, especially in a BLP. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that we don't go with editor feelings, as you seem to believe, we go with what sources say. If sources report that someone has said something that has been proven to be false, then we can say that they said something false.  If someone promotes the Pizzagate conspiracy theory or slanders the victims of the 2012 Aurora shooting or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, they are saying things that are false.  This isn't a left vs right issue, this is truth vs falsehood.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If sources report that someone has said something that has been proven to be false, then we can say they said something false. Only if the RS says that, or at least proves the claim to be false. If an RS simply reports that he claimed something, and you deem that thing false, then you can't put that in the article. That's OR. As far as the other things you mentioned, they are absolutley falsehoods, but I can see why you would think those things based on what's written in the article. I've made a new section for that. See below --98.173.248.2 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)