Talk:Jimmy Dore

Clarification about Jimmy Dore

Nonconstructive misuse of the talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Jimmy Dore actually likes socialized medicine and is anything BUT a right wing conspiracy theorist. He reads directly from mainstream content and points out the many flaws in the conclusions made (if this makes him an enemy of the Democratic Party then perhaps this would make it obvious whose side the media is on). I spoke with a person who believes your website to be 100% true, but they would read this and believe what you said about Jimmy Dore without question, when your statement about his criticism of the Democratic Party is actually meant to mislead people. Wikipedia has done this to honest NON POLITICAL people and given them a bad reputation. I will continue to share my findings about your website and the fact that you have chosen to take a political stance and might even scoff at my fair-minded comments around coffee with your associates. In this way you are part of the disinformation campaign that is ultimately a house of cards for us all, and forms one side against another without encouraging dialogue. 71.168.119.115 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC) PLease read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Within 12 minutes, Slater responds with their standard wiki policy post, yet again adding nothing substantive to the conversation. My question in jest is, "What took you so long’? Let’s think about that for a moment. The original post hit enter, and immediately Slater received a notification on the Bat phone that their services were needed. Like a modern day super hero, they had to jump into action, and quick! They can’t allow what was written to be discussed. For if even one moment this truth is allowed, it may crumble the whole ‘house of cards’ you wrote of. I don’t think time was even allowed to read the post, digest the points taken, respond coherently with a well thought out response. No, just the standard old policy post. Sadly, without one original thought of their own. The same things we all read when signing up, but Slater feels you need a reminder. There is no argument against the truth here on Wiki, it is just suppressed. Plain and simple. No other point is allowed except the official narrative. I like your visual of intelligence sitting over coffee discussing this page. The viewpoints stated by Dore must touch a nerve, or they wouldn’t feel it necessary to remove factual, sourced information. These people have no semblance of honor, balance, or truth like you or I. They are small minded individuals who are devoted to perverting the truth, so the casual reader is told lies. You mention this behavior forms one side against the other, that is precisely the desired effect. Man vs. woman, Black vs. white, Gay vs. straight, they want us divided, because could you imagine if we all woke up one day and realized that we are all being duped equally? I’ve learned though, the truth is never suppressed from these talk pages. Here, we can freely speak out against the censorship that goes on in this platform. Free Julian!" I return to the house of cards analogy you wrote of. They have already fallen, that is why they try so hard not to let you see the truth. Dec212012 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC) And you need to read our policies about talk pages, as you make arguments based on policy, not attacking other users. Also the OP violated wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Policy requires that articles summarize content in "reliable sources," which in this case is mostly mainstream media. Sometimes articles don't do that properly and should be corrected. However we cannot put in our own conclusions. If there are any statements in the article that do not reflect the sources or are undue weight, then list them and we can determine what action to take. But general criticism without concrete suggestions is pointless. TFD (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Sometimes articles don’t do that properly and should be corrected? By who, you? Are you going to sit around the coffee and discuss which point of view is allowed? Because you and I both know that reliable sources are only allowed if it says what the boss allows. “However we can not put in our own conclusions”? That made me laugh heartily, thank you. Not making any argument here, that is useless, just talking. Your last sentence sums it up very well ‘criticism without suggestion is pointless’. Bravo! Dec212012 (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Edits are suggested here and then discussed. What is not helpful (or indeed even policy compliant) it just to post "this article is crap" (however it is worded). Talk pages are not for "just talking" they are not a wp:forum, they are here to discuss (Only) how to improve the article. Anything else can just be deleted as a policy violation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading characterization of his views on Ivermectin.

The text claims that Jimmy Dore claims Ivermectin was effective against COVID-19. The citation does not back this statement up, it says something different (suggesting that Dore was pushing Ivermectin, which is also wrong, but nevertheless does not match the current Wikipedia text.) As a long-time viewer of the show, I can tell you that Dore has always known that the supporting evidence for Ivermectin was speculative, and never claimed otherwise. His main critique was of the "mainstream media" making definitive claims that Ivermectin was ineffective (or claiming it was a horse medicine, which is misleading) way before any real conclusive studies had been completed. So it was not known one way or another at the time he was most vocal about the issue. Qed (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Someone removed the statement that Dore was a conspiracy theorist - it seems clear that he is, though. Andre🚐 23:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be noted that Dore himself recently complained about this article calling him a conspiracy theorist - be on the lookout for vandalism from his fans.

(this being Dore, he of course claimed that intelligence agencies edited the article) Jenny Death (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the info. I can confirm that I have never been employed by any intelligence agencies. I think I would have failed the drug test on account of that Dave Matthews concert I went to in 2005. Andre🚐 03:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A couple of anon IPs are edit warring to remove the conspiracy theorist terminology against a consensus established on the talk page for at least a year judging by the archives. As with other people called conspiracy theorists in RS, this is supported by cites in the body and doesn't explicitly need to be cited in the lead if so. Andre🚐 21:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What reliable sources? Pentagon propaganda? 2601:601:51D:290C:9DC0:6D15:AE6:AB13 (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources are cited. Andre🚐 14:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources are lying. Dore was correct in his allegations. He did not deny the gas attacks, he denied Assad did them. He has been proven correct.

Conspiracy theorist is a stigmatic allegation in violation of the rules here on neutrality. 174.165.128.85 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources are lying. That you acknowledge the material is sourced tells me you are aware of the problem we as an encyclopedia face, are probably also aware of our policy on following the sources, and are therefore doing nothing but use this page as a soap box. Don't do that, please. Regarding "conspiracy theorist" there is one instance where an editorialist called him a "conspiracy theorist" but it is attributed and not in Wikivoice. The article does say he discusses conspiracy theories and is known for it, but anyone who has seen his thumbnails (let alone watched his show) can tell you that's a basic fact. All in all, I think he receives very fair handling here, despite his constaint complaints to the contrary and his allegations that the CIA edits his page.Miner Editor (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s only a theory until proven Dec212012 (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That is kind of not helpful. Andre🚐 17:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to note there continues to be a consensus for like 2 years that he is a wiki-voice "conspiracy theorist" much like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Not that 'critics have alleged." That's WP:WEASEL. WP:CCC, but it hasn't and nobody seems to have been interested in discussing these removals other than insane nonsense like the above. Andre🚐 03:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Near verbatim redundancy

This paragraph is in the #The Jimmy Dore Show section:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dore presented inaccurate information about the efficacy and safety of vaccines. The anti-parasitic drug ivermectin was promoted on his program as a treatment for COVID-19 although there is no compelling medical evidence to support this.

This paragraph is the #Controversies subsection of that section, just three paragraphs later:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dore pushed misleading information about the efficacy and safety of vaccines, even though he had been vaccinated. The anti-parasitic drug ivermectin was hyped on his program as a treatment for COVID-19 although there is no compelling medical evidence to support this.

The sources are also copy/paste duplicated, and not duplicated as named refs. The information itself seems fine, and some redundancy is useful, but this is just silly and looks like an error. I have no strong opinion about which version or where, but we should pick one.

Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed one of these but the removal was reverted and the two versions are now in the article again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Burrobert (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have again removed the redundancy, reorganized it in the WP:CSECTION (which is a separate issue), and adjusted the wording slightly for WP:TONE and WP:FRINGE. Grayfell (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

noun: conspiracy theory; plural noun: conspiracy theories a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon. "they sought to account for the attacks in terms of a conspiracy theory" Any topics Jimmy Dore talks on are proven fact. Please remove Conspiracy theorist as it is considered misleading to any person willing to research from reliable non-propagandized sources. 2600:6C46:4400:5EC:691C:4850:1D37:A795 (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy theorist

Jimmy Dore is not a conspiracy theorist he only about the facts and wikipedia should remove false accusations 173.238.40.23 (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)