Talk:Jimmy Dore/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees

It is one persons opinion that this is a pro Assad lobby group, and to imply this is a fact is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The way it is written is highly POV and further skews the article against its subject. I think a neutrality tag might be in order.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right. WP:UNDUE POV-pushing and WP:BLP smear. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

From an article about Denis Kucinich ;

'Kucinich, currently running for Ohio governor, has revealed that he received $20,000 from “a group sympathetic to the Syrian government,” Cleveland.com reported Tuesday. New ethics filings show that the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees, a group tied to the pro-Assad Syria Solidarity Movement, paid Kucinich for 2017 speeches.' Its not 'one persons opinion'. When the OPCW JIM has said the attack on Khan Shaykun was regime action, its a bit tortured to say the article is 'skew'ed against this man Jimmy Dore. If expert analysis is against him the wikipedia article should show that I should think. Wikipedia is not under an obligation I take it to assert the evenness of the opinion of this bought hack , and the OPCW JIM, on CW attacks 78.147.47.103 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

None of those sources say it is a "a pro-Assad lobbying group", as our article does. Nor do any of those sources imply Dore was paid to give a pro Assad message. It is a serious accusation that needs more then one Journos opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

According to a recent RfC, Bellingcat is a RS. Furthermore, Bellingcat has a stellar reputation on matters related to the Syrian Civil War. It does not need to be attributed, but if is to be attributed, then it should be attributed to Bellingcat, not "one man". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the RSN discussion said something about attribution. But I have no issue with changing from the author to Bellingcat.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah: generally reliable, attribution preferred. I don't have any problem with attributing the statement to Bellingcat here, although it seems like this is not just the opinion of one journalist: local press (1 2) and Politifact both described the group in similar terms when reporting on the Kucinich story. Nblund^talk 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the implication he said what he said because he was paid as much as the accusation they are an advocacy group.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which came first, (lobbyists tend to target people that already agree with them) but that implication is consistent with the source. Nblund^talk 13:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not disputing that, I am saying it is too serious an allegation to be stated as fact when it only has a single source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I don't see it as all that serious: it's sort of the point of lobbying. Are you saying we need more than the current in text attribution? Nblund^talk 14:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no such implication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Then what relevance does what he went on to say have, either it is linked or it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That he take money from a pro-Assad lobby group and that pro-Assad lobby groups feel that he's worthy of money are both pertinent info, as demonstrated by the RS coverage. Usually, people turn away money from unsavoury groups, and when they don't, that's notable. That unsavoury groups decide to reward certain people is also notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

One RS covered this. Thus the whole thing needs attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

But it has attribution, right? I'm a little unclear on what's being suggested here that would differ from the current version. Nblund^talk 15:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I am also wondering that, I am not the one arguing against the current version.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

When I read it, it sounded like to me it was implying his opinion was based on the donation. It mentions his view, then talks about the donation, and then says "That same year..." this alone makes it sound like his opinion is based on the donation. Some of you seem to be suggesting that instead, this group donated to someone who has the same opinion as them. In any case, we need to make it very clear what we're trying to say, and there is definitely some confusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:6A09:300:C51A:AA9D:9277:4C5 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No we are reporting what RS have said, we cannot analyse that and come to nay conclusions, only RS can do that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Trackinfo apparently doesn't like this group being called "pro-Assad", and is removing the reference, claiming the something called "Influence Watch" says otherwise.

"Influence Watch" says nothing -- nil, nada, fuck-all -- about whether the organization is "pro-Assad", or anti-Assad, or Assad-less, or any other Assad things. There's nothing for be to "accepted" about this reference because it is entirely irrelevant, and Influence Watch is a source for nothing except the organization's mailing address, really.
The source of the "pro-Assad" characterization is the Bellingcat reference. Don't like it? It's not Wikipedia's or Trackinfo's place to contradict a source just because he doesn't like it.
Despite his being wrong from the start and it not being necessary, I gave him another source anyways. So he was wrong both on the sourcing and on the straight facts, and he reverted anyways. Accuracy clearly is not his concern here, and someone needs to revert back. --Calton | Talk 12:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page: Influence Watch notes if any organization has a bias or "Influence" get it? Its in the name. Its what they do. They mention Palestinians but do not mention Assad. If there was an influence by Assad, it would be their job to note it. Instead you quote from hit pieces and repeat from hit pieces. You and your like have turned this article about a guy doing a political comedy podcast out of his garage into character assassination. You might read about WP:BLP. Trashing a guy on his own BLP is not what wikipedia should be used for. If the conspiracy theories were what made him famous, maybe, but they aren't. (Not the that is WP:UNDUE at its core) You have completely lost the essence of his character or his show. I don't know who sent you to wikipedia, but before you edit any more, read a little about WP:NPOV. Trackinfo (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

...get it?

Yes, I'd forgotten that Influence Watch is the ONLY source in the world -- the only one! -- that documents influence, and if something isn't mentioned on its site it doesn't exist. So your logic is that when a reliable source says a thing exists, while another source -- which may or may not be reliable, come to think -- says absolutely nothing the thing, you go with "the thing doesn't exist".

Stick to track and field statistics, because basic logic seems to elude you.

Trashing a guy on his own BLP is not what wikipedia should be used for

Nobody is "trashing" someone, Wikipedia is documenting what a reliable source says. Both you and Apeholder don't like what it says -- Apeholder just straight up lied, claiming that the statement that AIPAC is pro-Assad is sourced from the paragraph that LITERALLY SOURCES IT, INCLUDING IN THE HEADLINE. Somebody -- somebodies -- needs a read of WP:NPOV, but it ain't me.

I don't know who sent you to wikipedia...

I've been here 15 years, genius, five years longer than you have. So, who sent YOU here? --Calton | Talk 04:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly you've been on wikipedia longer, by 29 months almost to the day. Whatever math brought you to 5 years might reflect on your own credibility. I was referring to you, snooogans and the other IPs arriving at editing this article within days of each other, all pushing the slime added to a previously innocuous article that I have been watching and occasionally contributing to for several years. When these things happen, some outside force caused it. Did you get a directive or inspired from another site? You had to look for this stuff, or get shown. None of these "conspiracy theorist" accusations show up in the first 10 pages of a google search on Dore even now. It is not what he is about. Its not why he has a half a million subscribers. Its obscure stuff from obscure sources you've dug up. Go back 9 months, it was not previously on his page. You had to be directed to find it but now its front line content you are pushing to have on his wikipedia page. While you have a CNN story leading it, Dore's rebuttal is not. I added it. Snoogans removed it. That rebuttal is; CNN is a commercial competitor and a frequent target of Dore. Discrediting Dore (that is what all of this is about) was a clear mission of CNN Money's story about advertising. It was a clear commercial effort, maybe even a directive from management, to discredit nontraditional online advertising destinations. Look at all these horrible people and organizations your advertising dollars are supporting; where your message is appearing. And in that article, Dore's left wing ideas were grouped and labeled, along with Nazis, White Supremacists and other right wing nutballs. CNN had a clear message to advertisers. You can't trust putting your dollars into online advertising, spend it on CNN where you won't be advertising adjacent to any radical ideas. Since that was added, you've gone further, pushing this point; that he has accepted a $2500 contribution. Now Dore is promoting crazy conspiracy theories. See, $2500. Dore can't be trusted. That is the ridiculous premise you are promoting by adding this content. This is an agenda. Yours? Someone else? Are you the player or getting played? Whichever, this stuff doesn't belong in a BLP. Trackinfo (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Discography

For the #Discography I haven't the faintest why two editors undid column width 30em matching the default {{Reflist}}. The suggested #See also can wait until there is more than one entry, but Alternative media (U.S. political left) should be relevant for this article. Maybe 10+2 threads for the still unclear archive bot issue won't take years. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try reading edit summaries. Or maybe employ some common sense. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Always, discussions in edit summaries are ok., the DS here limit it. Two columns are a minor visual improvement, no content issue. For arguably relevant wikilinks to an article (incl. lists) I consider backlinks, and my EU common sense doesn't tell me what could be wrong with the alternative media content. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat sourced content

Seriously, there is a dubious claim on here from the Bellingcat "investigative journalism" outlet. I seriously hope this site is not taken as a credible source on WP? This outlet is funded by The National Endowment for Democracy - a right-wing corporate think tank who essentially help the CIA and other western nations to overthrow other countries that don't allow themselves to be bullied by the WTO and IMF. A diabolical organisation and anyone accepting funding from them has seriously tainted any credibility they already had. Here's an e.g. from Consortium News (the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal before someone automatically assumes "they can't be credible because I've never heard of them")
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/28/the-dirty-hand-of-the-national-endowment-for-democracy-in-venezuela/ Or Der Speigel calling out their analysis of military aerial footage: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html Apeholder (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you don't describe a crackpot conspiracy website founded in 1995 as "the outlet that broke the Watergate scandal" and misleadingly claim that Der Spiegel has criticized Bcat when the only thing Der Spiegel did was interview someone who criticized Bcat. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

:The latest RfC at RSN found that bellingcat was generally reliable. Whether or not that is a correct assessment, we would need another RfC to challenge it. It is plausible that the Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees contributed $3500 to Dore's program. Lots of people contribute to his show for different reasons. My concern is whether it includes weight for inclusion. The article was not about Dore and I don't see any coverage of the story in other sources. I have never added information from an investigative report to any article for that reason. So unless someone can show the story meets weight, it should be removed. Incidentally, the word implies a quid pro quo although there is no evidence for that. TFD (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Given this is a BLP, it should be removed or at the very least the section tagged.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for what? Using RS to bring information to readers on Dores views? The section lays out Dores views as expressed by Dore on Twitter etc , and a response in a RS. Whats the problem. The article isn't exactly overbearingly long, I'm sure readers can cope with these few sentences. If Dore thinks stories of cw attacks are part of some conspiracy, and has no time for OPCW -JIM reports, thats important isn't it? WP:NOT CENSORED. (As for TFD saying its not had wide coverage , that is because Dore is not very notable at all as it is, so cutting away what little there is in RS is the opposite of helpful and furthers ignorance about the subjects views. Not what WP is supposed to be doing is it really ).Bulldog Antz (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for being questionable. The whole issue here, which were unnecessarily opposed by @Snooganssnoogans: is that it is apparently reasonable to consider JD's views as questionable due to his receipt of funds from a think-tank. Conversely, it is apparently totally unreasonable to also consider the Bellingcat source as compromised even though they have MUCH more questionable financiers that are pure propaganda e.g. National Endowment For Democracy. Why is it okay to say someone isn't being honest because of their receipt of funds, when another person is given a free pass? The usual WP Russiagate hypocrisy here. I'm going to add a 'better source needed' tag and I really hope it will remain until one appears. WP will continue to decline if we don't hold the same accountability across the board. Apeholder (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for being WP:UNDUE per TFD above. I am all for citing RS to make sure readers get accurate and DUE information on Dore and his POV. I added material on Dore's views months ago from a far superior source than Bellingcat (published by Brill Academic Publishers), but it was deleted by another editor.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The Brill book quote did not address his views on cw attacks in Syria so really I think you are totally missing the point. Your animus against Bellingcat is superseded by the numerous RS that regard Bellingcat in a quite different light. Bellingcat lays out all its evidence for its conclusions, open source investigations, and is open about the sources of its money. Bellingcat's authors have won numerous accolades and awards. Apart from the essay you cite, what has Rob Williams written ? ( o.k. I looked up his essay and it seems he is a journalist in Vermont for a 'radical news journal'. 'far superior' to Bellingcat as a source? Ho, and indeed, hum.) Bulldog Antz (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So, it went from "Using RS to bring information to readers on Dores views" to "The Brill book quote did not address his views on cw attacks in Syria so really I think you are totally missing the point". I think this gets to the crux of the problem here. It's less about giving DUE weight to his political views as a leftist progressive (such a description was in the lede until it was purged), and more about giving UNDUE weight to a very narrow selection of controversial views, such as the Seth Rich case and the cw attacks in Syria (and especially the insinuation he is being paid off to promote a certain view on the latter), that can be used to paint the subject of the article as nothing but a conspiracy theorist. His views on class warfare and US imperialism, as discussed in the materials added from Brill book, which again is an academic publisher (making it WP:RS), have been removed, even though proper attribution was applied to the author of that work. Likewise, his views on universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, the US-backed Saudi war in Yemen, etc., have also been removed over the last year or so. If you are going to include the Bellingcat material, fine. But why purge reliably sourced content describing Dore's views with proper attribution such as the Brill book? This is why the article as it exists now should be tagged for neutrality, at least IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

He rails against the dark money behind the news, so he thinks the money thing is important. Bulldog Antz (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, so that's why it's also important to question the dark-money behind Bellingcat, as the National Endowment For Democracy are very clear about their actions assisting the CIA to overthrow and undermine foreign governments. Straight up propaganda and they don't even try to hide it. So, as I said above, it makes no sense to say "this guy is compromised by his dark-money", but also "don't question the dark-money behind the news outlet questioning his dark-money". Where is the logic behind that?? So yes, it really needs a neutrality tag because all of his general views have been gradually removed as the guy above says, and in typically biased WP style, only the possibly questionable comments left up. Entirely biased censorship and totally against the principles of Wikipedia. Apeholder (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bellingcat WP article addresses its sources of money. Bulldog Antz (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans and Calton: Jimmy Dore is mentioned in a Bellingcat article criticizing the Serena Shim Award.^[1] –84.46.52.75 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bellingcat article says the United Nations has confirmed that the Syrian government, the only party to the conflict known to possess the Sarin and an air force, was responsible. As I sourced above[2], the United Nations itself says The report does not assign blame for the likely use of chlorine gas, and found no grounds or evidence, to support an assertion from the Syrian Government that rebel fighters in Douma had use a local facility, to manufacture chemical weapons. The Bellingcat article is reporting a fact about the UN that is diametrically opposed to what the UN says. That, my friends, is a lie. It means Bellingcat is not only not a reliable source, but is in fact a fraud. All of this is, as I accused above, a smear against Jimmy Dore in a BLP. Accordingly, I will remove the smears in this article attributed to Bellingcat. Trackinfo (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The RS noticeboard has concluded that Bellingcat is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

So we are expected to follow RS noticeboard and their eminent research team (that doesn't exist) or now that I have proven a reason NOT to believe Bellingcat we'll just override our lying eyes? Trackinfo (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Other than the distant analysis of a poorly informed RD noticeboard, nobody has produced a good reason to believe Bellingcat after I proved they are deliberately lying. But the slime was restored to the article, including removing the contradicting source, the UN itself. There is some artificial force pushing the directive to discredit Dore, fast. This is a BLP. This stuff doesn't belong here. Somebody please revert this. Trackinfo (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Dore&curid=20662259&diff=941783349&oldid=941780779 The Bellingcat slime is still being reposted to the article. Snoogans is deliberately putting discredited information into the article about Dore to falsely discredit Dore. Bellingcat misstating, reporting the opposite of the United Nations' own report is a blatant lie. Trackinfo (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Trackinfo and C.J.

In addition, I think questionable sources should not be used in BLP article. Also, the content that is disputed should be removed, at least during the discussion per WP:BLP.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat is a RS per the RS noticeboard. Furthermore, the Bellingcat piece cites Reuters explicitly saying that the UN concluded Syria was behind the chemical weapons attack. It's not BLP violation to include uncontested RS content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Reuters cite unnamed person not a UN report. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL tha is not a high quility source--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You should strike your comment. This is what Reuters[3] says: "“The Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017,” the report from the U.N. and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) said." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Trackinfo, that UN source is about the Dhouma attack, not the Khan Shaykhun (which is what Dore said was a false flag attack and which the UN attributed to the Assad regime). Perfect example of why WP:SYNTH is policy on Wikipedia: so that editors don't try to piece together disparate pieces of info to create a false portrayal of events. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, you are the one who is adding the original research here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What a bizarre comment. What is the original research? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The stuff about Dhouma attack. As I said above, Reuters dont support your insertion, yet you keep adding the original research in BLP articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It's the other user (the one that you say you agree with) who is citing a 2019 thing about the Douma attack to support his erroneous claim that Bellingcat and Reuters are wrong about the 2017 Khan Shaykhun attack. Keep up, yeesh. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I thought you are talking about a different report. I agree with the other editor. The U.N. report says The report does not assign blame for the likely use of chlorine gas, and found no grounds or evidence, to support an assertion from the Syrian Government that rebel fighters in Douma had use a local facility, to manufacture chemical weapons.

Remember that stuff about BLP should be verified.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Dore is talking about the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, not the Douma chemical attack. These are not the same thing. This is one of multiple errors you've made in quick succession. Please read carefully. It's very tiring to deal with this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, my understanding is that the OPCW does not assign blame to individuals or governments. If you have information about the report that contains that information, I would like to see it. We should not include information from even the most reliable sources if we know that it does not accurately reflect known information. I had this argument several years ago with editors who wanted to include information that Barack Obama was born in Kenya because a Kenyan newspaper said he was. TFD (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism, which attributed the Khan Shaykhun attack to the Assad regime (and subsequently lost renewal of its mandate because Russia blocked it).[4] Simply sticking fingers in your ears, saying "no RS can be trusted" and likening reporting by all RS to birther conspiracy theories is not going to cut it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans,

According to the source (Bellingcat), Dore said that it is "likely" a false flag. The content that was in the article said that he "argued" it is a false flag. Whoever wrote that in this article seems that he/she can't understand simple English or that he is pushing a POV. So Dore didnt argue it is a false attack, he said it is likely to be false flag. Keep this in your mind.
Dore said what he said BEFORE the UN released the report and after he saw that U.S. officials were recklessly accusing the Syrian government without any shreds of evidence at the time. Just like the Iraq war and other US false flag wars, it was very likely that the attack was a false flag. Jimmy Dore comment was totally appropriate because as I said, one, it was before the UN released the report, two, officials from the U.S. were making reckless accusations without evidence, three, U.S is known for making false flag attacks.
The Billingcat source, the only source that makes it sounds as if what Jimmy did was wrong. Sorry but that is not going to be in Wikipedia unless proven to be a controversy. Dore is not Allah to know the future.
The time when he said that, the circumstances when he said that and the fact that he said "likely" not that he said it is absolutely a false flag, while U.S. official and U.S. media were throwing accusation without any evidence at that time shows that there is nothing controversial to be included in this article.
Finally, and this is just a side note, the UN report says Given the limitations in some evidence, the Mission was not able to determine “with absolute certainty” the use of a chemical weapon, but was able to determine the presence of sarin on samples that came from the alleged site of the incident. So it doesn't say that it is certain that the Syrian government is behind the attack.

--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

On 2 November, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission submitted its report on the alleged incident of the use of chemical weapons at Ltamenah on 30 March 2017. Given the limitations in some evidence, the Mission was not able to determine “with absolute certainty” the use of a chemical weapon, but was able to determine the presence of sarin on samples that came from the alleged site of the incident. (news.un.org) The "alleged incident of the use of chemical weapons at Ltamenah on 30 March 2017" is not the same as the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack on 4 April 2017. The Bellingcat article mentions Khan Shaykhun, not Ltamenah: That same year, Dore would argue that a chemical weapons attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhun was likely a “false flag,” (Bellingcat). CowHouse (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Read when Dore said it is likely a false flag and when the report was released. Sorry but these regular and normal opinions don't get mentioned in the article just because one source made it look like as if it was wrong. Dore made the comments before the report was released. U.S officials were making unfounded accusations. The U.S. is known for making false flag wars. There was nothing inappropriate in Dore's comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You removed this from the article: That same year, Dore argued that the chemical weapons attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhun was likely to have been a "false flag," orchestrated by groups opposed to Assad. The United Nations has confirmed that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack.

This is what the Bellingcat article says: That same year, Dore would argue that a chemical weapons attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhun was likely a “false flag,” the bodies of dead children having been planted, perhaps, by extremists (the United Nations has confirmed that the Syrian government, the only party to the conflict known to possess the Sarin and an air force, was responsible).

You do not seem to be disputing the accuracy of the Bellingcat article or what was included on Dore's Wikipedia page. The section you removed from the page does not say Dore's comments were made after the report, and neither does the Bellingcat article. If you are saying we should include whether his comments were made before or after the report was released (or both) then that would be original research. The section you removed is accurate whether or not you believe the "U.S. is known for making false flag wars" or this was a "regular and normal opinion". Just to clarify, are you saying it was an unfounded accusation to say the Syrian government was responsible but it was not unfounded to say it was likely a false flag attack? Was it only unfounded to say it was likely a false flag attack after the report was released, but not before? CowHouse (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was unfounded when the U.S. officials made the comments. It's not that I believe the U.S. is known for false flag wars, it is a fact that the U.S. known for false flag wars. Dore's comments were based on that fact. The only source that suggests that Dore's comments were inappropriate is Billingcat which is not a high quality source, read what WP:BLPSOURCE says. It is also clear that Dore's comments were appropriate given the circumstances and the fact that the report was not released yet while the U.S. accusations were totally irresponsible given that the U.S. said it is the Syrian government, not even "likely" the Syrian government, but it is the Syrian government who are behind the attack. We don't just add stuff to BLP because one source reported it, sorry. Normal and appropriate opinions expressed by a political commentator don't get included. Dore is not a soothsayer. Also his comment says "likely" so it wasn't proven wrong, because Dore didn't exclude the odds that it might be the Syrian government.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

U.S is known for making false flag attacks. I am not sure what you are referring to, but I will be generous and assume you are not a conspiracy theorist and are instead using the term "false flag" incorrectly.

It is also clear that Dore's comments were appropriate given the circumstances and the fact that the report was not released yet. I am not sure why you are insisting that Dore only made his comments before the report when there is no RS coverage demonstrating this. Even if you are correct, I will be interested to see if anyone is persuaded by your argument that Dore's comments were "appropriate" because "the report was not released yet" and it is a fact that the U.S. known for false flag wars. Dore's comments were based on that fact.

Normal and appropriate opinions expressed by a political commentator don't get included. RS coverage of opinions by political commentators, both appropriate and inappropriate, do get included in Wikipedia. If we do not "add stuff to BLP because one source reported it" then there would be almost nothing on Dore's page. Most information on the page is based on single sources, and four of the sixteen references on the page right now are his own YouTube videos.

The only source that suggests that Dore's comments were inappropriate is Billingcat [sic] which is not a high quality source. Firstly, there is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. I fail to see how it is "not a high quality source". Your assertion is not persuasive. Secondly, can you present any reliable sources to support your claim that there "was nothing inappropriate in Dore's comments"? Also, as I said before, you can think his comments were appropriate and that would not change how the information was presented on the page (you are not disputing that Dore made the comments) so why remove it?

Dore is not a soothsayer. What exactly is your point? Nobody is expecting Dore to be a soothsayer. Dore was not predicting the future, he was talking about the attack after it happened. If he was predicting the future he would have said he predicted the report would say it was a false flag.

Also his comment says "likely" so it wasn't proven wrong, because Dore didn't exclude the odds that it might be the Syrian government. Bellingcat summarised Dore's views with the word "likely", but you should not assume they were quoting him. Regardless, your comment is not constructive since the section you removed from the page already used the word "likely": That same year, Dore argued that the chemical weapons attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhun was likely to have been a "false flag," orchestrated by groups opposed to Assad. The United Nations has confirmed that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack. CowHouse (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of these two sentences implies that Dore's comments were made after the U.N. report. If we said that he argued that the attack was a false flag before the U.N. report was released then that would be good but not noteworthy. The Billingcat source is the only source that note this comment of Dore, reliability of the source is not the same as quality of the source, we need high quality sources per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:BLPSOURCE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It is difficult to reply to your comment without repeating myself, as I have addressed your points already.

If we said that he argued that the attack was a false flag before the U.N. report was released then that would be good but not noteworthy. (1) Can you please make a consistent argument. Earlier you stressed the importance of the word "likely": According to the source (Bellingcat), Dore said that it is "likely" a false flag. The content that was in the article said that he "argued" it is a false flag. Whoever wrote that in this article seems that he/she can't understand simple English or that he is pushing a POV. So Dore didnt argue it is a false attack, he said it is likely to be false flag. Keep this in your mind. (2) We should not say his comments were only made before the UN report because, once again, that is not in the source and is original research (please read WP:ORIGINAL). (3) It would be noteworthy since RS coverage of opinions by political commentators, both appropriate and inappropriate, do get included in Wikipedia.

The juxtaposition of these two sentences implies that Dore's comments were made after the U.N. report. There is no such implication. Once again, I am not sure why you are insisting that Dore only made his comments before the report when there is no RS coverage demonstrating this. Since you are persistent with this point, here is an example of Dore continuing to refer to the attack as a false flag in November 2017, after the October 2017 report by the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism. So even if the implication is there, the Bellingcat article would still be accurate.

The Billingcat [sic] source is the only source that note this comment of Dore. Bellingcat being the only source, even if true, is not a reason in itself to remove the content. You are also arguing, without providing any justification, that it is not a high quality source after handwaving that it is considered generally reliable. Besides, Dore's comments about chemical weapons attacks in Syria have been covered by other sources: "Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes." (money.cnn.com)

[W]e need high quality sources. Once again, your mere assertion that Bellingcat is not a high quality source is not persuasive. CowHouse (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that at least a few editors here objected to the use of Bellingcat as a source. It was a nice gesture, but a futile one, because the pro-neocon bias at Wikipedia is pretty much locked in for all time. Thus, we see Jimmy Dore branded as a "conspiracy theorist" in a BLP, whereas Rachel Maddow is a "political commentator". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:6180:3342:E4CD:99ED:4B7E:BE7B (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore is a multimillionairre.

In December of 2020, Jimmy Dore bought a 2,815 square feet walled compound for $1.9 million in Studio City, Los Angeles. Sources: Variety magazine 1 Variety magazine 2

I propose that this information be included in the article. AndrewBlake89 (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he is and maybe he isn't a multimillionaire. Quite likely, he has a mortgage on that house, in which case, he has debt well over a million dollars. The house is actually modest by Hollywood standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

So Jimmy Dore lives in a house. So do lots of other people, not particularly noteworthy. Incidentally, we don't normally refer to a suburban house with a wooden fence and hedges as a walled compound. I assume AndrewBlake89 read about this somewhere else that gives you a link to the article. Do you know if there is a firing range in the basement? TFD (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yea, I am not seeing why this should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP since they reposted substantially the same edits as a blocked account. I've also semi-protedted the article for three months. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced content

Several editors are edit-warring extremely poorly sourced SYNTH content about Jimmy Dore purportedly influencing debates in the Democratic Party about Nancy Pelosi. The content in question is sourced to a single off-hand mention by a host of a podcast, as well as several crank outlets. The content in no way meets any criteria for inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We need half decent RS to pass undue, he is a comedian so may say many odd things, its part of his job.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate characterization. Ball, Gray, Grim, Jackson, Ocasio-Cortez and Sirota are all notable. Their thoughts on the plan are covered by The Intercept, Jacobin and Business Insider which are reliable. Connor Behan (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

~~Update: it's not just on American news sites now.~~ Actually, it looks like that was aggregated from (unreliable) RT. Connor Behan (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ball, Gray, Grim, Jackson, Ocasio-Cortez and Sirota are all notable

Except for Ocasio-Cortez, a Murderer's Row of cranks and political operatives -- David Sirota? Ryan Grim? -- and the only reason Ocasio-Cortez is on the list is purely because the others have dragged her into this scheme. You can't inflate the importance of this by dropping her name. --Calton | Talk 10:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

People try and fail to drag AOC into debates all the time. Her explicitly choosing to respond to this one multiple times is what inflates the importance of it. And clearly, David Sirota, Ryan Grim and the other three pass WP:GNG. You can't deflate the importance of this by describing your distaste for them. Also, what is your evidence that Eliza Relman is logrolling? Connor Behan (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced by the arguments that this is "extremely poorly sourced SYNTH content." This is a claim made by Dore on his own show, so accurately represented, and picked up by several others, as reported. What's the objection? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious that you of all people are calling these journalists "political operatives" when all you do is edit wikipedia pages with smears on those who challenge the neoliberal establishment. Hrodrik (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Where's Your Proof?

User:Philip Cross you deleted my post as "clearly invented" when it's not. This was an event that occurred in Dore's life, check out his video. And as far as the comment about Pelosi, that came straight from NBC, so how can that be "invented". Show facts before editing someones comments. (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits about a person's health require strong sources. Your edit linked youtube. If you are unfamiliar with WP:RS or WP:BLP, read them. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. There is a lack of details here, and User:EvergreenFir has done a WP:RVDL on User:Mtpascoe's edit! Wow. This is something I've never seen before. User:Mtpascoe, can you give a little narrative, in general terms, what your edit was about? Be sure not to include any specific personal info which may have offended our Admin here.

General Comment: I've been looking over Jimmy's page lately, and what I see are several disturbing things:

Persistent malicious edits and WP:VAND by editors who a) inject unfavorable things, personal things with serious WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns (e.g., about Jimmy's house, with links to articles containing its value, subdivision (approximate location) and photographs(!!), which, considering how Jimmy is targeted by the establishment power elites which are the subjects of his critical analysis, could endanger his personal safety), and slurs, while b) consistently reverting edits which attempt to balance the article with favorable, or simply FACTUAL and/or noteworthy or newsworthy items,
an Edit War occurring since Dec 15, over Jimmy's #ForceTheVote campaign, INCLUDING violations by one editor of WP:1RR

There seems like a campaign to malign one of our best anti-war voices today, something User:Philip Cross is known to engage in.

I'm not sure what is happening here, and frankly I haven't been active on WP for a while... but this is interesting to me.

My goal here is to a) improve Jimmy's page, and make it more resemble an encyclopedia article, and also b) to learn how WP is being gamed to leave these kinds of smears stand, and c) to see if WP is still useful as a user-edited online encyclopedia, or if it has been taken over by sinister forces who now control the content. -- Bill Huston ^(talk) 05:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

For clarification: my REVDELs were for lengthy, editorialized paragraphs describing alleged health and financial issues with YouTube as the source. I'm a bit hawkish when it comes to BLP, so I acknowledge that other admins might not have reacted the same, but it definitely could not have stayed as is. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification User:EvergreenFir.

However, while I lack knowledge of the specifics of the edit, it seems to be about personal information freely supplied by the subject himself. It seems to me none of the WP:CRD have been met here. And considering the history of WP:VAND which I can plainly see happening here, it makes me suspicious that your WP:REVDEL is part of the plan to keep this page looking like a hit piece, and suppressing factual biographical information. This information is CRITICAL for understanding Jimmy's motivations w/r/t his #ForceTheVote campaign (he is consistently called a "grifter"), which has been subject to an WP:EW since Dec 15th.

Considering the controversy here, would you be willing to revert your redaction and REVDEL?

Lastly, you say "Youtube is the source", seemingly as a way of dismissing anything from Youtube as credible. This seems to me similar to dismissing a Bible quote as being "from a book", as if to throw shade on anything printed in a book. There is nothing wrong with Youtube as a souce, per se. There is both wisdom and garbage in both books and Youtube Videos. Please do not confuse a WP:PRIMARY with a communication medium or channel.

The PRIMARY SOURCE here (if I understand correctly) is the SUBJECT of the relevant biographical information, which seems to be actively being suppressed --Bill Huston ^(talk) 06:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A 2 hour youtube video isn't easy to verify with. If the story is told by Dore, then I'll unRevdel. But do we have sources for it?

Don't try to read intent into my actions. Ive done the same for Roosh V and others on the political Right.

Regardless of the revdel, this content doesn't seem significant enough beyond a short mention. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I dug in google and found 1 youtube video featuring joe rogan, RT the website, and two podcasts. The transcript of one indicates Dore did say this. I'll undo revdel. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Added additional Categories. Please do not bulk revert. Let's Talk:: instead.

I added several additional categories.

Category:Audio_podcasts
Category:Activists from Chicago
Category:American political activists
Category:American political writers
Category:American satirists
Category:American social commentators
Category:American YouTubers
Category:Anti-poverty_advocates
Category:Censorship in the arts
Category:Critics_of_religions
Category:Cultural_critics
Category:Nonviolence_advocates
Category:Writers from Chicago

I am hoping these are not controversial hope not to see a bulk revert. If you have issues with any of these, let's talk here and form consensus. Thank you. Bill Huston ^(talk) 01:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of these. However, I don't understand why he would be in "Category:Censorship in the arts". Jimmy Dore seems very out of place in that list. LeBron4 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for being open to most of these, LeBron4. I would argue FOR inclusion here, because Jimmy is an artist, who discusses the subject of censorship often. I am fairly confident that Jimmy has been the subject of censorship himself, although I don't have a cite handy. (I'll keep digging). Anyway, does this come close to meeting your expectation about whom this category might apply to? Thx --Bill Huston ^(talk) 07:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Dore does often discuss censorship, but I don't think that he is primarily known for discussing the subject of censorship; he certainly is not known for being censored or for doing any censoring, which adding the category would possibly imply. More importantly, since the Jimmy Dore article currently does not actually mention the subject of censorship, we should not have this category tacked on. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore bullying Francesca Fiorentini

Should Jimmy Dore's bullying of Francesca Fiorentini be added? https://twitter.com/franifio/status/1044718223956992000

She has her own Wikipedia page and works for organizations like TYT. 72.202.134.93 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. While the language is harsh, it does not rise to a notable event. It was covered in a tweet, not by news articles. So it is not notable enough.

Lead

The lead section doesn't adequately summarize the article, so I've tagged it as such. Of course, it can be removed when the lead is expanded. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up the section entitled "Promotion of conspiracy theories"

With all due respect, since I had grown weary of Dore's repeated and confused inability to shut up about how Wikipedia was a tool of the US Intelligence Community for "not tak[ing] down" "smear[s]" and "lie[s]" about his "promotion of conspiracy theories" (supposedly for his "[being] anti-war"), I decided to go and do the cleanup over some beers or margaritas or whatever. Is there anything I need to know before I go ahead? I would content myself with a "serve yourself if you'd be well-served." Thanks.

An accusation of Wikipedia-hosted defamation should almost always be taken seriously because it could become the subject of litigation. For more on this, see Wikipedia's guidelines on writing about living persons.

Based on my first, cursory reading of the section entitled "Promotion of conspiracy theories", the biggest problem seems to be the pejorative usage of the term "conspiracy theory". For elucidation on why and how this is a problem, see this usage note that you can find in Wiktionary:conspiracy theory:

"The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form."

My inelegant talkativeness will get me in trouble one of these days, and a Wikipedia talk page is not an appropriate place to rant, but... For the life of me (!), I just can't understand why people -- Dore and the general public -- find it so hard to understand Wikipedia's decentralized system of responsibilities. I find this very frustrating. Everyone should be a Wikipedia editor, Goddammit, inasmuch as they have any free time and are "of sound body and mind". This makes me feel like a disgruntled, underpaid and downwardly-mobile faculty-adjunct being forcefully recruited to grade poorly-written homework-papers. I hate my life. "Thanks for coming to my Ted talk".

Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed Newsweek as a reference as "not generally reliable" per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It is probable that the journalist got their information from this article. TFD (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The tone seems undue. Dore's comment 8 years ago, unreported in mainstream media, that he questioned the official 9//11 account doesn't really amount to promoting a conspiracy theory unless a reliable source makes that assessment. Generally we would not use the description for someone who spent only 10 seconds among thousands of hours of broadcasts discussing 9/11. TFD (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

None of the political smears against Dore involving accusations of conspiracy re: Syrian chemical weapons attacks should be on his page if it isn't going to be immediately accompanied by the information that the OPCW's own scientists support Dore's beliefs and have been censored by the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfisa2000 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, I see you've gotten ahead of me and already done some of the necessary work. I appreciate that. I apologize for the tone in my previous post. Wikipedia editing is one thing I've used trying to distract myself from some messed up things in my personal life, and it's taken enough of a toll on me that I end up periodically glitching that way (which, paradoxically, is also the reason why it took me so long to get back to the article). Sorry about that.

I'll implement some of the suggestions. To anyone reading this, feel free to participate in this, too.

I'll change the title of the section from "Promotion of conspiracy theories" to "Opinions about conspiracy theories", on the rationale that it would express a more neutral point of view.

@Farfisa2000 Could you please provide a source on that? According to this news article, the OPCW-UN JIM blamed the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad for the sarin attack in Khan Shaykhun, as well as three chlorine attacks. Although the term is often used pejoratively, a conspiracy theory – even if true, even if banal, even if rigorous – can still qualify indeed as a "conspiracy theory". Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Arthur E. Stewart Notice how Farfisa2000 said "scientists", and not the organisation itself. Multiple scientists working on the investigation claim some findings that put doubt on claims of Syrian guilt were censored - see https://couragefound.org/2021/03/statement-of-concern-the-opcw-investigation-of-alleged-chemical-weapons-use-in-douma-syria/. Acalycine (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, Farfisa2000 and Acalycine are only talking about one specific attack in Douma. The Director-General of the OPCW said the two inspectors "could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence", "had manifestly incomplete information" and "their conclusions are erroneous, uninformed, and wrong" (source). It was not within the mandate of the OPCW investigators to assign blame for the 2018 Douma chemical attack (source). The Douma attack is also never mentioned on Dore's page, and he is not mentioned in the link Acalycine provided, so this discussion is not really relevant. Dore's page either mentions Syrian chemical weapons attacks generally or the 2017 Khan Shaykhun chemical attack specifically. Regarding Khan Shaykhun, in 2017, the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism blamed the Syrian government for the attack (source). Regarding other chemical weapons attacks by Bashar al-Assad, the OPCW-UN JIM concluded in 2016 that the Syrian government was responsible for three chlorine attacks (source). Later investigations from the OPCW's Investigation and Identification Team concluded the Syrian government was to blame for chemical attacks in 2017 and 2018 (source). As of September 2018, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic attributed 33 chemical attacks to the Syrian government (source). CowHouse (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Conspiracy Theorist

In addition to "stand-up comedian" and "political commentator", I think it would be appropriate to add "conspiracy theorist". He is honestly at the same level as people like Alex Jones and Shiva Ayyadurai. Here is a list of some other conspiracy theories espoused by Dore. LeBron4 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think that you either have no idea who Alex Jones or Jimmy Dore is.

Can you give me a single example of Jimmy referring to alternate dimensional daemons that come from your tv and possess you? Or something similarly outrageous. Wigglewortz (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No, but I can give you an example of Dore claiming that Hillary Clinton started the 'birther' movement. A conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. LeBron4 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

YOU are aware he is a comedian? We need RS saying he is a "Conspiracy Theorist", not an wp:or opinion he is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven and, moreso, Wigglewortz: it is entirely inappropriate to characterize someone as "a conspiracy theorist" based on the obviously false claim that he's on the level of Alex Jones. LeBron4 has already admitted above that he doesn't have evidence of Dore claiming that there are interdimensional demons in you TV, contradicting his earlier claim that Dore is a Jones-level conspiracy theorist. As I said in my edit summary, and as Slatersteven alludes to, it is OR to cite a wiki (not a remotely reliable source for BLP purposes) that lists conspiracy theories that said wiki chooses to associate with Dore. Dore appears to have had an amicable parting of ways with TYT -- a generally reputable progressive news network -- and as recently as today has been cited by TYT as a reasonable progressive voice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Where has TYT been established as a reliable source and where in the video (which is commentary, not news) is he described as reasonable? At least one of the two people in the video you cited does not have favourable views on Dore at all [5][6][7], so even if it's reliable it's still a bad source to use as an example of him being considered a reasonable progressive voice.

You are correct that we cannot use wikis since they are not reliable sources. However, there are at least two reliable sources (both already cited on the page) that say Dore's show has "pushed"/"peddled" conspiracy theories, and another that says he argued a Syrian chemical attack was a false flag operation. There is also an opinion piece in Haaretz that describes him as a conspiracy theorist:

CowHouse (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to twist my words like that (I'm not talking about whether TYT is "a reliable source", as I'm not arguing for anything to be added to this article, nor did I say he was "described as reasonable" -- if you had been watching TheYoungTurks since 2009 like I have, you would know that if Cenk thinks someone he knows personally is a conspiracy theorist or the like, he will say so), then why should I even read the quotes you provide? Anyway, where in any of those does it describe Dore as "a conspiracy theorist"? A person can hold one or two non-mainstream views, and the fact that the person holds those views (or, in this case, has expressed amenability to such views...) can be reported in reputable sources, but that is not sufficient justification to characterize them as "a conspiracy theorist". There is a popular English-language blogger who used to be based in Japan and still primarily focuses on Japanese topics, who has an article on English Wikipedia, and who has repeatedly pushed the conspiracy theory that the residence cards foreign residents are legally required to carry when outside in Japan contain microchips that can be remotely read by bad actors posing as police officers -- but unless multiple reliable sources explicitly characterize that blogger, based on these claims, as "a conspiracy theorist", then it is in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies for us to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying "described" instead of "cited" is hardly twisting your words. I'm not sure why you are mentioning TYT or describing it as "generally reputable" if you are not saying it's reliable. You appear to be saying Uygur believes Dore is reasonable because of what Uygur didn't say in one particular video, rather than anything he did say. Besides, why are we talking about the whether or not Cenk Uygur believes he is a conspiracy theorist? How is that relevant?

why should I even read the quotes you provide? Anyway, where in any of those does it describe Dore as "a conspiracy theorist"? You should read the quotes I provided in order to answer your second question.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying we cannot describe him as a conspiracy theorist unless he is explicitly given that label in reliable sources. Instead, we could say his show has pushed conspiracy theories, which is supported by reliable sources, if you believe that is a distinction worth noting. CowHouse (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We're not talking about whether Cenk Uygur thinks he's a conspiracy theorist: we're talking about the fact that CowHouse thinks he's a conspiracy theorist and is trying to push this view on our BLP article without citing any reliable sources to support this characterization. There is absolutely no requirement that I cite any reliable sources, written by independent investigators or by people who know him, to contradict your claim until you cite at least one reliable source that explicitly supports this characterization, so your complaining about how you think Dore's former boss actually thinks Dore is an Alex Jones-type (despite said former boss not saying so at any point in the above-linked video) is completely irrelevant. I suspect there may be right-wing or Democratic Party establishment hit pieces supporting this characterization, but you haven't even been able to cite any of them either -- the sources cited above may or may not be right-wing or Democratic Party establishment hit pieces, but this is irrelevant since they don't actually support characterizing him in the lead sentence as "a conspiracy theorist". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your responses are unnecessarily hostile. You mentioned TYT before my first comment in this section, so the reason you brought them up is obviously not because of anything I did. So, I ask again, why is TYT/Uygur relevant? And please show me where I expressed any personal view on whether or not Dore is a conspiracy theorist in this discussion.

without citing any reliable sources You choosing not to read the sources ("why should I even read the quotes you provide?") is not the same thing as failing to cite sources. I will add that the Haaretz piece does explicitly call him a conspiracy theorist.

your complaining about how you think Dore's former boss actually thinks Dore is an Alex Jones-type (despite said former boss not saying so at any point in the above-linked video) What are you talking about? I never said anything about an "Alex Jones-type", and my first comment was about Ana Kasparian, not Cenk Uygur. You complained earlier that I was twisting your words, so please follow your own advice.

I will quote my own previous comment since you appear to have completely ignored it: If I understand you correctly, you are saying we cannot describe him as a conspiracy theorist unless he is explicitly given that label in reliable sources. Instead, we could say his show has pushed conspiracy theories, which is supported by reliable sources, if you believe that is a distinction worth noting.

If you are not interested in honest, relevant discussion but would rather engage in baseless personal attacks, then I will not continue responding further. CowHouse (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You showed up immediately below me pointing out that he was not an Alex Jones-type, and disagreed with me. I am not sure if it counts as a "personal attack" to extrapolate from that that you think he is an Alex Jones-type (to be clear, I am not accusing you and LeBron4 of being the same person, just of saying essentially the same thing). If you want the article's lead to "say his show has pushed conspiracy theories", then the burden is on you to get consensus for that.

If you think there are people who, like me, would oppose having an opening sentence that reads Jimmy Dore is an American ... conspiracy theorist but, unlike me, would go out of their way to support changing the lead to say His YouTube channel has promoted conspiracy theories, then feel free to open an RFC to that effect. I think there is no way we can do the former without at least one reliable source (and I think such a proposal would be unanimously shot down at WP:BLPN before it even got to an RFC), but I am uncomfortable expressing either support or opposition for the latter.

I've said my piece, and would like to leave this article behind now. I only checked in this morning because Cenk mentioned Jimmy Dore multiple times on the show today (my time), I was wondering "Hey, what happened to him?", I came to Wikipedia, found the lead sentence openly violating multiple Wikipedia policies, and when I checked the talk page I saw one person saying the article should violate said policies and several others disagreeing. Now that it seems there are two people saying the article should violate said policies, this is becoming a dispute, and it's frankly not one I'm all that interested in one way or the other.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, we go with what RS say, do any RS say he is a conspiracy theorist? If so (and it's a large number, so can we). But at the end of the day as a comedian he will say things just, s a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That Douma was not an actual "Chemical attack" is not disputed by anyone who has investigated the attack. Jimmy Dore "Correctly States" that Douma was a False flag attack, not "Argues" Sey Hersch[1] as Well as Robert Fisk [2] covered it extensively. So when you say HE "Argues" that is incorrect. Dore Correctly States these attacks were false. Get It Right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfisa2000 (talk • contribs)

You'll need to cite multiple sources. The existing sources do not support your commentary that you're stating in Wikipedia's voice - rather the reverse. Stop edit-warring to include your opinion. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Two sources are "multiple sources" Two very reliable and well respected journalists that do state exactly what Jimmy Dore stated. You are editing with NO Sources in order to advance your narrative, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfisa2000 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Cryptic mention in edit summaries aren't sources [8] - regular readers need to be able to see where you got your assertion. Please use appropriate references, preferably after providing them here for review by other editors. The onus is on the editor proposing the change to back up their assertion. I assume "Sey Hersch" is meant to be Seymour Hersh, whose views are considered at least controversial, and are certainly disputed on a wide variety of topics. You can't use him to make an assertion in Wikipedia's voice. Acroterion (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Farfisa2000: It appears you have not actually read the article you cited. Seymour Hersh said "Chlorine is just a gas. It's not a chemical warfare weapon." (see Chlorine#Use as a weapon and "What is a Chemical Weapon?" (opcw.org)). The article also says "Numerous chlorine attacks have been documented in Syria and according to OPCW investigators the chemical has been used "systematically and repeatedly". [...] More recently, though, [Hersh] has written several error-strewn articles disputing the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In reference to Hersh's theories about a sarin attack, the article says "scientifically-speaking, this was nonsense". None of this helps your argument that Hersh is a credible source on this topic.

You said "That Douma was not an actual "Chemical attack" is not disputed by anyone who has investigated the attack." This is demonstrably false:

The New York Times Visual Investigations: [9] [10] [11]
Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic: [12]
The Intercept: [13] [14]
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: [15] [16]
Forensic Architecture: [17] [18]

Besides, Dore's page never mentions the Douma chemical attack, it either mentions "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" generally or the Khan Shaykhun attack specifically. The sentence you repeatedly edited was about the 2017 attack in Khan Shaykhun, not the 2018 attack in Douma. CowHouse (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs that Dore’s page doesn’t mention Douma but Syria has attack instead. Truly despicable. Several of the ‘sources’ you quote above refuse to look at the new evidence of a coverup involved in Syria gas attacks. Yet you continue to smear by saying Dore is a conspiracy ‘theorist’. It’s not theory if proven true. Those are called facts. Dec212012 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not "splitting hairs" since the page was edited to say Dore "correctly stated" the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack was a "false flag", and then the editor brought up a completely different attack on the talk page. The OPCW and Forensic Architecture did respond to the dissident inspectors about one chemical attack out of dozens. The other sources, such as the New York Times video, provide evidence which undermines the claims by the dissident inspector (e.g. at 5:34, the imprint on the canister matches the metal lattice). CowHouse (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This week it was revealed by BBC that in fact their story of gas attack in Syria had serious flaws. No longer a ‘conspiracy’. Why do you not let that be told but instead erase it ? If you want to say Dore spoke of this as far back as 2019 allow the truth now to be told. Source? MSN & BBC ! Dec212012 (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy

The source shows Jimmy obviously saying he does not believe the official narrative, however, he also refuses to say whether he believes its an inside job. That should absolutely be there to balance it and not be undue. No question he doesn't believe the official narrative, however, he has yet to say it was an inside job by the United States government.

I would add to the above that not believing something is not a theory(conspiracy or otherwise). People throw this term around far to easily.

I agree with what’s written above, but some people choose not to see the facts but instead blinded by their own biases, cry conspiracy. Dec212012 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

This edit request to Jimmy Dore has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

June 2021 Jimmy Doir was FIRED from TYT for sexual harrasment of a coworker and sexist, misoginistic victim shaming. 2600:1004:B099:CA19:A2A4:F4F3:F814:ACEF (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian

How can you include an accusatory statement of sexual harassment without any facts or proof? Dore revealed a private message Ana had written him saying if he keeps running his mouth, she’s going to claim he was harassing her. Isn’t that blackmail, or at the very least a threat? Dec212012 (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are saying "without any facts or proof" when Dore has already said he "humiliated her" and gave her an apology note. Kasparian said this to Dore: "I'm sure you remember when you constantly made inappropriate comments about how sexy you found me at work, and even felt the need to ask me where I shop for my jeans so you can buy a pair for your wife so she dresses better. That was followed by an apology card you wrote me for the degrading harassment. I've been holding back, letting you run your mouth nonstop as if you're some sort of warrior for what's good in the world. That's going to change." She did not say "that's going to change unless you shut up". She did not make any demand so it is not blackmail and no reliable source describes this situation as blackmail. The cited Daily Dot article only refers to blackmail once: "the neo-Nazi site the Daily Stormer, which wrote a deeply sexist article referring to her as “this bitch” and claiming she’d “blackmailed” Dore". CowHouse (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No ‘reliable source’? Also, I never wrote above ‘unless you shut up. Where did he say this, because according to Wiki, YouTube isn’t a source?

Last, she ‘didn’t make any demands’?? She said by your words above she has been allowing him to run his mouth, that’s going to change; implying she would claim James asking where she bought her clothes was somehow inappropriate.

This is a grossly unfair smear that you’re allowing to be here only does a disservice to the person. Dore was not convicted in a court of law, nor did he ever admit to any wrong doing except saying ‘nice news skirt’. That is sexual harassment? Dec212012 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I never said you wrote "unless you shut up". I was giving an example of blackmail and showing the difference between someone saying they will do something (e.g. "I am not going to be silent anymore") and making a demand (e.g. "if you want me to stay silent then shut up"). The page doesn't say he was convicted in a court of law and that is not, and has never been, the standard for inclusion. By that logic, Donald Trump's page wouldn't mention the Access Hollywood tape.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the clothes example. Kasparian said "[Dore] constantly made inappropriate comments about how sexy [he] found me at work". Dore said she dressed "unbelievably inappropriately" and he "humiliated her" by saying "nice news skirt" when, according to Dore, she had "bent over in front of [him]". Kasparian said Dore made the comment in front of students from a class she was teaching. You said Dore never admitted to any wrongdoing even though Dore says he apologised for it. Your personal view of what constitutes sexual harassment is also not really relevant since we rely on reliable sources, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. CowHouse (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to equate humiliation and harassment? Because although generally similar, they are not. Dec212012 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You are very adept, I yield to your skills in cleverly editing your comment very quickly which made mine look below quite out of place. I am old and feeble so can’t keep up with you CowHouse you’re giving me whiplash, and I ain’t getting mad (get it? MadCow) just confused. Why do you cite a Neo-Nazi page in the same breath as Jimmy Dore? You also reference Donald Trump. Are you frequenting those sites and pass that info here to somehow link Dore to them? I’m just THEORIZING yet have no proof Get it? You know he has no control over what anyone writes, nor does Ana. One could just as easily find a vulgar web site disparaging Ana. No, your being very disingenuous, and you’ve revealed your intentions. I will end this evening with one last salient point. If there is going to be an ‘Ana’ notation, I request it be to instead placed on her page, as she’s the one who has leveled the accusation. There is no encyclopedic value to what was written, giving a full and balanced view of the charge leveled I do retract my earlier statement Dore admitted no wrong doing. He admitted humiliation not harassment, which is not my opinion, just the words you’ve written. Good evening Dec212012 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore is a CONTRARIAN not a Conspiracy Theorist!

Why are such poorly sourced claims being put forward to suggest Jimmy Dore is some sort of conspiracy theorist?!?! Anyone who has watched his show will very clearly see that he is a natural contrarian who does not endorse any conspiracy theory. The garbage written here about Seth Rich refers to a single show he did where he simply repeated the reporting of another outlet, made no judgement one way or another as to its veracity, then retracted the story on his very next show when it was revealed that the story was itself problematic. And yet, you are citing Salon and New York Magazine, neither of which acknowledged Dore's retraction and who clearly have an axe to grind with Jimmy Dore?

The issue with Syrian chemical attacks have been controversial from the get go. Dore has always attempted to source his material from experts, such as Aron Mate' or Robert Fisk. So even if he is wrong you cannot say he is pushing a conspiracy theory. He's reporting credible sources. He doesn't stretch facts or use typical rhetorical or logical fallacies when he is discussing these controversial topics. The claim that this is a conspiracy theory implicitly assumes that there was no fabrication or cover-up which is hard to explain in the face of the OPCW whistleblower leaks ^[1] or other reasonable open source analysis ^[2]. (Edit: I took a second look at this paragraph, and it is literally Bellingcat promoting a conspiracy theory that some "Pro-Asad" group bribed Jimmy Dore. Seriously, can people not follow the simple meaning of the word "conspiracy theory"?!?! If you think Jimmy Dore is pushing a conspiracy theory, you need to *specifically* state what you think it is, not present someone else's "counter conspiracy theory". Qed (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC) )

I don't even understand the third example. Mattis simultaneously admitted to not having *evidence* of Syria using Sarin gas while nevertheless concluding that they did use it. In other words, Mattis is using some other standard for his conclusion that excludes the use of evidence. So Dore has a problem because he's citing the lack of evidence while ignoring Mattis unknown method for concluding otherwise? ( Edit: All the sources here are desperately trying to avoid the *ORIGINAL SOURCE* which is the AP Newswire ^[3] where it is made absolutely clear that indeed Mattis had no evidence, even though he was not skeptical of reports about it. Qed (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC) )

None of these examples come anywhere close to rising to the standard of "pushing conspiracy theories". At worst Dore is being a contrarian. He does not exhibit any behavior of a typical conspiracy theorist. For example, Dore has never questioned any of the COVID vaccines (currently the most popular conspiracy theory with the greatest traction right now), he never pushed for vote recounts for the 2020 election even though he hates Biden, he has retracted stories when he gets things wrong, and he doesn't think the government is run by lizard people. Exactly what kind of "conspiracy theorist" could he be? A conspiracy theory at it's heart will assert a secretive collusion between a cabal of power brokers to act against a victim group. When has Jimmy Dore ever implied such a thing?

Dore is a *CONTRARIAN* -- that's not disputable and should be stated in an article about him since that is one of his core defining characteristics. But that's not the same thing as being a conspiracy theorist. So how can you explain that he is a contrarian if you decide all the examples of him being a contrarian are examples of him being a conspiracy theorist (without invoking any credible standard for such a claim) instead? Obviously I am recommending that such a section be changed to say that Jimmy Dore is a "contrarian", remove the Seth Rich example (since that's obvious garbage), and you can *expand* this section with *MANY MORE* examples of Jimmy Dore being a contrarian.

The writing in this section is weak on it's face and seriously jeopardizes Wikipedia's NPOV credibility. Reasonable people who commonly listen to Jimmy Dore who then read this section are not going to conclude Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist. They are just going to wonder who has taken over Wikipedia's editing policy.

Qed (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The writings of Aaron Maté and Robert Fisk have both been published by reliable sources (the former rather less than the latter), but that does not mean their work is without serious credibility problems and are best not cited at all (Maté's main outlet, The Grayzone is deprecated, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Grayzone). If you can find a reliable source describing Jimmy Dore as a contrarian rather than as someone who publicizes dubious theories, then that could be used, but the personal opinion of any editor cannot be added to articles. Philip Cross (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would personally agree, but we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

[Responding to Philip Cross (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)]

First of all, in besmirching Aaron Maté you are using a guilt by association argument. The reason Wikipedia apparently deprecated the Grayzone is because "there is a consensus that they falsify information". So you are implying that Aaron Maté must also be unreliable because he falsifies information. And that's a very *put up or shut up* situation that you yourself have created. I didn't link to the Grayzone, you did that, in lieu of explaining what your problem with Aaron Maté is. So what has Aaron Maté falsified? You also included Robert Fisk in your claim of credibility problems -- again, you have created a *put up or shut up* situation. When has Robert Fisk had credibility problems with his reporting? As for finding links showing Jimmy Dore is a contrarian, you don't need any more links -- the links provided in support of Jimmy Dore supposedly being conspiracy theorist are *EXACTLY* the links you should use to support the claim he is a contrarian. I'm saying the label is wrong on its face: the body of this section supports the idea that he is a contrarian, not a conspiracy theorist. Qed (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on editors being able to recognise when there are different narratives and to set aside their opinions about what is "true" in order to avoid biasing content. One aspect of that, when there are different narratives, is understanding that adherents of each tend to view proponents of opposing ones as having "serious credibility problems". If editors try to exclude prominent sources for narratives they don't like, but promiscuously promote the use of sources for narratives they do, the tendency will be for Wikipedia to become more skewed ... though, of course, biased editors would regard it as becoming more "truthful".

Applying labels such as, the in-vogue, "conspiracy theory" are often a lazy way of smearing people or narratives that aren't liked. On Wikipedia, where BLPs are supposed to be edited conservatively, it's best to reserve that one for real moon-howlers. Taking Benjamin Netanyahu as an example, none of the people who liberally use the terms "conspiracy theory" or "Holocaust denial" against their opponents, used them when Netanyahu stated that the Mufti of Jerusalem was responsible for the Nazis killing Jews rather than expelling them (... here's Netanyahu himself calling Mahmoud Abbas a Holocaust denier).[19] I like a few of the responses to a tweet by Oliver Kamm in which he used the conspiracy-theory tarbrush against Piers Robinson. For instance, I tend to agree with the responder who wrote: "Your use of the overworked term “conspiracy theorist” means nothing more than that you disagree with his opinion." And I think that another landed a punch with: "The biggest conspiracy theory in modern history is that Iraq had wmd so we needed to bomb thousands of children to death. You supported and continue to support bombing children to smithereens." (Here's Kamm multiply deploying the term "conspiracy theory" again.)

← ZScarpia 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Our article Mahmoud Abbas says, Abbas dismissed as a "myth" and "fantastic lie" that six million Jews had died in the Holocaust, which is the definition of Holocaust denial, so, Netanyahu's accusation is correct. And Netanyahu stated that the Mufti of Jerusalem was responsible for the Nazis killing Jews rather than expelling them is not in the source, only that the Mufti did support Hitler's Final Solution. Which he did. So, if Netanyahu is a conspiracy theorist, those are not examples for it, and whoever uses them as such is just bullshitting.

But people using the term "conspiracy theory" wrong is not a reason against using it right. The term is "en vogue" for the same reason "pandemic" is en vogue - because it is happening now.

All that is just whataboutism. If you want to improve this article, talk about this article and not about other articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the article I think the category "American conspiracy theorists" should be removed at least on the grounds of wp:CATDEF. I agree with ZScarpia that the label "conspiracy theorist" seems to be in-vogue and used as a way to dismiss rather than address (valid or not) concerns raised by others in the public sphere. The criticisms of things Dore may have said make sense. The quoting of labels is lazy on our part and may perpetuate their misapplications in the real world. I suspect much of the supporting text in the body of the article could be cleaned up if we focused on the facts in dispute* rather than the label some applied to the facts in dispute. *I'm using "facts" not to indicate something is true rather than something that could be true or false as opposed to being an opinion. Springee (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that it's interesting that the word 'myth', a word which is less value-laden than the phrase conspiracy theory, is given as an example of a contentious lable in the Manual of Style page on Words to Watch. I should think that there has been a lot of wrangling over usage of, for example, the 'terrorism' categories, terrorism-related words being long-established examples of ones which are problematic with regard to neutrality. Perhaps it would be worth looking at how usage of those categories developed in order to help determine how the conspiracy theory-related ones should be used (even if it's an example of what to avoid). ← ZScarpia 13:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to change the list of words to watch, go to the Talk page there and try to add "conspiracy theory". No, wait, that just happened, and it was not successful. So, you should not try to re-litigate that here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that ZScarpia was a party to that discussion so it might be better to simply state that such a change was recently discussed [here]. The discussion (which wasn't a RfC) was closed as consensus to not change the MOS to include conspiracy theorist as word to watch. At least one editor who opposed the change to MOS noted that LABEL would still apply. Many noted that we should follow RSs. If some RSs say it we should attribute. It's it's widely used by RSs we can put it in wiki voice. Of course we also need to differentiate between RSs that say "he promoted a conspiracy theory" vs "he is a conspiracy theorist". Applying the label to a person is a higher bar of course. Springee (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Springee. I did not take part in that discussion; nor was I aware that it had taken place.

I wrote that I thought that it was interesting that the word 'myth' appeared in the list of examples of "words to watch", but didn't explain why, relying on other editors to understand the point that I was trying to make. The word 'myth' is related to the phrase "conspiracy theory", though it is less value-laden. As the word is included as an example word to watch, I thought that could be used to strengthen the argument for avoiding using phrases related to "conspiracy theory" other than when its use is clearly appropriate (that is, the moon-howlers I was referring to) and would be accepted as such universally by reliable sources. In those circumstances, it would be hard to credibly argue that its use was not neutral.

As an example of when its use is inappropriate, I would give political philosophies. Take for example Wikipedia's Eurabia article. In my opinion, stating that term is a neologism describing a far-right, Islamophobic, conspiracy theory isn't neutral.

As the list of "words to watch" is a set of examples rather than a definitive list, it would not be necessary to have phrases related to "conspiracy theory" added in order to object to their use in particular situations. As those phrases are widely abused in order to push points of view on Wikipedia, that is not to say that their inclusion is not desirable though. Being a "word to watch" doesn't mean that a word or phrase cannot be used, only that special care should be taken to ensure that its use conforms to Wikipedia policies.

In passing, I will note that Hob Gadling's argument for omitting conspiracy theory-related phrases from the list, could equally be used for removing some of the examples already on it. For example, using terrorism or terrorist: "Including it in the list of words to avoid would seriously impede writing about ~~conspiracy theories~~ terrorism and ~~conspiracy theorists~~ terrorists. It would be the wet dream of whitewashers. The term is not an arbitrary label, although it can be and is occasionally used as such by people who do not know what they are talking about, typically in "so are you!" retorts. ~~Conspiracy theorists~~ Terrorists do not like the term because it unmasks them, and they have fought against its use since it exists, just as pseudoscientists did and do against the term "pseudoscience". We should not fall for their self-serving rhetoric, we should not repeat their bad logic, and we should go on calling a spade a spade when reliable sources call it a spade."

On Wikipedia, terms such as conspiracy theorist can be involved in neutrality Catch-22s. The rule is that, if sources dispute something, it has to be presented in the form of points of view. However, while detractors may state that a person is a conspiracy theorist, it is far less likely that their supporters will state something to the effect that the person is not a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, by default, on Wikipedia the opinion of the detractors becomes a "fact" (and there's a good chance that the supporters will be labelled the same way).

As far as making a comparison with "peudoscience" is concerned, I'll note that there's a thing called the scientific method. At the end of the day, anything that presents itself as science, but whose development hasn't conformed in at least basic ways with the scientific method, is liable to be labelled as "pseudoscience" (which isn't to say that all pseudosciences have been labelled as such).

The original definition of "conspiracy theory" was a theory speculating that the agent causing a particular event was a group of organisations or individuals who had secretly conspired together to obtain their objectives. As such, the phrase was neutral and didn't imply that the theory was incorrect let alone, as has become the case, paranoid or borderline insane. The contemporary connotations of nuttiness are the reason that related phrases have become a popular, and lazy, method of smearing "opponents".

← ZScarpia 18:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: If you want to change the list of words to watch, go to the Talk page there. This is not the place for that discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

« Take for example Wikipedia's Eurabia article. In my opinion, stating that term is a neologism describing a far-right, Islamophobic, conspiracy theory isn't neutral. » => Why? PS: Maybe you should answer elsewhere, on your personal talk page or on Talk:Eurabia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gabling, you seem to be under the impression that just because conspiracy theory-related terms weren't added to the list of examples of "words to watch", that means that they shouldn't be regarded as "words to watch". That list is a list of examples, not a definitive list of words and phrases included. Look carefully and you'll see an ellipsis at the end of the list of words in the box. Also, note the way that the following sentence is expressed: "Value-laden labels – such as ... ." There is a discussion going on here about use of some of those terms in relationship to Dore and I'm giving my views on that. I'm going to continue ignoring you. Obviously, this kind of discussion is going to go on in other articles too ... and I should think you'll be ignored there as well. Your "if you want to change the list of words to watch" comment is senseless: words and phrases which could be considered as value-laden labels don't need to be added to the list of examples in order to be actually treated as such according to the guideline.

VFP, for something to be stated as a fact on Wikipedia, reliable sources have to all be in agreement about it. To state something as a fact when reliable sources don't agree is not neutral. Do you think that all reliable sources would agree that Eurabacists believe a conspiracy theory?

← ZScarpia 12:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

So, according to you, if a group of users tried to add the term to the list of words to watch and failed, that means it is still a word to watch because it is now hidden in the "..." part.

And somehow it does not matter that reliable sources call something "conspiracy theory", because there is presumably a hidden heap of reliable sources which would contradict this if they could be bothered - it is far less likely that their supporters will state something to the effect that the person is not a conspiracy theorist.

This is not how Wikipedia works. You cannot base your reasoning on imaginary additions between the lines of rules, and neither on imaginary reliable sources that could exist but do not for probability reasons. If you want to contest the label, you need to give us reliable sources that contest the label.

And "ignoring" does also not work like you think it does: talking to someone and telling them that you are ignoring them is not it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

My arguments were what my arguments were, not what you're trying to interpret them as.

The discussion and closing comment are here. The closer concluded: 'There is a clear consensus that there is no reason to modify the MoS to cover "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" nor is there a need to create a separate category of the MoS to cover those terms or similarly "laden" terms like "philanthropist".' It was not concluded that various terms should not be considered value laden, only that the consensus position was that modification of the Manual of Style wasn't necessary.

There is currently a discussion happening on the talkpage of the Douglas Murray talkpage. At least one source associates him with white nationalism. None have been presented which say he is not a white nationalist. Should the article, therefore, state as a fact that Murray is a white nationalist?

← ZScarpia 13:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You keep blabbing about stuff that is not relevant here. This is not about Murray.

I repeat: If you want to contest the label, you need to give us reliable sources that contest the label. And you have still given no rule-based reason to omit the term. From "It was not concluded that A is false", it does not follow "A is true". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

- "You keep blabbing about stuff." Pretty gratuitous, no? I take it that you wouldn't, hypocritically, take exception if somebody described your comments the same way? Perhaps I should feel happy that you haven't written something like: "Since you are the only one who really did something wrong, you should behave less like an aggressive, pushy loudmouth and more like someone who is sorry for making a mistake"?[20]

- Person 1: "A is false."

Person 2: "It was not concluded that A is false."

Person 1: "From 'It was not concluded that A is false', it does not follow 'A is true'."

Person 2: "It does not follow that 'A is not true', either."

- "So, according to you, if a group of users tried to add the term to the list of words to watch and failed, that means it is still a word to watch because it is now hidden in the '...' part." Hopefully, you agree that the ellipsis indicates that the boxed list is not definitive? From the introduction to the discussion, it's not clear what the original poster hoped to achieve other than have a discussion. Although, the discussion ended with no change being made to the Manual of Style, there was no ruling that certain words and phrases should either be, or not be, considered value-laden labels subject to the guidelines. Your "hidden in the '...' part" isn't the way I would choose to describe my view of the situation ... but feel free!

- "And you have still given no rule-based reason to omit the term." Omission? Not really. But I am arguing that conspiracy theory-related terms are value laden and therefore should be used with care, as per the "Words to Watch" part of the Manual of Style. Which is an argument based on the rules, I think.

← ZScarpia 14:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Now you have switched from attempting to defend your position to complaining about tone, which I interpret as an admission that you do not have any real reasons for your position. The rest of your contribution does not make a lot of sense - for example, Person 2 says the same thing twice because "false" is exactly the same as "not true", and Person 1 (me) actually never said "A is false".

I said, If you want to change the list of words to watch, go to the Talk page there and try to add "conspiracy theory". No, wait, that just happened, and it was not successful. This does not mean that "conspiracy theory" is not a "word to watch", it means that you have no legal grounds to treat "conspiracy theory" as a "word to watch". What is the point of rebuffing attempts to ban criticism of conspiracy theories in Wikipedia pages if users behave as if those attempts had been successful?

conspiracy theory-related terms are value laden and therefore should be used with care We are already using it with care, since we use reliable sources for it and attribute it to the reliable sources. So, I guess we are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:Words to Watch:Contentious Labels: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

Not that important, but, below, either your arithmetic is off, you mistyped or you misread the year when I registered an account on Wikipedia.

← ZScarpia 09:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

« for something to be stated as a fact on Wikipedia, reliable sources have to all be in agreement about it. To state something as a fact when reliable sources don't agree is not neutral. » => ZScarpia, which reliable sources don't agree that Eurabia is a far-right, islamophobic, conspiracy-theory? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

From the Eurabia article, some of its supporters: Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Steve Bannon, Bruce Thorton, Theodor Dalrymple. Others associated with it are Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips. At least some of those either edit, write or write for sources which would be regarded as reliable. Do you think that they would regard Eurabicist beliefs as a type of conspiracy theory?

One of those listed as a Eurabia supporter is Bruce Bawer. In the Max Blumenthal article he is cited twice (there is a discussion about it here). If Eurabicists are, factually, conspiracy theorists, should we be citing their views of others?

← ZScarpia 14:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Steve Bannon, Bruce Thorton, Theodor Dalrymple, Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips, Bruce Bawer, are not reliable sources but far-right, islamophobic, conspiracy-theorists. None of them published in academic journal.

« In the Max Blumenthal article he is cited twice » => Not anymore.

« If Eurabicists are, factually, conspiracy theorists, should we be citing their views of others? » => In my opinion this should be further discuted in a yet to be created Conspiracy theory WikiProject. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliability is not infectious. If one of those people writes for a reliable source, the editors there will remove any unhinged rants before they end up in the final text. So, it is possible for the reliable source to use part of what those people want to say. That does not mean that those people magically turn into reliable sources themselves.

I find it weird that such basic concepts need to be explained to someone who has been editing here for 13 years. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please review the wp:FOC policy. Comments like, "such basic concepts need to be explained" are contributor, not content focused. Springee (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I would not label someone a conspiracy theorist based on a few passing references by non-experts. There have been several discussions about calling the former U.S. president, Donald Trump, a conspiracy theorist, including at least one RfC.[21] The basis for this is that he interviewed Robert Fisk, whom Philip Cross described as a conspiracy theorist. Fisk was a correspondent for The Times from 1976 until 1989 and for The Independent from 1989 until his death in 2020. While Philip Cross may see mainstream media as the real conspiracy theorists (as do many other Trump supporters), they are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. (Full disclosure: I opposed calling Trump a conspiracy theorist because I believe that term should be reserved for people whose main activities are promoting conspiracy theories.) TFD (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I wrote that Fisk's work has "serious credibility problems" (his WP article touches on this issue) and for that matter described Dore "as someone who publicizes dubious theories". Hardly a Trump supporter, as it happens, I don't prefer non-mainstream media and avoid such citations in line with Wikipedia policies. In fact, I am ambivalent about describing anyone as a conspiracy theorist, partly because the repetition of words and terms irritates me. If Dore is described as a "conspiracy theorist" in (say) a double-digit number of reliable sources, use of the term is surely unavoidable. No one has pointed to sources describing Dore as merely a contrarian, incidentally. Philip Cross (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Dude, you have to cite what you are talking about. Fisk was a world renowned reporter of the highest caliber, and you are just throwing out unsubstantiated attacks against him, that I have no idea how I could investigate. My argument for calling Dore a contrarian is based on the content being cited and what a reasonable person should conclude from listening to him, not on the idea of constructing support for writing up a specific entry for it. But I think contrarians in general are not *called* contrarians by those who disagree with them, but instead usually something harsher by their critics, so it is not surprising that I can't find mainstream articles describing him as what he is. Calling him a contrarian is closer to the *truth* -- it just seems that Wikipedia's rules don't give any kind of avenue for presenting this truth. But continuing to call him a conspiracy theorist just because that's a oft repeated opinion just because it happens to fit the rules is just exposing a serious weakness of the rules. Qed (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, an opinion or point of view shared by a double-digit number of sources, doesn't become a fact, merely an opinion which happens to be shared by a double-digit number of sources. That would make it a more widely-shared point of view (and therefore permitted more WEIGHT) than one not shared by a double-digit number of sources. However, it would still be an opinion.

It's an unfortunate burden that all we editors of controversial topics bear, that we must represent material from sources with "serious credibility problems" as well as ones we agree with (or, perhaps more relevantly, that agree with us).

← ZScarpia 19:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

How can you say that someone who was a correspondent for two of the world's most respected newspapers for the last 45 years of his life has serious credibility problems? Fisk attracted controversy not because of the facts in his writing but because of his opposition to Western policy in the Middle East. As it turned out, Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or links to al Qaeda and Afghanistan is set to be returned to Taliban control after the U.S. leaves. TFD (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes there aren't any 'experts' as such; sometimes the 'experts are difficult to identify; sometimes the 'experts' aren't as expert as they pretend to be; sometimes 'experts' disagree with each other; sometimes the 'experts' are wrong. ← ZScarpia 19:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I would recommend that you retract your comment above in its entirety as it shows essentially zero knowledge of the underlying dispute, and appears to be partisan bomb-throwing based on your literally skimming a couple sentences and coming to fairly outlandish conclusions about Philip Cross that are especially astonishing in light of the fact that you are both long-established editors whose views and perspectives on reliable sources should be well known.

Qed, see WP:TRUTH, if you have not already.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What in your opinion is the underlying dispute? Incidentally, providing links to WP:RANDOMESSAYS without explaining there relevance is not an argument. TFD (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

TFD, c'mon, I know you love the bludgeoning and the trolling (and you are quite good at it), but give it a rest, my dude. Did you even read Qed's comment above? "Calling [Dore] a contrarian is closer to the *truth* -- it just seems that Wikipedia's rules don't give any kind of avenue for presenting this truth." Yes, that is exactly right, because Wikipedia summarizes what is verifiable in reliable sources, not necessarily what any one editor considers the absolute truth.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, this article does not even label Dore a conspiracy theorist in wikivoice, it merely quotes articles from CNN and Haaretz that describe him as such, with clear in-text attribution, and mentions that "Dore discussed conspiracy theories over the murder of Seth Rich on his show." Quite possibly the sourcing is still not strong enough to justify including Dore in the "Category:American conspiracy theorists"—that has been the subject of contention previously—but if the OP expects us to replace all references to "conspiracy theory," "conspiracist," or similar with an unsourced assertion that Dore is merely a "contrarian" because that is the WP:TRUTH, well, such an objective is simply not realistically attainable at this time. Obviously.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The original complaint by Qed was that Dore was portrayed as "some sort of conspiracy theorist," when he is better described as a "natural contrarian who does not endorse any conspiracy theory." You will note that WP:NOR says, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Quoting a writer saying Dore promotes conspiracy theories implies that he is a conspiracy theorist. TFD (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with the sentence "quoting a writer saying that Dore promotes conspiracies implies that he is a conspiracy theorist." There's nothing inherently wrong with doing that, because this isn't using Wikipedia's voice to state that he is or is not. This isn't to say that there can never be an issue with quoting authors with strong opinions about a BLP subject. We still need to be careful with our wording, as it certainly can give the impression that Wikipedia endorses some opinion about the subject, but we can and should include information about the subject's reception if it is relevant: is the author of these criticisms notable / writing for a reputable source? Is their criticism shared by others? If so, then it's relevant to include it. In the case of Jimmy Dore, the answer to both of those questions is yes. It is a common and notable criticism of him, so it should be noted. That said, I don't advocate for using Wikipedia's voice to call him a conspiracy theorist in the lede, as this would undoubtedly be a controversial thing to do on a BLP article and it should only be done if there is a consensus agreeing that reliable sources describe him as one frequently enough that it is warranted. That would have to be a discussion of its own, but until then, we should continue to mention that he has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories. (tl;dr: I second what TheTimesAreAChanging said.) Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you are saying that the article does not imply that Dore is a conspiracy theorist, on the other hand you are saying it is common and significant criticism of him, that should be included. While I accept that the article does not explicitly say he is a conspiracy theorist, it implies it. To imply means to "strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated}" [Oxford Languages Dictionary]. Donald Trump uses this type of tactic all the time. He didn't say that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, he quoted people who made that claim. IOW he implied something without explicitly stating it.

Wikipedia articles should never imply anything and instead should make explicit statements. If you believe that promotion of conspiracy theories is a frequent criticism of Dore, then you should use a reliable source that says that, including who makes the claim and what weight the opinion holds. And then we can balance it with any balancing views and Dore's response.

A major problem in creating this article is that there are insufficient in depth sources about Dore to create an objective and informative article. He probably fails notability, but it's difficult to delete articles since a large number of editors routinely vote to keep despite policy. But that doesn't mean we can ignore policy when editing the article. If there are very few sources that have weight, then the best approach is to have less information.

TFD (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe there may have been some miscommunication here judging by the opening sentence: "Your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you are saying that the article does not imply that Dore is a conspiracy theorist, on the other hand you are saying it is common and significant criticism of him, that should be included."

These things are not mutually exclusive. Yes, per notability guidelines, we need to take into consideration the fact that a lot of RS describe Dore as an individual who promotes conspiracy theories, so we include the fact that this criticism exists. That's not the same as using Wikipedia's voice to say "Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist." To include this common criticism of him still allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. Let's put ourselves in the perspective of the reader for a second: if you are a Jimmy Dore fan and you stumble across the subsection about conspiracies, and you read that CNN referred to him as a conspiracy theorist and described his statements relating to Syrian chemical weapons attacks as conspiracies, you'll probably simply disagree with CNN's opinion. Inclusion is not an endorsement, either explicitly or implicitly. Your replies seem to suggest that you think otherwise, but this is why myself and others have repeatedly asked that you consider what it means to say something using Wikipedia's voice.

As one final note, regarding your belief that the article fails notability guidelines and should probably be deleted, and that other editors keep voting to keep it despite Wikipedia's policies and that the best solution is to remove material rather than nominate the article for deletion again, I am concerned that you severely misunderstand how consensus-building is done on Wikipedia. It's not that the article still exists despite Wikipedia's policies, it's that there is a consensus that the article does not violate said policies. For you to take it upon yourself to try to delete content in the article without deleting the article yourself as you believe the whole thing fails notability guidelines and that it is "ignoring policy" for content to be included is a problem. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As a side note, @The Four Deuces:, your removal of material from The Daily Dot is considered a reversion & this article is subject to WP:1RR. I ask that you type CTRL+F and search for the term "due weight" at the WP:RSP page. Every single source highlighted in green contains some variation of "Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight." Your edit summary "Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, publication in the Daily Dot may lack weight for inclusion" demonstrated at best a misunderstanding. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Vanilla Wizard Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "the Daily Dot "is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." The relevant section of Due and undue weight (Balancing aspects) says:

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

A recent mention of Dore in passing in one source violates this policy and is particularly egregious since it is a Biography of a living person, which says that "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." I could not find any other mention of Dore in relation to this.

For information, Dore interviewed Paula Jean Swearengin, who is a former Justice Democrat and candidate for U.S. Senate about her decision to leave the Democratic Party. Toward the end of the twenty minute interview, she said, "[Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez] pretended to be an ordinary person. She pretended to be a bartender when she was co-owner of the bar. She never told us that she worked for the Kennedys." The sentence about AOC pretending to be a bartender is omitted from Dore's posting of the interview on youtube. There was no other mention of the claim in the discussion.

The wording in this article gives the false impression that Dore brought Swearengin on in order to discuss the claim or at least that he discussed it with her on his show.

TFD (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just digging itself into a hole it will never get out of. Dore never endorsed Swearengin's claim, and when his chat asked about it during the live show, Steph Zemarano (cohost/wife of Dore) made no endorsement of the claim and did not qualify it one way or another. She clearly felt uncomfortable addressing it (suggesting she was worried it was a BS claim as well; no doubt she did fact checking during the show and found the same thing I found, which is nothing to back up Swearengin's claim.) These are not the actions of someone *pushing* conspiracy theories. Dore has never repeated this claim. And yet, here's wikipedia, once again falling into the trap of citing any random source as a "Reliable Source" without any consideration for its role in propagating an obvious smear job. Qed (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

From my admittedly incomplete reading of several sources about Dore, and with almost zero prior knowledge of Dore or his shows, I believe the high bar required to apply Category:Conspiracy theorists is not met. Regardless of what he has said or whom he has interviewed, it does not seem to be a defining characteristic per WP:COPDEF and WP:BLPCAT, in that the label is not commonly and consistently used to define Dore, rather it is a phrase invoked sometimes in relation to some of Dore's work, often indirectly in articles about broader subjects that might mention Dore as discussing or perpetuating pre-existing fringe ideas. I think WP:CATDEF/WP:DEFINING should be more judiciously enforced and more narrowly construed. Not every verifiable aspect of a person, even objective ones (which "conspiracy theorist" is not) is a defining aspect worth categorization (and it's not just contentious categories: from the article, Dore also doesn't seem to fit well in American political activists, American anti-war activists, or Non-interventionism). Not everyone who has ever ridden a bike belongs in Category:Cyclists. The most in-depth sources on Dore seem to routinely define Dore as "comedian", "political commentator", "podcaster", "satirist" etc. (e.g. [22][23]). "Conspiracy theorist" is an outlier at best, and often explicitly or implicitly an opinion (WP:OPINIONCAT). Regarding the Seth Rich conspiracy, the entirety of The Washington Post article directly about Dore reads: Briefly, before Wheeler recanted his story, the Young Turks network's "Jimmy Dore Show" chewed over the revelation that Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks.... Dore's show has backed away from the story since Wednesday. Eric Levitz in New York Mag cites this alone to support his contention that Dore's "discernment is further called into question by his promotion of conspiracy theories".

It is true that one Salon article by Amanda Marcotte states: "Dore kept insisting about the existence of "a lot of red flags" and there "is probably something more to this story" around Rich's death" and uses the word conspiracy theory in the same paragraph, but in the same publication a few months later, professor Sophia A. McClennen, who studies satire and politics, writes: Edgy satirists like... Jimmy Dore are informing viewers and covering stories ignored by the mainstream news" and has covered him previously, both without a single mention of conspiracies. The fact that a Dore referred to a misquoted op-ed and that a guest on Dore's show said something about a politician that turned out to be untrue does not a conspiracy theorist make.

I have no idea how many controversial issues are discussed on Dore's talk shows, nor how many go unmentioned by myopic liberal cultural hot-takers who thrive on online drama. But I would bet that the incidents discussed in "Promotion of conspiracy theories" is a non-representative sample. It might even be an artificial creation of cherry-picked drama given disproportionate emphasis: one could probably construct a subsection for any various political or social issues he's talked about, and make it look like it's a major aspect.

Lastly, to address a fallacy some may hold that we are required to list sources that explicitly say one is not a conspiracy theorist in order to justify removal: that's bogus. Every source that doesn't use the term at all is evidence of the term being non-defining, and rather a relatively uncommon, subjective, and or opinionated view used in some publications or held by some people. Similarly, if a celebrity mentions in an interview or niche health website that they've had chronic fatigue syndrome, and that fact is then rightfully omitted as irrelevant in most mainstream non-gossipy sources, it doesn't mean we need to demand sources that explicitly contradict the claim to remove them from People with chronic fatigue syndrome, nor should we scrounge the internet cherry-picking only the sources that do trumpet the fact as evidence that it is defining. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I've removed the conspiracy theorist category tag. There isn't consensus for this tag and much of the discussion was related to article level content. My edit made no article level changes. Springee (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Jaydoggmarco, this looks like a consensus to remove the CAT tag. Even if it isn't a consensus to remove it isn't a consensus to keep which would be needed in this case. Your edit summary didn't say why you restored the tag. Was there something the discussion missed? Springee (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see the talk page, Apologies, I respect the consensus decision and won't make any further edits on this page. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Syria gas attack AKA the ‘canister on the bed’

I’m wondering what it takes to be a verifiable source. We have more than the usual threshold of three independent sources stating the Syria gas attacks, or the ‘canister on the bed’ was staged.

Aaron Mate has done extensive investigating on this, dispelling the widely held view that Syria gassed its own people.

Vanessa Beeley has investigated and since reported the same.

www.rt.com/op-ed/451623-bbc-staged-footage-douma-chemical-attack/amp/

September 2021 the BBC themselves have now stated that the story of the Syria gas attack has serious flaws after a ten month study. 
My question is, will the truth ever be allowed to be told ? There is another side to this story that is not being allowed on this page to counter the ‘conspiracy theory’ narrative. Dec212012 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The flaws identified by the BBC include the suggestion that one of the whistleblowers believed the attack was staged; he has definitively said he doesn't believe that. RT and Grayzone are not RSs. And this is tangential to this BLP article anyway, as it's just one issue Dore has addressed in his show. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This has everything to do with unsubstantiated claims that someone’s a conspiracy theorist or not. Allowing one news organizations ‘opinion’ here, but not others gives no context. Disingenuous at the very least, but more akin to a libelous smear. Who here determines what is a RS? Dec212012 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As Dore himself explains, Wikipedia in some sense has been "captured" by some sort of mainstream narrative. Of course, it is not in the direct sense that Dore thinks it is (because, like most people, he is unaware of how Wikipedia works behind the scenes). However, you will notice that the Grayzone (which Aaron Mate writes for) has been designated a non-reliable source. People in this very talk page have used exactly that guilt-by-association logic to try to discredit Aaron Mate. So the reasoning is that Aaron Mate's reporting is unreliable, because the Grayzone is unreliable, even when Aaron Mate is writing articles for reliable sources and even though Aaron Mate's writing has never been reasonably called into question. Your second source comes from "RT" which, of course, is funded by Russia. Because, apparently, it is impossible to tell the truth if you are funded by Russia. Notice how this same reasoning is not applied to Bellingcat, which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy whose source of funding is the US Department of State. As best as I can tell this is because Russia lies, and the US does not lie. So when Bellingcat smears Dore it is reliable. When material is published on RT that happens to coincide with Dore's reporting, then Dore is pushing conspiracy theories. In case you haven't figured it out, people who want to push the mainstream narrative *DO* know how Wikipedia works, and so they have approached the problem by literally manipulating the whole "reliable sources" scheme of Wikipedia so that Wikipedia is forced to write crap like "Jimmy Dore is pushing conspiracy theories".

More importantly, though, is that Dore's credibility or whether or not he is "pushing conspiracy theories" should not hinge on whether or not any particular Syrian gas attack has truly been staged. Dore is a political commentator. So it only matters if the commentary comes from a place of honest reporting and analysis, or whether or not it comes from an agenda for pushing conspiracy theories. Dore is not an expert and does not pretend to be one, so he doesn't explain the details of how he knows the gas attack was staged, he is relying on the reporting and analysis of others. So the question is, did Dore do "due diligence" commensurate to his capabilities? Obviously, that's exactly what he did. But Wikipedia has no process or system by which this sort of judgment can be reasonably done. There are no rules about this. Since this article is a biography, Wikipedia does nothing more than fall back onto its main rule of using reliable sources -- who cares if these "Reliable sources" are perpetrating a smear job. So yeah, Wikipedia will avoid getting sued for libel, but nobody can pretend that Wikipedia is even attempting to get the story right. Qed (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Lets not wp:soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add conspiracy theorist to his page, like you guys do to Alex Jones and Mike Lindell

Here's the source https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

Thanks

71.94.157.155 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Not done There's a very high bar that needs to be crossed before we can call someone a conspiracy theorist, and I don't think this meets it. The most we could do with this information is maybe add a sentence along the lines of "In 2021, an analysis by Ad Fontes Media of the biases and reliability of news sources described Dore's content as misleading and categorized it as a left-wing show with extremely biased presentation." Even then, other editors could reasonably say that this is unwarranted, especially considering that Dore's show doesn't appear in their list of individual rankings. Describing an individual as a conspiracy theorist in a biography of a living person requires a lot of sources, and while it is true that many sources have stated that Dore's content discusses or promotes conspiracy theories - and some have even gone as far as to describe Dore himself as a conspiracy theorist - it'll take a lot more for this to be permissible on the encyclopedia. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I only just heard of the guy, but I'm seeing the anti-vaxxers are loving some of his recent (October) youtube content about COVID vaccines. Maybe not "Conspiracy theories", but he's certainly joining in on the side of misinformation -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

His segment today, "Should we vaxx the children?" with Max Blumenthal was full-blown conspiracism. Blumenthal said that Bill Gates, Charles Schwab and others were behind vaccine passports and would have done something similar under any pretext. A year ago he was laughing at anti-vaxxers (see his youtube videos on Herman Cain.) But we have to wait for reliable secondary sources to comment on this. TFD (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If Dore continues to put out content promoting anti-vaccine conspiracies, there will probably eventually be enough sources to mention it without risking a BLP vio, but so far there's only a handful of articles that specifically mention Dore promoting said conspiracies: this and this

I don't know if I'm comfortable yet with adding something like "Critics have argued that Dore promotes misinformation relating to the Covid-19 pandemic" when all I can find is two articles, but if there were at least three or four outlets making the same criticism, then it'd be a lot more justified. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the last time I commented here, we also have these articles to work with: [24][25] - Dore responded to allegations of being anti-vax and claimed that a Harvard study supports his vaccine skepticism, PolitiFact rated his claim a half-truth, and Facebook flagged his video as misinformation. The article I linked from americanconservativemovement is obviously unreliable as a source of information (their site has banners with Mike Lindell on them and tries to sell you "Freedom Phones"), but it could be used to simply quote Dore's response. I think we're at the point where we can at least mention Dore's vaccine commentary and its reception. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Imam jnhot sure that Amewrican consvatvive is an RS, but yes I think we can add the stuff form poltifact.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it needs saying again, he is a comedian, not (for example) an alleged news anchor. So we need RS saying that anything he says is nothing more than a joke.08:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I like an article in healthfeedback.org ([https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/the-jimmy-dore-show/ "Reviews of articles from: The Jimmy Dore Show"). It addresses the claims made and explains in detail why they are misleading, avoiding emotive and exaggerated language. Does anyone know if this would be considered rs?

I agree btw that we always need secondary sources that assume what he has said is meant seriously. Obviously in this case, secondary sources assume he meant it seriously.

TFD (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone is 'anti-mandate' it does not make them anti-vax. Many people are vaccinated and against mandates. Dore has stated countless times he did in fact get vaccinated against Covid 19. To say he is anti-vax is not true. No theory, fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dec212012 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

He can be considered an anti-vaxxer because he discourages people from becoming vaccinated by saying vaccines are ineffective and dangerous. Since he was vaccinated before he became an anti-vaxxer, it doesn't disprove that he is an anti-vaxxer.

Anti-mandate is often a cover for anti-vaxxers.

TFD (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If RS say he is, so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

TFD wrote "he can be considered an anti-vaxxer", yes and I could consider YOU anti-vax, doesn't make it so. You clearly do not hear what he has said on vaccines, nor mandates and that is your right. Also, be clear; he has said that the Pfizer & Moderna vaccine may be dangerous. You doubt that? Their own website says there is a small chance of adverse effect. "Anti-mandate is often a cover for anti-vaxxers"? Again, that doesn't prove Dore is "ANTI-Vax". For the last time, he IS vaccinated against Covid19 and stated he's received Polio and MMR as well as tetanus and all vaccines as a child. Not sure your threshold for anti-vax but hope that clears it up. Yes it doesn't disprove it, I agree but it also doesn't prove he is ANTI-VAX. As for Slatersteven, RS may use whichever terminology they like, again doesn't prove that JD is anti-vax when he has stated, and is, a card carrying member of the Covid19 vaccine. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dec212012 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

NO is RS say it we can.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course you can, and say it you will. Again, it's not true but meh you clearly have some reason for saying it that you have yet to reveal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dec212012 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone who deliberately provides false or misleading information in order to discourage vaccination is an anti-vaxxer. I just watched a recent youtube video of his where he said that only people who were high risk or "scared" (a favorite word for anti-vaxxers) should get vaccinated. The fact he was vaccinated before he became an anti-vaxxer is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No we have no hidden reason, we have said what the reason is RS say it. I also suggest you rea wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is Jimmy Dore providing false or misinformation? Please provide reference? You wrote above he is anti-vax, and I countered that he is in fact vaccinated against COVID-19. You evenly openly admit you watched a recent video of his saying only people high risk or scared should get vaxxed. I’m not trying to analyze or doubt you heard him say that, but instead pointing out that you contradict yourself if that matters. That would be the opposite of what you wrote. I did not accuse you SlaterSteven of having a ‘hidden reason’ but if you feel that way, I hope you can gather support here in the community. I only introduced a counter to your statement of “Jimmy Dore is Anti-Vax” by saying he’s vaccinated. You respond “often anti-vaxers do that” yet still not proving that JD is anti-vax. Dec212012 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You have a wrong definition of anti-vax. Someone who spreads unjustified fears about one vaccine is already an anti-vaxxer. He does not stop being one if he gets another vaccine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"Someone who spreads unjustified fears about one vaccine is already an anti-vaxxer." That is incorrect and also subjective to what you believe is unjustified fears. If you believe that a vaccine can not have any advertise side effects on anyone, you are lying or misinformed.

Jimmy has on multiple occasions mentioned his adverse reaction to the vaccine, which is something he is being treated for by a medical doctor. You just made up your own definition of what a so-called anti-vaxxer is, and thus leaving it open to your subjective interpretation. MarSwe11 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the only people who are anti-vaxxers are those who reliable sources say they are, accounted for due weight. Anything else is moot and debating it is a waste of editorial time. Le Marteau (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Oxford: an·ti-vax /ˌan(t)ēˈvaks,ˌan(t)īˈvaks/ adjectiveINFORMAL opposed to vaccination. "anti-vax parents"

No Hob, I believe it’s you that may need to look up the definition. Spin it how you like but in your world, people who get vaccines are somehow anti-vax. ‘He does not stop being one if he gets another vaccine’??? What does that even mean? Anti- from the Anglo-French & Latin opposed or against. If he got the vaccine, he is not against. Dec212012 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say and not on conclusions made by Wikipedia editors. If RS call him an ativaxxer, Wikipedia does so too. See WP:RS and WP:OR. Also, your conclusion is wrong: I can be against taxes and still pay them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Lock it

CAN WE LOCK THIS ARTICLE, IT MAY BE RAIDED BECAUSE OF A TUCKER CARLSON INTERVIEW LOOK AT THIS AN SCROLL TO SEE THE COMMENTS:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR7nJutI5iI I edited the article satirically, to illustrate what must be done. 69. 420. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.184.88 (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't "edit the article satirically". That is not how such things are done here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Pages are not protected ("locked") preemptively. We could request page protection if and when issues arise (in my own opinion, issues from unregistered IPs have already been too common, e.g. people who really like Dore occasionally blanking controversy sections + people who really dislike Dore reinstating potential BLP vios), but pages are not protected out of the suspicion that issues may arise in the future. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore, Democrat or Republican?

There appears to be some disagreement in the body of the article."TheTimesAreAChanging" & now "Snooganssnoogans", have removed factual sourced content, and requested I take three sentences to the Talk community in the hopes that someone may hear my plea. The below removed content was added, re-added and now taken to you, The Wikipedia community in the hopes that some clarity may be gleaned in this Talk section of a living person. If the deletion of facts is allowed to continue, I ask a moderator to take a long hard look at this, and hope you too will see, it is not political 'SPIN' as a third baseless edit summary by "Carlton" suggested, but instead a truthful quote by a living person. Nowhere has there been any constructive criticism in any of the removals, but instead the constant tirade of WikiWars editors who vandalize an article for unknown reasons. There are three sentences (listed below) and each was referenced, but their inclusion was removed by three editors. Why?

Within ten minutes, the below three sentences were deleted.

1.As a comedian, Dore has shown consistency in criticizing both the Democrat and Republican parties since 2008.

>>> It was at this point I referenced one of literally thousands of videos, coming right from the living persons mouth, criticizing the Republican president GWB. Problem?<<<

2.In May of that year, Jimmy was quoted in The Boston Globe as changing his act a bit to “lay off the George Bush specific jokes and do more jokes like, here’s a joke about health care”.

>>>Again, I referenced The Boston Globe who quoted the comedian. Problem?<<<

3."He soon began to criticize the incoming Obama administration for continuing The [[Iraq War". >>>, Dore's criticizm of Obama (Democrat) is already legendary. You seem to have no problem with this addition as referenced by the article<<<

I now ask a moderator, that the above named editors be dealt with in a fair manner and stop the malicious vandalism at once.

Its not vandalism, nor is it malicious, and you need to read wp:npa, it is disagremnt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No substantive answer, still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dec212012 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Not eveone is online at all times. But one answer, you watching a youtube video and coming to a conclusion might well vioalte wp:or, we would need an RS saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What's the Democrat Party? TFD (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I referenced The Boston Globe. I did not watch a YouTube video and "coming to a conclusion" as you wrote. It is a direct quote from a living person. Are you seriously in disagreement here that Jimmy Dore has never criticized a Republican? Ever? He's a comedian who jokes on whichever party is in power. I provided source material SlaterSteven and if you choose not to allow that to be written, maybe we are in disagreement of what constitutes a RS. PS. I appreciate you requesting I read the WP on personal attacks, and taken directly from the page I hope you find the following useful. "When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack". I suggest a revisit of the page may be in order.wp:npa

Good question TFD, What IS the Democrat Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dec212012 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That is not what your edit said. And NPA says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.", is what I meant. So now I also suggest you read wp:wikilawyer.16:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to the title of this talk or just keep referring me to links to read? Again, you bring nothing of substance to the above questions. Dec212012 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I am going to keep asking you to obey policy, yes. But not here, from now on it's your talk page. As to your question, the thread title is "Jimmy Dore, Democrat or Republican?", as none of the edits you make answer that question themselves there is your answer, your edits do not tell us anything about what party he supports.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If you choose to leave this Talk without bringing anything new to the conversation except referring me to Wiki policy instead of addressing the issues at hand that is your right, but it solves nothing. I never answered ‘Jimmy Dore Democrat or Republican?’ as first, that is the title of this talk. It is not to mention his party affiliation as it appears solved that he is in favor of a third party, so neither if there is an answer. I am not trying to answer that question, nor making this political but instead describing a living person who has criticized BOTH parties. We are still far apart, and you’ve still yet to answer my above questions that if you include Dore criticized the Democratic Party, why then not include his same of Republicans? Dec212012 (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If that is not what this is about why did you say "Are you going to respond to the title of this talk" then if that was not the question? I did answer by the way by pointing out you can't use youtube videos to make a claim based on how you interpret them. Nor can you do that with any other source, a source must say what you are using it for. It is your wording that is at issue, you are claiming things the sources do not support.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not use “ youtube videos to make a claim based on how you interpret them.” as you wrote so we disagree. Dore in the video, as a comedian mimics or critiques GWB of the party affiliation Republican {Dore’s also done Democratic critiques as well}. He then states, in a May 2008 Boston Globe article he was moving away from these jokes. He said it. Not me. The Boston Globe reported it. There is no interpretation. What is the issue? He criticizes Republicans. So what? I am providing a video of his stand up routine of the time 2008, him repeating what is stated in The Boston Globe. Are they not reliable? Dec212012 (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes you did, your edit makes a claim the videos do not make. What is it you are trying to use this source to prove?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

He criticizes the Republican Party. I did not claim it, The Boston Globe did. They reported what he said. The videos are random source material of the living person criticizing a Republican in 2008. Are they somehow untrue? Dec212012 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not say that it says he decided to lay of Geroge Bush jokes, that does not say he criticizes anyone other than Bush. Read the policies I have linked to, that is my last word on this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the article uses a direct quote from Dore saying “I tried to lay off the George Bush-specific jokes and do more jokes like, here’s a joke about health care”. He said that, The Boston Globe reported it. President George W. Bush was a Republican. Would you like me to add more sources of Jimmy Dore criticizing Republicans? There are countless. I still am quite unclear on your revision and endeavor a reason a reliable source is not allowed? Jimmy Dore criticizes both parties, I sourced it, and if you have nothing else to add to counter that, I welcome someone to Please explain. Thank you Dec212012 (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. It's not about whether he's a Democrat or a Republican. It's about what he's known for in reliable sources, and more specifically, what the body of the Wiki page describes. I'm starting to wonder if the reason why the lede is so short is because someone will wage an edit war any time it mentions politics Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I truly couldn’t care what Jimmy Dore’s ‘jokes’ are. I added he criticizes both. If you feel he’s ‘not known for that’ we disagree. Some don’t want that here. SO IT’S NOT HERE. It’s truly, that simple. Dec212012 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Re-reading your last post Vanilla, let’s be clear, the lede is allowed to mention criticism of one party, but not the other. Someone should answer why Dec212012 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

When I say "he's not known for it", what I'm saying is that the body of the article never mentions the Republican party because very few secondary sources mention Dore's commentary on the Republican party, so rewriting the lede to claim "Dore is known for his consistency in equally criticizing the Democrat and Republican parties" is unwarranted. Judging by how the only secondary you could find was an ancient article that - in a single, passing mention - indirectly implied that he wasn't a Bush supporter, it's fair to assume that such sources are hard to come by. If they're out there, they certainly aren't in this article, so they shouldn't be in its introduction. It's not about my opinion or your opinion on what he's known for. I would have hoped I'd made this clear by now, but judging by how you're still saying "someone should answer why" when I've lost count of the number of times myself and others have explained it, I don't know if trying yet again will make a difference. I suppose it's fine if you don't understand why so long as you do understand that you shouldn't keep re-adding it when consensus (judging by the number of people who've reverted you) is against your version. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

First, just because a few people removed what I wrote doesn’t mean it’s not true. For the last time, I mentioned his criticism in the body of the article. That’s why I inserted it into the lead as well. You choose to ignore that, and appear to make some correlation between how Dore is known to you, and what you allow in the article. You’ve made it quite clear his criticizing is only allowed here of one party, not the other. I understand, but it’s untruthful to say the least. You make it sound like an ‘ancient’ article dated 2008 is somehow not relevant. That’s a very weak argument. The number of people who’ve reverted me gave reasons such as ‘spin’ and referring me to WP. There is no ‘passing mention’ as you wrote of his criticism in the article. You said you wanted a source of him criticizing, I provided two, now you say ‘he’s not known for it’? There’s literally thousands of videos of this, but you cry foul. ‘YouTube videos aren’t a source’ and, ‘he’s not known for it’ are your attempts to distort the fact Dore has criticized Republicans. Fact. You’re behaviour is not allowing the free and open forum Wiki purports to be. Do better Dec212012 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No, but it means you are alone in thinking it meets our inclusion critiera.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Slater? Good to see you back! I thought you’d given your last words on this you wrote above? Also that this is my thread from now on (your words not mine). Strange you keep coming back to something you’re done with. I’m hardly alone though, you just both seem to be in coordination to not allow facts with sources, and for that makes this community spirit a laughable joke. Your inclusion criteria changes, as only what YOU know someone for is allowed. How do we know you are not even the same person using two accounts? Weird that ten minutes after I wrote here, there’s a response made. Almost like ….you’re watching! Nothing else to do in your day except push a political narrative and LIE ! Not allowing the truth is a lie, before you start crying again I’m personally attacking you. I’ve explained numerous times that what you are doing to a living person is incorrect by not including a reliable source quoting the person. Now I am done with this thread. Yes, I’m writing it so quote it! The difference is that I am true to my word. Jimmy Dore criticizes Republicans is not allowed in this article. Dec212012 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Dec., you might be interested in reading this. postleft on mobile! 01:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dore has responded to criticism that he devotes more criticism to Demorcats than Republicans: it's already done in liberal and progressive media. In fact he has widened his criticism to now go after progressives. It's not necessarily disingenuous if he believes he is exposing pseudo-progressives. But it does mean he does not show consistency in criticizing both parties. Incidentally, there are no modertors. TFD (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I watch The Jimmy Dore Show quite often & his main targets are the Democrats (moderates & progressives) & at times Republicans. He favours the creation of a People's Party, as he sees (accurately) both the Democratic & Republican parties, as corporate-controlled. Hope that helps. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttps://mronline.org/2020/10/15/opcw-syria-whistleblower-and-ex-director-attacked-by-u-s-uk-france-at-un/

[2] ttps://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/Who-carried-out-the-chemical-attack-in-Ghouta-on-August-21-2013

[3] ttps://apnews.com/article/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5

[1]

[2]

[3]