Talk:Paul Joseph Watson/Archive 3

Associated Acts
I made an edit clarifying the associations of Benjamin and Meechan by adding (UKIP), removed Molyneux and Cernovich since there was no association described in the article. I also added "(employer at Infowars)" to the Alex Jones association since that's a definite association and not describing the association would make them the other "acts" to be on the same level of association of Jones. Tim Pool would be a stronger association given the Sweden trip, so I put that in saying "funded Sweden trip". Beyond My Ken reverted the edits without describing any objections to them. Swil999 (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Molyneux is not even mentioned in the article anywhere, should be removed unless it can be justified in the article.
 * only Benjamin and Meechan connection mentioned is UKIP
 * the reference mentioning Cernovich only says that Cernovich sent a DM to the Daily Beast saying that Richard Spencer is jealous of PJW, without describing an association.

More complaining
It should be deleted because is poorly written. Start over. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:5926:E027:D2A4:DC70 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No one wants anyone to actually hear what Mr. Watson says. That would show how ridiculous this article is. Let him speak for himself. Stressengr (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He does. All the time. I've heard him doing it. It ranges between hideous and risible. 82.1.159.160 (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

disgraceful biased article
i was going to donate to Wikipedia because i find it very useful and great site in non political matters. Please Wikipedia be truthful to your roots and stay unbiased. This article is an outrage. Belittleing him as a conspiracy theorist right ont the top of the page and supporting it with sources from four known leftist news outlets, and some of them are "opinion articles", where the journalist doesnt even try to hide his bias, and the article is basically a blogpost. This whole thing is going way against Wikis original principle. The author of this wiki page doesnt even try to hide his bias, he advertises it on the top of the page. Also being far right is very debateble, cos its usually connected with some kind of violence or goal of violence which is obviously non-existent here. A right wing and nationalist would be far more accurate. BTW conspiracy theorists often use circular reasoning. Well, the above discussed problem with this page is in itself a circular reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.197.44 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * When your only other edit is writing " fake shit :-/ " on the talk page for The Diary of Anne Frank not a single soul is going to take your claims of bias seriously. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd never donated to wikipedia, and just gave 10 bucks for the first time after reading this comment. Cheers! Chajusong (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What is the policy in terms of removing unhelpful comments such as this one? Bonzostar (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:TPO is the guideline; since it was already replied to, it should probably remain at this point. — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
From the lede, please remove: This is (a) unsourced and (b) tendentious. The article clearly establishes that Watson is a fabulist with strong ties to racism and other bigotry, so quoting his self-image gives undue weight to a fringe agenda.
 * He describes his channel as “Culture, controversy, contrarianism” and often lampoons celebrities and politicians.

I suppose if there is a reliable independent secondary source that discusses this self-characterisation and puts it in context then it could go in the body, but I do not think it should be in the lede at all, he is far too controversial to be allowed to paint his own self-portrait in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It is acceptable to note that a source says something about themselves—compare the lede at David Icke, a good article—and at first glance I don't think it is unduly weighted vs. the description of him as alt-right. Regardless, please allow it to be discussed first. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * —and others watching this page—what do you think of the above? After reviewing the article as a whole, and noticing that the references are IMDB and Watson's Youtube channel, which I didn't see at first glance, I'm more inclined to reverse my initial judgement and agree with the IP. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I won't fight to include the paragraph, but I could go either way. The IMDb listing is especially silly, since it appears that someone attempted to create individual entries for every 5-minute vlog he's ever posted. That's pretty funny, but it's not a good source per Citing IMDb. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. We can defer to self-descriptions when they are uncontroversial, but not even Watson's best friends would argue that is the case here. After all, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon claims he's a journalist. 82.1.159.160 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories
User:Malerooster can you explain your edit summary "if you drill down, it is already included” because its meaning isn't readily apparent (especially after pursuing Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment and Opposition to Islam in the United Kingdom). Obviously I’m missing something here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you click on Opposition to Islam by country (parent category of Opposition to Islam in the United Kingdom), Anti-Muslim sentiment is a parent category of that. I really don't care either way. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

an extremely biased article
While I don't subscribe to the subject's politics at all, this is clearly an attack piece. Starting paragraphs with headings such as 'He is anti-immigration' and 'He is anti-Islam' are not accurate descriptions of his views and not supported by citations. His may criticise aspects of immigration and aspects of political Islamism but to try to portray him as an out-and-out Islamophobic racist does not does anyone's cause any good and does not adhere to wikipedia guidelines. This page really needs to be deleted and started from scratch. Kont Dracula (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In this wikipedia article, you won't learn what the Watson's views are, but there are paragraphs concerning the way he presents them ("childish manner") and what these views were associated with (nativism, far-right) by some journalists. The actual views section is devoted to ideologies or phenomenon PJW attacked and critized, however we learn nothing about 1. what was his reasoning behind criticism or 2. any parcticual views Watson actually holds and promotes. There also seems to be enough place for twitter posts, but none to things Watson did in media and politics. All of this creates some sort of an anti-article, full of opinion bias ("Watson and other people considered to be extremists") which defines the person by what his opponents say about him. It's structured as some sort of a slander platform and should be balanced with  information about Watson's actions and ideas. 89.29.16.158 (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is just a reflection of the fact that real-world sources don't take him remotely seriously. Guy (help!) 16:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is. Wiki likes to have a center left bias Victor Salvini (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's tough... while I agree the article is biased against him (in the sense that it is a bit critical of him), this is a general reflection of the tone that Watson is portrayed by reliable sources. Per WP:WEIGHT, we have no choice but to use a similar tone. Other viewpoints may be shown, but among reliable sources, they are in the minority. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The grossly unprofessional tone and aggressive value-driven characterizations in this article really expose the problem of bias in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.50.54 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019
The label is FAR RIGHT without ANY attempt to define what that is. If one criticises radical islam for killing people that is now FAR RIGHT. If one asks how many people have been killed by Christians screaming "Jesus Christ is great" in the last 10 years - that is FAR RIGHT. According to this page any criticism of Islam no matter how well reasoned - is FAR RIGHT. If one criticises ANY 'Climate Change' rubbish using straight science then one is labeled FAR RIGHT. Justifying this extremist criticism of Watson by saying Facebook and Twitter banned him IS like joining in the great 'book burning'  Labeling someone FAR RIGHT is calling them a NAZI. The label is deliberate in an attempt to crush any opposition whatsoever to any Leftist agenda - that is sooooo on display on this page. Baloneybill (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on reliable sources. The fact that they identify him as far-right is not our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 23:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , Yeah... I don't like the term either, mainly because it is generally poorly defined (can describe everyone from run-of-the-mill harmless conspiracy theorists, hard line libertarians, or outright militant Nazi's. But... as  points out, the sources do commonly use this term. I'd much prefer that the term be used similarly to how he is described as Alt right in the lead. "Has been referred to as..." as this adds an element of attribution to the statements, rather than using wikipedia's voice to describe him using a term that is also used for outright Nazis.
 * I wonder if we could modify the early lead?
 * Proposed change: " ...writer and far-right conspiracy theorist.[3][4][5][6] He has been described as 'alt-right' and 'far-right' by multiple sources.[6][7][8][9]" —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , Ummmm... actually I had the above comment prepared regarding this and a compromise wording, but then I checked the sources, and none of the ones in the Lead actually call him Far Right... Arguably the Guardian article implies such because the article is about the far right, but even that article falls short of directly referring to him as such (instead referring to him as a conspiracy theorist). With the sources provided, I don't think we can call him 'far right'.
 * There are a couple of very recent sources that do refer to him as 'far right' including Rolling Stone. However, this is more recent, and I fear that they might be parroting the language that we are using to refer to him. At the very least I think we should change to the compromise edit proposed in the 'extended content' section above to avoid using that language in wikipedia's voice. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , unlikely, they have to defend libel suits so are typically more conservative. says far-right, "Most of the individuals whose accounts are being removed are popular figures on the far right, including commentators Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer and Paul Joseph Watson" (Reuters, about as neutral a source as you can get), CNN and so on, but I think it may have been changed from "alt-right" at some point? Maybe we're giving undue weight to his own repudiation of that label, since that does seem to be how he's most prominently identified. Guy (help!) 22:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'd be much happier with " ...writer and far-right conspiracy theorist.[3][4][5][6] He has been described as 'alt-right' and 'far-right' by multiple sources.[6][7][8][9]" (and adding some of the most neutral sources listed above to support, particularly Reuters and RS). My main reservation with using wikipedia's voice is how broad the term can be interpreted; since far right can mean 'militant Nazi'. I'm not sure it is a good idea to use wikipedia's voice to say something that could be interpreted that way if we can help it. Saying that multiple sources refer to him by the term is perfectly accurate (perhaps more accurate, as sources on the right-political spectrum generally don't use the term), and this lines up with how we refer to him regarding the label 'alt-right' as well. It seems like a decent compromise to me. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    22:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , that would be fine by me. It better reflects the sources. Guy (help!) 23:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ,: ✅ —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Although as late as July 2016 he called himself alt-right, he no longer accepts that label and considers himself part of the 'New Right.'[10]"
That particular line is hearsay. While the Los Angeles Times did publish it, they have used Twitter as the primary source for that reporting. When following the hyperlinks they have provided for that quote, the user is informed that the page does not exist. They do reference another Twitter post which reads as follows — "Paul Joseph Watson ‏Verified account @PrisonPlanet 16 Nov 2016 VICE is asking all "alt-right" people to be in their hit piece. I will only do mainstream media if it's live. Not playing your game anymore. 87 replies 937 retweets 2,770 likes" It continues on with the following entry on Twitter — "Paul Joseph Watson ‏Verified account @PrisonPlanet Plus I am not even "alt-right". I make YouTube videos. I don't care about my face being on TV just so they can edit me out of context." That leaves me to believe that he has never accepted the label, and there is not a single instance of the term "New Right" occuring in the article published by the Los Angeles Times. The Tweet may very well have been deleted by himself, or another entity. Unfortunately I cannot verify that it has ever existed because even when using wonderful archiveing tools such as the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, there is nothing for the reader to use for reference. With this being brought to attention here, I am proposing that the necessary changes be made to reflect verifiable information only, per the Verifiability policy. Loafahbred (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is wrong for multiple reasons. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and the LA Times is a reliable source. That source does, specifically, quote Watson regarding the term "New Right":
 * “One is more accurately described as the New Right. These people like to wear MAGA [Make America Great Again] hats, create memes & have fun,” Watson wrote on Facebook, criticizing mainstream media for focusing on Trump’s racist supporters. “They include whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, gays and everyone else. These are the people who helped Trump win the election.
 * As for the deleted tweet, for your convenience, here is an archive of it. This makes no difference to the article, however. It would be ridiculous for us to expect every single reliable source to provide publicly available archives of every primary source it cites. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside: I think he really believes this. It's rather sad. Sure, Milo is one of them - in a "my African-American" sense - but every time they gather you get a sea of pasty white male faces. It's also worth noting that in England he is virtually unheard of (as is Gorka). Guy (help!) 07:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If I were only using the sources made available to me, yes I would believe that. Is there something so wrong for me to apply a neutral point of view when reading articles on Wikipedia? One would assume it is written in such a manner, so the same applied to reading it. I also do not think it is at all ridiculous to expect primary sources remain in tact. The problem here is that The L.A. Times themselves used a source that Wikipedia policy advises strongly against. It was published in their national news section, but to refer back to the neutral point of view, Wikipedia edits weren't done in such a way. Even after the quote you've provided we gain even more context — “The other faction likes to fester in dark corners of sub-reddits” — a reference to branches of the social-media site Reddit — “and obsess about Jews, racial superiority and Adolf Hitler. This is a tiny fringe minority. They had no impact on the election.” While I don't see the need to include all of that by Wikipedia, it also begs the question I'm attempting to address here. Is this line being included in the introduction to this article present the Wikipedia edit from neutral point of view? If we cannot do that, and if our source is "a friend said they heard them say it" but the friend cannot provide the proof of them saying it, then it should clearly be omitted until it can be. At the absolute very least, it warrants a tag if it's to remain as is. Loafahbred (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For an editor with zero previous editing history you seem to be awfully sure about your interpretation of Wikipedia policy... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this is an article about Mr. Paul Joseph Watson, and he has extensively commented on this Wikipedia page in a prominent article and a video footage from an interview, it is only fair to reflect his own opinion on the contents of this sepecific Wikipedia page about him. Here is the article that includes the video interview as well here. werldwayd (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is allowed as a source for a subject's views. In this case on himself. LA times accurately pulled out the last Tweet where he referred to himself with that label. What is the problem here? We have the archived tweet. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    02:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020
change barred to banned 95.103.196.238 (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. "The social network said it had barred Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars, from its platform, along with a handful of other extremists." Guy (help!) 11:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020
Add "Conspiracy theorist" under occupation. JimJamTheMan (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please establish a consensus for this change first before making such an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Populism & conspiracy theorists
The definition of a populist is exactly what Info-Wars staff do. Please read more on the obvious correlation, before you revert edits again.

Of lizards and ideological entrepreneurs: Alex Jones and Infowars in the relationship between populist nationalism and the post-global media

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddGrande (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is certainly not the case that every conspiracy theorist is necessarily a populist. Adding "Category:Populism" to numerous articles about conspiracy theorists when there is no information in the article to support the category is not justified, and you need to stop doing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I added the category to Info Wars, as this study specifies them by name. ToddGrande (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That study might, but our article doesn;t mention populism at all, and the requirement is that the category must be supported by information in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, categories must be defining. Please read WP:CATV:
 * Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. ...
 * A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having - such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This article does not reach Wikipedia minimum standards
Coming to this article by chance as a passer-by, I was stunned by the low quality of the discourse here. The citations come overwhelmingly from notoriously biased publications, hardly citations at all, are used multiple times to give a semblance of legitimacy where little exists. Are we seriously citing "Buzzfeed" as an authoritative source now? Vice Media? BBC, God forbid? (Trustpilot rating of 1.1 https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.bbc.co.uk).

There needs to be a well-judged stance when dealing with such controversial figures. Nothing is simple, and Wikipedia deserves a balanced view of things in order to reflect the world we live in. Isparkes (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We can ignore the editor above, in 10 years they've made 12 edits to articles and talk pages, and they haven't edited since the edit above. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many people come to talk pages for articles on far-right social media personalities, say they just stumbled on them, and then complain about sources being biased. I have seen this more times than I can count, and have never once seen it persuade anyone.
 * The standard used by Wikipedia is that sources have "a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking". BBC News is a mainstream source with such a reputation, and an angry review bombing is completely irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. Buzzfeed News also produces reliable journalism, which is editorially distinct from Buzzfeed's clickbait. Vice has editorial oversight and a history of fact checking, retractions, etc. Calling these "notoriously biased publications" suggests either a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies, or a view from an insulated bubble which rejects the mainstream. As a tertiary source which summarizes reliable sources, Wikipedia inherently has a mainstream bias. This is by design. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed. As different as InfoWars is from fact. And if you think that the BBC is not a reliable source then I question your competence to edit Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what I thought. I have made edits previously in order to improve the abysmal article quality - it looks like it was written by some 3rd rate clickbait journalist with Starbucks coffee in one hand and a Twitter tab open - only to get constantly reverted and reverted, apparently this talk page is God's word and I have to argue here for weeks until some WP:POV violating admin comes in and closes the discussion at the most convenient time for his views.

I've had this happening to me, and I have seen this happen multiple times while lurking around. Frankly I am getting tired of Wikipedia. To all these people who like throwing around bazillion WP rules like they're Pokéballs, read WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SUBSTANTIATE. --Spafky (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Although a lot of the Trustpilot reviews are not about the BBC itself but the license, it does look as though there's an organised campaign there. No way does it represent the general population of the UK. Doug Weller  talk 11:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul Joseph Watson is a Conspiracy Theorist
He made the transition into a full-fledged Conspiracy Theorist. Its very important to categorize him as such, because he is playing a major role in promoting conspiracy theories as of 2020. ToddGrande (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I mean, yes, but do you have reliable sources calling him that? Guy (help!) 17:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Paul debunked all claims about him being a conspiracy theorist in his youtube video "CNN ATTACKS PJW!" On 1:30 Paul provided a list of videos in which he debunked conspiracy theories, and on 1:41 he clearly says "Did I believe in some out-there conspiracy theories when I was younger? Yeah, then I grew up". This quote above is already enough to clarify all clams of him being a conspiracy theorist false and outdated. At least add "former" or "was a conspiracy theorist" 109.252.127.43 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Does Watson identify as a "conspiracy theorist"? What is a "conspiracy theorist"? Is the source reliable or is the source simply smearing him? Could wikipedia also be reasonably be accused of smearing Watson by repeating this claim? John2o2o2o (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

alleged Islamophobia
Has Watson been convicted by a court of law for "Islamophobia"? Surely, if he has not then the claim is simply subjective opinion? Arguably a smear intended to damage his reputation.

If Watson has not been convicted of an Islamophobic crime then I would suggest changing the wording to "alleged Islamophobia" on the main page. Failure to do so surely lays wikipedia open to claims of defamation. John2o2o2o (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I mean... he is unapologetically anti-islam, and has said as much in youtube videos. That said, the sentence you are referring to in the lede was blatantly miss sourced. It didn't accuse him of islamaphbia, nor did it say that he "supported far right hate groups". Not sure who added this but it was a BLP violation and has been removed. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    22:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

the article is debating itself
on each of his views listed, there is an attempted refutation, it reads like the article is debating itself. i don't think this is good for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.18 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Was the prod placement policy compliant?
I requested the deleted versions to be restored and grafted back onto the beginning of the revision history.

In 2008 a prod was placed on the article. My understanding of the prod rules is that new versions of previously deleted articles aren't eligible for prod. So, should the tagger have used G4? I don't think so. The diff between the last version, before the article's first deletion, and the first version after the deletion shows about 50 percent copied from the new article, and 50 percent new or rewritten material.

I think that is enough for it to not be eligible for G4. Both the prod tagger and the administrator have left the project, so no one can be asked to explain themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2021
As of August 2021 Paul Joseph Watson has 1,88 million subscribers on YouTube. 82.73.85.119 (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Sirdog9002 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021
Could you please change the phrasing when it is said that Salon Magazine had proven the claim that Malmo was crime ridden by refugees false. Wikipedia is supposed to neutral at ALL times. You Could’ve said that the claim was CONTESTED by Magazines like Salon. 64.237.85.136 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022
I think Watson should be called “Right Wing” instead of “Far Right” as his views are more akin to that of Right Wing Populism than any kind of organicist fascism. The editors may disagree but that is my Position. =3 64.237.85.136 (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the opinions of individual editors. The claim that Watson is "far-right" cites six sources. Saucy[talk – contribs] 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)