Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

"Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 29#Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 23:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

WP:PA @Guy Macon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk contribs) 15:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Gd123 has been blocked from editing the Alex Jones and Talk:Alex Jones pages for a period of 1 week for making contentious edits and casting aspersions in discretionary sanctions area. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved(closed by non-admin page mover) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


Alex Jones → Alex Jones (conspiracy theorist) – I am concerned this is not the primary topic, and for the entire world there is no significant Alex Jones. For example, a typical British, and particularly Welsh, person might view Alex Jones (Welsh presenter) as better known and covered in wider (as opposed to simply a greater number of) sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Ritchie333, from my recollection there was a discussion about this back in 2017 when the article was named Alex Jones (radio host) though I'm struggling to find it now as on mobile. Regardless I agree with your logic and support Alex Jones going to the disambiguation page. Glen (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So Alex Jones (disambiguation) would take this title? If so, that seems reasonable and I'd support that. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In regards to the first reply, this setup was decided in December 2017, then there was an unsuccessful attempt at reversing that RM in June 2018. I don't think anything has changed since then. The link offered in the 2018 RM [1] still shows the conspiracy theoriest with a dominating amount of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC pageviews. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Page views indicate an overwhelming primary topic. It's possible that the Welsh presenter may be better known in the UK, but from a global perspective English language readers seem overwhelmingly more likely to be seeking the conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist also seems to get extensive coverage internationally in foreign outlets -- a search in an Irish German, or Australian news outlet, for example, shows a very clear primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the current topic is the primary based off of Google search results and page view stats. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose pageviews seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the status quo.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the last RM got it right, he's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.LM2000 (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The page views are unambiguous; with over ten times the page views of the second place page, this is clearly the primary topic. The "For other people named Alex Jones, see Alex Jones (disambiguation)." at the top of the page takes care of anyone searching for another Alex Jones. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per page view statistics. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Alex Jones is definitely the primary topic. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Adding to the snowfall.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppodr; the conspiracy theorist is definitely the primary topic and known extensively for his theories. cookie monster (2020) 755 01:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Call for Snow Close

WP:SNOW. If you have been following the weather news from Death Valley[2][3][4][5] you can see the appeal of a bit of snow... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, just hang on a second, one of the arguments I put forward is that the number of sources is not necessarily as good an argument as where they come from. In particular, I would like some evidence that non-US countries still put this guy above other people with the same name. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:DETERMINEPRIMARYsays "A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as the name of a local place, or software), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience. An attorney may read the word "hearing" and immediately think of a courtroom, but the auditory sense is still the primary topic."
Do you have any particular reason to think that Alex Jones is mainly popular in the US? Perhaps by using techniques such as Google Ngram viewer suggested in WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (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.

Alex Jones says that coronavirus outbreak is a hoax

This seems important enough to include in the article.

Alex Jones' Hoax Pandemic Conspiracy Video Viral Despite Facebook Ban

https://www.boomlive.in/world/alex-jones-hoax-pandemic-conspiracy-video-viral-despite-facebook-ban-9788

180.129.50.197 (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Boom! ( www.boomlive.in ) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Alex Jones says a lot of things. We don't decide which of things he says should go into this article by saying "this seems important enough to include in the article" because different people have different opinions on what is important. Instead, we decide by asking whether what he said has had significant coverage in reliable sources. Do any other sources discuss this? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this content is due, but the source is reliable because it is a syndicated article from Agence France-Presse (AFP) (RSP entry), an international news agency. The "Views" section lists several of Jones's other conspiracy theories, so I can see the argument for adding his coronavirus conspiracy theory to the list. — Newslinger talk 04:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Given coverage by fact checking agencies as well as reliable sources in the news, it should be notable enough for inclusion.
  1. "Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones added to the unfounded claims online, suggesting that the test result may be part of a “coup.” In a video address Oct. 2, Jones said that the result may have been a “false positive,” which would allow an adversary in the White House to poison the president’s soda and later say that he suffered from COVID-19." https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/misinformation-speculation-follow-trump-covid-19-diagnosis/
  2. "Recent events support Owens’ claim. With the COVID-19 pandemic, Jones has found new means of staying relevant. One of the loudest voices decrying the virus as a hoax, he’s led crowded protests outside the Texas State Capitol and Governor’s Mansion in opposition of wearing masks. He’s also made headlines for accosting city employees overseeing the closure of Austin’s Greenbelt, attempted to sell anti-coronavirus toothpaste, and echoed Trump’s assertions that the violence that broke out during this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests was evidence that antifa radicals had hijacked the movement. To this day, Infowars’ website still attracts more than 10 million visits a month." https://www.austinmonthly.com/alex-jones-is-mad-as-hell/
  3. https://www.indy100.com/article/alex-jones-social-distancing-park-video-coronavirus-conspiracy-theorist-texas-9669091
  4. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/america-far-right-coronavirus-outbreak-trump-alex-jones
  5. "The Food and Drug Administration warned right-wing media personality Alex Jones to stop making false coronavirus claims about products touted and sold by his websites or face legal action and a possible order to pay back consumers. The agency late today pointed to a range of misleading videos posted to Jones' website, InfoWars, that promote unproven silver products including toothpaste as possible coronavirus treatments. " https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/09/fda-warns-alex-jones-over-false-coronavirus-claims-178629
I would suggest wording to the extent that Jones, while repeatedly trying to represent the pandemic as a hoax, has also been warned by the FDA for selling fraudulent products and claiming they could treat the virus. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I think an official warning might be worth including.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

(Replies rescued from deleted personal attack claiming that two editors have hijacked this page --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC))

They are not, there are more then 2 editors commenting here right now. Consensus (reads wp:consensus) does not mean "every editor" or "most editors" it means "most editors who comment based upon policy".Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There are certainly more than two editors who believe we should follow Wikipedia policies and use reliable sources . O3000 (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC

I'm not sure who the "two" are who are being accused of "hijacking" the article. I can't imagine that I'm one of them but also can't imagine that anyone would consider me in any way uninvolved. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Why, pray tell, is this article parts of the series "Conservatism in the US" ???

Asked and answered. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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.


This just has to be a cruel joke. (Or an intenional hit against conservatism, whichever is more likely). Jones is as conservative as a Drag Queen on crack. You got to be kidding me.... --85.255.236.77 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Because Alex Jones is a Conservative radio talk show host? Do you have any sources that say he is not a conervative?Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
"The New York State attorney general has issued a cease-and-desist order to Alex Jones, the conservative radio host, alarmed by false claims on his website that his diet supplements and toothpaste could be used to fight the coronavirus." --Alex Jones Is Told to Stop Selling Sham Anti-Coronavirus Toothpaste
"Conservative broadcaster Alex Jones's request to postpone a defamation case brought against him by the families of victims in the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting was denied Thursday by the Connecticut Supreme Court." --Alex Jones Denied Delay in Sandy Hook Defamation Lawsuit
"Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, associates of his media operation Infowars, and other far-right activists are traveling to the nation’s capital this week for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference." --Alex Jones and Pals Are Coming to CPAC
"Conservative conspiracist Alex Jones is in the news again, this time threatening cannibalism on his neighbors to feed his family." --Alex Jones: 5 Things To Know About Radio Host Who Said He’ll Kill & Eat His Neighbors To Feed His Kids
" Jones has been egging on his conservative listeners and viewers—an estimated 2.7 million people monthly—to kill more liberal fellow citizens over their political differences." --Alex Jones and Other Conservatives Call for Civil War Against Liberals
I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
From the section heading I would have said it is about whether Jones is more on the most significant and influential aspects of Conservatism in the US, but this does not really match OP's statement which your comment responds well to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
If the OP had argued that Jones isn't particularly influential, I would have been inclined to agree. The other conservatives don't take him seriously. But instead the OP argued "Jones is as conservative as a Drag Queen on crack". Leaving aside the fact that both drag queens and crack addicts are equally represented among conservatives and liberals, that statement implies that Jones isn't a conservative -- and he clearly is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2020 (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.

"controversies" section needs altering

"controversies" section needs to be reorganised. The section runs directly counter to this wikipedia guidance policy: WP:CRITS . It says: "Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally... discouraged". Furthermore, it says neutrality is essential and so balance and rebuttals of negative arguments in either a section or an article.

Quote from guidance: "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate." Gd123lbp (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a policy. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
So it must be ignored? How convenient for you. Its guidance that elaborates on Wikipedias core policy of NPOV so should be followed to create objective, unbiased articles. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:CRITS is not a policy or a guideline, so whether to follow it depends on local consensus. Reliable sources consistently describe Jones as controversial, so it is neutral to do the same in this article. — Newslinger talk 00:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I've converted "Litigation" and "Social media restrictions" into top-level headings, and moved the rest of the "Controversies" section into "Views". See Special:Diff/985633648. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
"Public behavior" is far worse-sounding than "Controversies", in my opinion. — Newslinger talk 08:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Gd123lbp, I kind of agree, actually: hiving off a controversies section gives the mistaken impression that Jones has ever done anything that's not controversial, which is not something on which I would bet as much as a dollar. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Far-right

Alex Jones himself has said he doesn’t support the far-right. Listen to him on Joe Rogan, then you can make assumptions. He personally protested against conservative candidates. While he does focus on many conspiracies, he is more centrist than any other radio host. This is just pure misinformation peddled by people who don’t want to hear what he has to say. Skolian (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 16#Let's review, shall we?. FDW777 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"He has been described as Extremely Online."

This source appears to be quoting Facebook, but I cannot find any place where Facebook used the term. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Might fail undue, one source has said this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Concur with removal until such time as there is more/better sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
That seems to be the words of the author, not Facebook. Benjamin (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Nope. You generally don't use quotation marks unless you are quoting someone or using scare quotes.
"Right-leaning media outlets and politicians are regularly among the top performing posters on Facebook, and while the platform has occasionally removed “extremely online” far-right figures like Alex Jones and Laura Loomer, they can usually point to a violation of a policy as the reason."[9]
That is clearly meant as a quotation from Facebook. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
It looks more like scare-quotes to me than as a quotation from facebook, but either way I agree that better sourcing is needed. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think the source is unreliable? Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
As the author of the article Extremely Online (which I started a couple days ago), I will say this: the phrase is often used in quotes (other references from the article can attest to this); I can pretty emphatically say that they're not quoting an official statement from Facebook. That said, I don't know that its inclusion in this article is DUE, at least not with this level of sourcing. (I am going to trawl for some more sources for the main article later and I expect to find some that can back this up, since Alex Jones is absolutely an Extremely Online dude). jp×g 10:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Clean up article

This Alex Jones article needs a general tidy up to reduce repetition of superficial reactionary buzz words & political bias tone? Wikipedia is non a tabloid source for "trial by media" or dubiously sourced political muckrucking? Text mdnp (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No. See Talk:Alex Jones#Let's review, shall we?. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
You may want to not take such a hard line on this. The article does have room for some cleaning and pruning. it’s one thing to be cover a controversy factually. Another entirely to pile political ideology one way or another. You’ll also historically note I’m not some random person. I didn’t come from anyone’s site. I got here looking up the name to find info on his family. This is slanted and could use some cleaningLostinlodos (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not making any useful, specific suggestions. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I will take you at your word that you are not am Alex Jones fan, (despite you writing things like "I don't consider cbs or Washington Post calling in infowars fake any more credible than infowars calling CNN or cbs fake"[10]) but the fact is that (along with a lot of what look like good edits in the areas of film and technical articles) you appear to be supporter of pseudoscience in areas such as Atlantis,[11] additive-free tobacco[12][13], Holocaust denial[14], and the Pizzagate conspiracy theory[15]
So let me ask you up front? Do you believe that the Democratic party ran a pedophile ring through a pizza shop? That FEMA runs concentration camps? Are Wikipedia's articles about holocaust denial, cryptozoology, and the dangers of smoking additive-free tobacco accurate? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I’d be happy to reply to that. CNN has lost much of its credibility in coverage the last 5 years well beyond Trump coverage. Their sinking ratings shows it’s more than trump supporters who have tuned out.
Atlantis is a mystery. Like gods until their is proof it’s purely faith. That doesn’t make searching for the possibility any less scientific.
there is little scientific doubt additive free tobacco is safer than tobacco with additives. It’s not necessarily safe but definitely safer
The Holocaust numbers are debatable. There’s no doubt the mass internment of Jews happened. Or that they were the primary Nazi target. But nearly all focus ignores the tens-to-hundreds of thousands of ‘others’ also interned. Such as Protestants, gays, and Muslims. The numbers are also in dispute.
Pizzagate has never been backed with evidence. It remains a conspiracy Theory unless someone does present evidence.
For all of FEMA’s many faults it’s extremely unlikely they run concentration camps. Nor did I ever say they did.
I remain unconvinced that the cryptozoology must be approached so one-sided. There is plenty of evidence that respectable science, so to speak, has some lingering interest. The same term that covers the ‘search’ for Mothman and the Jackalope also covers those looking for presumed extinct species and hairy hominids. New species are found every day. Many by those looking for something else entirely.

Questioning and supporting are different things. That doesn’t change the opening of this article which appears to focus not on the man but on the viewpoint of his views. Rather than get into an editing war to neutralise what is apparently a hot issue at the moment let me make some suggestions:
Removing rebuttal from selected individuals regarding his political party stance from the opening.
Reduce the conspiracy listing in the opening and move it to the article proper. It doesn’t need to be covered twice.
fake news isn’t necessarily the best choice of words. Finding an alternative expression or using a non politicised source claiming he is supplying “fake news” would help that. Mother Jones is self described as Progressive and their reporting methods are constantly questioned.
Purely sourcing from one ideology is part of the issue with many articles in their current form. There are plenty of less grandiose “right wing” condemnations of his media outlets to pull from. Lostinlodos (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Mother Jones does not claim NASA is shipping children to a slave colony on Mars, that lizard people control the government, and that the Democratic party (and a pizza restaurant) is a front for satanic child molesters. The most salient characteristic of Alex Jones is nutty conspiracy theories. Watering down the article does not improve reader understanding and the lead should include important points. O3000 (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I ask that specific changes are suggested rather than general arm-waving about the alleged poor quality of the article. FDW777 (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I did just that. BTW I didn’t say it was poor quality. Just that it could use some tweaking. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on January 9 2021

I propose the following content be added as a new paragraph in the Alex Jones#Views section.

In January 2021, Jones publicly stated his media company funded the rally that preceded the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdphenix (talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Alex Jones says he paid $500,000 for rally that led to Capitol riot". The Independent. 2021-01-08. Retrieved 2021-01-09.
Hi Jdphenix, thanks for bringing this up. The article is only semi-protected, so you should be able to add this content yourself. I suggest adding it to the end of the "Career" section instead of the "Views" section, since this describes something Jones did rather than an opinion that he holds. — Newslinger talk 23:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Alex Jones' net worth

Does anybody have any info/links on his net worth? I figure he must be doing what he does for the money, for the advertising revenue, and I figure he must be worth in the low tens of millions at least. Anybody know? If you do, can you please put it in the article under "Personal Life". Thanks in advance.Betathetapi545 (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Actions at Capitol riot

Adding material from a Wall Street Journal feature story about what sparked the Capitol riot, which gives 67 words to Jones's efforts (more than to anyone else's except Trump's). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO I have restored the last stable version (23:32, 9 January 2021) from before the edit warring while we discuss this on the talk page. Please read WP:TALKDONTREVERT before re-inserting the material.
The citation is here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/at-the-u-s-capitol-a-milling-crowd-sparked-a-riot-in-a-few-crucial-minutes-11610067766/
I will post more after I finish reading the citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears that I will have to pay to read anything past "A Capitol Police officer died of injuries sustained in the attack, a woman was fatally shot by police and three others died of medical emergencies." Could someone please quote the paragraph where Jones was mentioned? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Paragraphs 24-25 (with context):
--Dervorguilla (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Given the above it seems like Dervorguilla's addition...
"When rioters attacked the Capitol, Jones called on them to stop. "Let's not fight the police and give the system what they want," he said.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Mann, Ted; Restuccia, Andrew (January 8, 2021). "At the U.S. Capitol, Milling Crowd Sparked Riot in a Few Crucial Minutes". Wall Street Journal. Soon the far-right talk conspiracy theorist Alex Jones appeared atop a vehicle parked on the Capitol lawn with a bullhorn…. He called on the rioters to stop attacking police…. 'Let's march around the other side …,' he said.
...Seems entirely reasonable. Does anyone disagree with it?
On a related point, is the following suitable for inclusion, either here or at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol?
For the reliability of Media Matters, see the entry at WP:RSP. There is no doubt that they are accuratly reporting Jones' words from From the January 7, 2021, edition of Infowars' The Alex Jones Show, but does this satisfy WP:WEIGHT? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
A Guardian story discusses his website at some length (82 words), without mentioning his (seemingly very relevant) claim about Trump. “Denial and Conspiracy Theories: How Rightwing Media Reacted to Trump’s Mob,” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/rightwing-media-reaction-trump-mob-capitol. (One trenchant point: “Infowars and its […] proprietor can look forward to presenting themselves as the principal resistance to the Biden administration”.) Maybe you could consider including both sources, for balance? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

On QAnon

WP:ONUS "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", seems like an argument. But it doesn't say shouldn't be included, and since "conspiracy theorist" isn't a neutral term, it seems WP:BLP might apply, and showing he doesn't just believe anything might be the right thing to do. comp.arch (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Big League Politics" is a spinoff of Breitbart, which per WP:BREITBART is so ethically unsound that it is blacklisted from Wikipedia use "Due to persistent abuse", and "has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories." If the story gets covered by an actual WP:RS, you can propose addition and wording at that time. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, really. I didn't really know, I do not follow extremist that closely. I do see on it "The website has promoted conspiracy theories, on subjects such as QAnon", so what I added might apply there (i.e. non-primary source part on "QAnon religion"). comp.arch (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I will add that as it read it was badly positioned and may fail wp:undue, does it really matter if Jones has said he does not support QAnon, no one but him seems to care. Also it may fail BLP as it can be seen as self serving.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to the last part of WP:ONUS, namely The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, instead of edit warring to include content other editors have objected to the inclusion of. FDW777 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I was giving the reasons why I removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"does it really matter if Jones has said he does not support QAnon". I think it would. I'm thinking, if his audience believes him, then maybe if they know he doesn't believe QAnon, they'll know it's crazy talk. Also seemed like the right thing at the time to add. I'll sleep on it. comp.arch (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Or it might not, or it might stop them listening to him. Please read wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

I well like to add how he lives in Austin Texas. He says he lives in Austin, Texas on the Joe Rogen podcast and on his website. Furry fox 300 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to get the details right. It is sharp-eyed editors like you that make Wikipedia reliable.
Right now the article says "He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas".
Joe Rogen and Infowars are not reliable sources, but there are plenty of reliable sources that say that he lives and works in Austin:
https://www.austinmonthly.com/alex-jones-is-mad-as-hell/
https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/alex-jones-is-about-to-explode/
In the early life section I changed
"Jones was born on February 11, 1974 in Dallas, Texas, and was raised in the suburb of Rockwall, and later in Austin."
to
"Jones was born on February 11, 1974 in Dallas, Texas, and was raised in the suburb of Rockwall, and moved to Austin in 1991, where he attended Anderson High School."
I think that this, along with "He hosts The Alex Jones Show from Austin, Texas", makes it clear where he lives.
BTW, a Google search on "Alex Jones' House in Austin, TX (Google Maps)" shows some interesting results. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Alex Jones' House: https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/alex-jones-house/view/google/ 27.104.203.24 (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

CNN as a source

Sources like CNN are invalid due to the lack of independence from the topic. Since Alex is opposed to CNN, they would obviously write articles littered with buzzwords designed to box him as 'far right' to scare people away and label him 'fake news'. CNN reputation is terrible, low ratings and despised by half of Americans. Should it really be used ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RS for more information and a guide for what determines a reliable source. An individual such as Alex Jones has made negative comments about basically every mainstream news organization at some point, and the ratings or opinion of some individuals in a single country have no relation with the reliability of a source. The vast majority of reliable sources (and literally anybody with a vague understanding of American politics) describe Jones as "far right", and as such, so does Wikipedia. SomerIsland (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

CNN is not a reliable source, even by your own criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Except it is, according to its own listing at WP:RSP. FDW777 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
If you do not think it is an RS take it to wp:rsn and make a case, as wp:consensus right now is it is a wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsuitable language use for a wikipedia article

Copy from intro section: "Jones' website, InfoWars, is derived from conspiracy theories and fake news,[23][24][25] as are his other websites NewsWars and PrisonPlanet" (end copy). This use of slang/buzzwords - that will non make sense in the future - is an example of "wikipedia is non a forum" &c. Text mdnp (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Should be written more like, "Infowars postulates dialectical discourse on news events (based on historical insights to treason/lies/veils) - to widen scope of media coverage, outside of embedded media ("propaganda"), greater good statist military industrial complex mass media bottlenecks". Who can fix this article's bias tone? Text mdnp (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Please read Talk:Alex Jones#Let's review, shall we?. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand that reaction ... but my talk entry still stands. Wikipedia, you & me - & even Alex Jones - deserve better than short sighted zeitgeist agenda-lexicons. Text mdnp (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Terms like "conspiracy theories"/"fake news" to wholly describe Infowars/Jones in the intro section - do Wikipedia & Jones a disservice. We need to put words like "postulated media/culture dialectical values/studies" &c. I am non "soap boxing"/foruming/trolling here. We deserve better. Text mdnp (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
"Infowars postulates dialectical discourse on news e..." you know you don't earn $5 every time you use fancy words, right? There is nothing incorrect about the description of Infowars. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say about the topic, not what the topic thinks it's doing or what their branding is. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
High-quality academic publications describe InfoWars as a purveyor of conspiracy theories and fake news. For example:
Wikipedia reflects the language used in reliable sources, and this article correctly describes InfoWars as a conspiracy theory and fake news website. — Newslinger talk 03:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Recommended minor edit

Rather than “derived from” in paragraph one, recommend “are devoted to spreading”. Student.learning (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:minor, this would not be a minor edit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't like either. "Derived from" assumes that the fake news and conspiracy theories came first and Infowars followed. Infowars regular creates new fake news and new conspiracy theories. "Devoted to" implies that the main focus of Infowars is fake news and conspiracy theories. Not so. That's the part we talk about the most, but the main focus of Infowars is and always has been selling products. See [16]. "Combines fake news and conspiracy theories with overpriced products" is accurate, but as far as I can tell not reliably sourced. Does anyone have a suggestion for better wording? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

Remove the far-right 89.17.131.177 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to go through the talk page history and see why he is called far-right, and then explain why this is incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 12:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 02 March 2021

In a interview leaked by film producer Caolan Robertson, Jones disgruntly states himself that he "wishes he would've never met fucking Donald Trump". The video is reportedly an outtake from Robertson's own documentary "You Can't Watch This". Could this be added to the 'Relationship with Donald Trump' heading on the wiki page? The outtake is from 2018 but has recently been leaked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallylazy (talk • contribs)

 Done: I've added a sentence about it, feel free to make suggestions about how you think it should be worded though. Volteer1 (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

Removing the “far-right” description from his initial bio. 2603:8081:3104:6200:71BF:5368:D024:707 (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the Media section, consider adding a reference to the character of Brett O’Keefe from the seventh season of Homeland, which was inspired by Jones. See: https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/homeland-season-7-alex-gansa-donald-trump-alex-jones-1202684093/. See also: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/homeland-showrunner-cast-discuss-picking-142118734.html, https://www.salon.com/2018/03/10/homeland-is-warning-us-the-domestic-right-wing-terror-threat-is-real/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.111.111 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

It is said that Alex Jones has a little sister who is Korean in Jon Ronson's "Them" (p.82, Picador Classics (2015 edition)).

" 'The Anti Defamation League !' he yelled. 'The ADL are a bucket of black paint and a brush. They're worse than the Klan. They get massive funding from the globalists. It doesn't matter if your girlfriend's Jewish , your little sister's Korean' - Alex's little sister is Korean - 'anybody who wants to live free is a racist. The ADL is the scum of the earth. You aren't going to use that last line out of context are you?' "

This can be added to the 'personal life' section.

Thank you Zmetef (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What that there is a claim he has a Koran sister? I think we need a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The book claims that in the referenced passage ("Alex's little sister is Korean"). Here are some more: [17] Orlinda Naranjo Wednesday denied a request by attorneys for Alex Jones to let them call his adopted Korean sister, Marley to the stand to rebut claims he is a racist, or e.g. more vaguely: [18] Jones, whose wife is of Jewish descent and whose adopted sister Marley is Asian-American. It's well sourced, though I have little opinion on how or if we should add it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 21:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Cannibalism

This is in regards to these edits:[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

As can be seen at Talk:Alex Jones#Let's review, shall we?, I am not an Alex Jones fan, but still, he creates new crazy at a prodigious rate and if we featured every batshit insane thing he says it would be WP:UNDUE. We need to limit ourselves to those things which have significant coverage in multiple sources.

Also, Jones does engage in parody, sarcasm, and jokes, and should not be automatically taken literally. For example, while most of the positions I listed in my "Let's review, shall we?" comment appear to be sincere, his comments that the US is being invaded by South American walruses while holding up some enormous underwear were clearly a joke. Everyone knows[Citation Needed] that South American walruses wear briefs, not boxers.[Citation Needed] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is not serious, he is just trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm just here to correct some misconceptions about South American walruses. They actually wear boxer-briefs, hence the confusion.
Also, we should not be accusing Jones of cannibalism unless and until we have some reliable secondary sources documenting his homophagic eating habits, and not just the wild stupidity he peddles on his show. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That name

Do we really not know whether his name is Alexander Emric Jones or Alexander Emerick Jones? What are the sources for each claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As the source for Emric appears to be a picture of a visa that does not have enough space for his full name I am calling OR on it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there really an apostrophe in 'Emerick (as in the opening sentence), or is that a typo? Muzilon (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Muzilon: Seems to have been a typo. It's certainly not in the source, so I removed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

Alex Jones is not a "far right" Radio talk show host .. he's libertarian. Stop with the fake labels, it's beyond disgusting.

Pleae read wp:v, we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Alleged sourcing problem

Contrary to claims such as Sourcing of 'white supremacist' does not meet the standards as required by Wikipedia; source no longer contains the quoted material. The listed quote also does not denote the definition 'white supremacy' as defined by Oxford Language; is rather a closer fit to racism. and Source does not meet Wikipedia standards as defined; the page listed does NOT include the source of the quote, and is the only source is the source itself, going against the stated guideline, that isn't how WP:V works. Just because Alex Jones has been banned from Youtube doesn't invalidate references that quoted from his Youtube videos before they were deleted. FDW777 (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a sourcing problem because it fails WP:HEADLINE. Additionally relevant is WP:LABEL – the sourcing for a label as contentious as this needs to be good – but this currently does not matter as the label had no reliable sources supporting it. Please do not add unsourced material back to a biography of a living person. Edit: additionally regarding Media Matters, per WP:RSP their is no consensus on their reliability and their statements should be attributed, but this actually doesn't even matter in this case. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Alex Jones promotes white nationalism. That isn't even a label, it's a statement of fact. FDW777 (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, not quite saying he is one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Name a non-white nationalist who promotes white nationalism to the same degree as Jones, then.
Hell, name a non-white nationalist who promotes white nationalism, period. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, not our logic, I have said it before and I will say it again. Jones is just a gobshite (or as he said, it's all just show) who will put anything on his show to generate revenues. So he hosts White supremacists, but that does not mean he is one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"Our" logic? If you manage to work through a logic that's unique to you, then I have news for you: that's not logic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, maybe OR would be better. You say he is a white nationalist because he hosts them, I say he is a shyster because he does, which is correct? That is why we go by what RS say, not what we think.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not OR, either, it's sourced fucking information.
You're arguing literal semantics here, and you're ignoring the fact that we both damn well know I added two more references to it.
Maybe you enjoy wasting time engaged in pointless arguments. Hell, in my experience with you, I'd say there's no "maybe" about it. But I've got better things to do, so go find some other racist to defend with pointless process wonkery. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It called policy, it appllies to every user here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:IAR is a fucking pillar, it applies to every editor, and it exists explicitly to stop pointless arguments like this sort of bullshit waffling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
And this is a (fucking, does that my my argument stronger) a wp:blp. RS do not call him a white suprmeacist, so we can't. We can say he provided them coverage, he gives them a mouthpiece. Not that he is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
None of the three citations you have provided are a source for the label (see below), though I don't think you actually read them. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I read them, I just did so without an eye towards defending a racist conspiracy theorist. The PBS source explicitly defines Alex's world view as WN, in the very quote you duplicated, but god forbid you read that as anything but iT dOeSn'T eXpLiCiTlY sAy He'S rAcIsT!!1! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
P.S. The journal article explicitly calls Jones a nationalist. Explicitly. But I guess honesty is a bit much to ask. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The PBS article says that a conspiratorial world view can be a gateway to, and is foundational to, white nationalism. I don't think that's a particularly heterodox viewpoint, and it doesn't mean that believing in conspiracy theories makes you a white nationalist anymore than believing in worker's rights makes you a Stalinist. The journal article does indeed call him a nationalist: a counter-hegemonic mix of conspiracy theories and populist-nationalist political views, fine to include in the article but what does this have to do the matter at hand? A "white nationalist" isn't a nationalist who is white (if it is I've got a lot of bad news for the Irish). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I have a thing, A. A has qualities x, y and z.
There exists a category of things, N'. In order to be in N', a thing must have qualities x, y and z.
Now, A, in addition to having qualities x, y and z, also puts other objects it comes into contact with into category N'.
A is not a part of N'.
Which part of that statement doesn't belong? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's much value in playing around with the kind of problems you'd get in a first year intro to logic class, but PBS was highlighting the shared quality between Jones and white nationalists of a conspiratorial worldview, not stating that Jones is a white nationalist. The logic puzzle would be asking whether ∀a[(a∈N' <==> Xa ∧ Ya ∧ Za) ==> (Xa ==> a∈N')] is true (it isn't of course), but this is very abstract and silly now. Again, that PBS piece describes Jones as a white nationalist no more than the support for workers' rights implicates Joe Biden as a Stalinist. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, yeah, when your assertions here fly in the face of first-year logic, I can certainly see why you'd have a problem with the suggestion we actually use logical thought.
Also, your argument about Biden's Stalinism kinda misses an obvious and very important feature which Jones has wrt white nationalism and Biden doesn't have wrt Stalinism: Biden's support for worker's rights is a necessary, but not sufficient quality to categorize him as a a Stalinist. Meanwhile, Jones shares all the qualities that define white supremacists, according to the PBS source.
But of course, that's more of that first-year logic you expressed an aversion to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The PBS piece said that seeing the whole world as a massive conspiracy is a foundational part of the white nationalist mindset, which allows it to serve as a gateway drug for white nationalists. If you don't have an aversion to these quizzes, I suppose I do have some time to add some extra marking onto my teaching workload: do you think this quoted line above means that a conspiratorial worldview is an: a) necessary, but not sufficient, b) sufficient, but not necessary, or c) necessary and sufficient condition for white nationalism? 2 points. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I should have known that asking you to take the context of the article into account would be too much. And the presumption that you'd recognize that a gateway drug is (surprise surprise) a drug... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Generally we'd want sources to call someone a white nationalist to be able to state they are a white nationalist. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Note this is now edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This removal was reverted by multiple editors, one of whom started this section to respond to the edit notice of the original edit warrior. You and Volteer then proceeded to continue the edit warring, in the apparent belief that simultaneous discussion here would justify it, rather than discussing until a consensus was reached before editing. Your edit warring also made it more difficult for me to continue adding sources.
FWIW, if you had made this edit right off the bat (and not self-reverted), I'd have been happy enough with that. But you haven't even mentioned that edit here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I reverted once, you reverted more than once. Ohh and I have mentioned that edit."And this is a (fucking, does that my my argument stronger) a wp:blp. RS do not call him a white suprmeacist, so we can't. We can say he provided them coverage, he gives them a mouthpiece. Not that he is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)".Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
RS do not call him a white suprmeacist, so we can't. You keep saying that, but I've got four sources that say otherwise. One says it explicitly in the headline, and then presents the case for exactly that in the body, one says he shares the ideology that defines WNs while accusing him of recruiting WNs, one calls him a nationalist explicitly and the other calls him the "entry point" for white supremacists, while also pointing out that he shares their ideology. Your insistence that the sources explicitly use the exact phrase "Alex Jones is a white nationalist" is not supported by any policy and it flies in the face of common sense. If you can't understand that those sources are all calling Jones a WN, then the failing is with your reading comprehension, not with the sources.
I don't understand what most of the rest of your comment means, because "(fucking, does that my my argument stronger)" doesn't parse.
Also, I don't know why you're insisting you mentioned an edit that would have resolved this argument when you very obviously and plainly haven't. The only link to that diff on this entire page is the one I provided in my last comment. I mean, you even self-reverted that edit, which just screams "I care more about winning an argument than improving this article!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not an edit, a solution. We say what RS say. We have (It seems to me) agreement now we can say what my edit said, even the OP seems to agree. Yet you still want to argue the toss.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
That's the most pathetic attempt at gaslighting I've ever seen. Pro-tip: if you want to gaslight someone, you've got to make sure that the projection is at least somewhat subtle, instead of just glaringly obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
What? How am I gaslighting you, you said you would have accepted my edit, what am I protecting onto you?Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Yet you still want to argue the toss. You said, as you continued to leave the edit I've explicitly endorsed twice now out of the article, in favor of arguing with me, here.
Jesus Fuck, man. Are you scared of edit warring with yourself or something? Do you need me to restore it and move the new ref over? Or do you just not like that edit of yours now that I've said I'm fine with it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
No not scarred, I just think we should be seen to obey the rules we expect others to obey. But as there are no objections it would not be edit wearing to make a consensus change.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Its been sorted people need to wp:dropthestick.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC - "white nationalist" in lead

Should Alex Jones be described as a white nationalist in the lead? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • No. We need to stick with the terms reliable sources use for Jones, and for a contentious label like this one we should stick with the terms widely used by reliable sources. "White nationalist" is not a label used by reliable sources to describe Jones, and nor is it one used by the relevant subject matter experts on these matters, the Southern Poverty Law Center[27] and the Anti-Defamation League.[28] As of writing, there are three(now four) citations in the article used to support the label:
  • The first source, Media Matters for America,[29], fails WP:HEADLINE as the term does not appear in the body of the article. Even ignoring that, per WP:RSP there is no consensus on the reliability of MMfA anyway, and as a partisan source their statements should be attributed. Even ignoring those two issues, it doesn't actually apply the label to Jones himself, but that is basically irrelevant by this point.
  • The second source, PBS[30] merely calls Jones a conspiracy theorist, and says that conspiracy theories in general are a foundation upon/gateway into the grander white nationalist mindset: The conspiratorial worldview promoted by Jones has served as a “gateway drug” and an “entry point” for the radicalization of white supremacists, Reveal reported in 2018. That’s in part because “seeing the whole world as a massive conspiracy is a foundational part of the white nationalist mindset,” Reveal’s Aaron Sankin and Will Carless wrote. It does not describe Jones as a white nationalist and is not a source for the label.
  • The third, a journal article in the International Communication Gazette[31] does not describe Jones as a white nationalist so is not a source for the label either. I don't really know why this source was even added, though I expect it wasn't actually read in the first place. It talks about white nationalism as it pertains to the alt-right and broader political movements in the US, rather than how it pertains to Alex Jones.
  • The last from revealnews.org[32] also says that Jones' brand of conspiracy peddling serves as a gateway drug for white nationalist/white supremacists. Again, it doesn't describe Jones as a white nationalist, and is not a source for that claim.
The term does not have any reliable sources supporting it, and I really have no idea why we're leaving up poorly sourced and immediately contested material in a biography of a living person, but here we are I guess. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC), Edited at 14:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What the fuck is this shit? You made two TP comments, tried to edit war and are now jumping to an RfC, instead of engaging with the fact that there's now three sources supporting the claim? WP:DISRUPT seems to apply here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think calling an RfC here was disruptive, the discussion above doesn't seem to be making much progress so additional input from other editors would be good. I also don't think my one edit in two months, when it seemed the editors preceding me had forgot about WP:HEADLINE is much of a war, but this is probably the wrong place to discuss that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Of course you don't think that. You also apparently don't think that a guy who has the same world view as white nationalists is a white nationalist, despite white nationalists being define by their world view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it's better for the project if we stick to what reliable sources say rather than our own personal opinions on things. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Then why are you ignoring what reliable sources say to push for your own personal opinion on this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
We have zero reliable sources that support the label. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
We have zero editors on this project with the username "Volteer1". Now we're both making categorically false statements. Weee!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Meta discussion
Mjolnir, please moderate your tone: opening your response to the RfC with inflammatory language like you chose to employ there is far more disruptive than an editor choosing to make use of a community process that they are encouraged to use to bring in outside perspectives when it seems two sides cannot bridge a gap in perspective and neither constitutes a clear consensus. Please try to remember the role WP:AGF is meant to play in how you respond to such an effort. This is not an area that the community has not had to address with you before... Snow let's rap 15:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that someone reading "What the fuck is this shit?" is faaar more disruptive than starting a week long process that's pretty much guaranteed to create at least a half dozen arguments and get cited in a couple of WP:AE threads in place of simply engaging in discussion.
And yes, that entire preceding sentence was entirely sarcastic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
And there's Snow Rise, always with the tone, never with the actually looking at what caused someone to use such a tone. ––FormalDude talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Attribute and quote sources at length.(Summoned by bot) Without meaning to denigrate either side, this is not complicated folks: The entire thrust of the sources in question is the deconstruction of the question of how one labels a man who denies willful association with ethno-nationalist views but clearly propagates content and conspiracy theories popular with racists. Because that is the question they are all preoccupied with, and because they don't wish to be seen as begging the question, they predictably are long on pointing out associations and short on settling on particular labels. So neither side of this debate is, as far as I have seen above, quite capturing the appropriate way forward here. Those who say we need to avoid using a label in Wikipedia's voice (that the sources do not use themselves) are technically correct, but those who point to the fact that the sources nevertheless make the association clear are also correct. However, said latter group of editors should be presenting that case by quoting from and attributing to those sources liberally--which should be permitted as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Snow let's rap 15:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    • THis was my solution [[33]]
I don't think there's a problem with saying Jones provided a platform for them (i.e. Slatersteven's suggestion), e.g. Nick Fuentes and such, or the attributed statements about his conspiracy mongering serving as a "gateway drug" to white nationalists. I think you have me a little bit confused, as you appear to agree with me; the label is just what this discussion was over. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


Why would this end up at AE?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • No - Virtually no RSs use the expression "white nationalist" to describe him. There is a lot of talk of him pandering to a certain audience that can be described as white nationalist, as well as as of the "white nationalist mindset", but he is simply not describes as such. Particularly in the case of a BLP, the two must not be conflated. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we can close this now as we seem to have arrived at a compromise once people actually started to talk to each other, rather than fighting their corner.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The current phrasing (Jones has provided a platform and support for white nationalists, as well as serving as an "entry point" to their ideology) seems OK to me. More detail would be unsuitable for that place in the article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close Nowhere close to enough discussion or consensus reaching attempts took place prior to the opening of this RfC. This does not need to be an RfC, and I doubt it will ever need to go to RfC if it is actually properly discussed per WP:RFCBEFORE. ––FormalDude talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 01:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support current (Summoned by bot) The current wording (Jones has provided a platform and support for white nationalists, as well as serving as an "entry point" to their ideology) seems to be what the sources claim and is aptly placed within the lead. Pincrete (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
(For clarity, I took off the RfC template as it seemed we came to agreement without needing to formally close it). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I came here from a 3-day old bot notification so I am behind the times. Apparently any of my comments on the issue are no longer needed. I have to work long hours to help support Mr. Bidens plan of sharing the wealth is why I was delayed.
There seems to be a trend to "go to RFC" at the drop of a hat. The above mentioned WP:RFCBEFORE is an information page and not as clear as it should be. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is the policy and clearly states: ...the final stage in content dispute resolution is a request for comments, where a discussion is advertised to uninvolved editors to receive broad input on the issue.. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2021

Change line "Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist." to "Alexander Emric Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist."

[1] Derpeii (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.infowarsstore.com/health-and-wellness/emrics-essentials

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021

Remove far-right, incorrect and inaccurate information 97.120.54.36 (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

InfoWars, is derived from conspiracy theories and fake news ???

I'm here for an RfC, but noticed "Jones' website, InfoWars, is derived from conspiracy theories and fake news". To be honest I don't know what it means, though it may be a US usage I'm unfamiliar with. The sources would seem to suggest promotes/features/produces etc instead of "is derived from". Partly my objection is the slightly pedantic notion that a website cannot be derived from the information it showcases, but mostly it is just unclear IMO. I'm reluctant to change since I don't know which verb is most apt. Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I assume it means it gets its information from proponents of conspiracy theories and fake news, but we would need to ask the person who wrote it. I think to change it to "promotes and produces".Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I changed it from

Jones' website, InfoWars, is derived from conspiracy theories and fake news, as are his other websites NewsWars and PrisonPlanet.

to

Jones' website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news, as do his other websites NewsWars and PrisonPlanet.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
As it's related but concerned other similar text in the article I applied YESPOV here: it's not allegations and accusations but highly reported facts about the website (just like we wouldn't use "claimed to promote conspiracy theories" above)... —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021 (2)

Remove where the article says he is a white nationalist, unless proof (with sources) is given to support this. I have watched hours of his podcasts in order to try to find something that would make him a white nationalist and have not found anything. ChromeDome75 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
ChromeDome75, there are at least seven sources in the article discussing this. Jones is an avid supporter of the white genocide conspiracy theory, and regularly uses white nationalist talking points, as the article describes. His segments referencing the conspiracy theory are also praised and circulated by various white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. This is all in the article. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
We all know that citing subjective opinions from sources cabals of editors have deemed acceptable is just a creative way to defame people. Encyclopædias should stick to facts, not controversial opinions. 2601:5C6:8180:BAD0:88D5:8816:3100:419 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Another source?

Is there another source for the line below:

One of the sources for it doesn't seem to be loading, and the other source provides no backup for this claim. I've found some other sources saying that Newsweek averages about 30 million page views a week, while The Economist averages about 12 million. Am I missing something? ChipotleHater (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Things broken?

@Volteer1: What was broken in some of the recent edits, in reference to your summary? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

So I use syntax highlighting, and when trying to edit the page all of the text (after a point) is highlighted in strange colours, which usually indicates something is broken, and I noticed too there was a ref error. Usually the syntax highlighting issues happen when there is e.g. a missing closing bracket somewhere, but inspecting where the text changed to the wrong colour or trying to fix the ref errors didn't come up with anything so I couldn't find why the problem was actually happening. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I also use syntax highlighting. When I scan through Alalch Emis's recent version, I don't notice any strange highlighting. At what point did it start for you? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
At publisher=[[Foundation for National Progress]], here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that has been there before my edits. Worth noting that piping in such parameters is certainly not practically optimal because it breaks syntax highlighting (which I incidentally mostly don't use). — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
With the glitch gone, I restored the note portion of my edits, as it doesn't seem to be contentious. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Things broken?

@Volteer1: What was broken in some of the recent edits, in reference to your summary? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

So I use syntax highlighting, and when trying to edit the page all of the text (after a point) is highlighted in strange colours, which usually indicates something is broken, and I noticed too there was a ref error. Usually the syntax highlighting issues happen when there is e.g. a missing closing bracket somewhere, but inspecting where the text changed to the wrong colour or trying to fix the ref errors didn't come up with anything so I couldn't find why the problem was actually happening. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I also use syntax highlighting. When I scan through Alalch Emis's recent version, I don't notice any strange highlighting. At what point did it start for you? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
At publisher=[[Foundation for National Progress]], here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that has been there before my edits. Worth noting that piping in such parameters is certainly not practically optimal because it breaks syntax highlighting (which I incidentally mostly don't use). — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
With the glitch gone, I restored the note portion of my edits, as it doesn't seem to be contentious. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral wording and editing. Biased opinion piece sources.

I have been trying to make a few wording changes to the article that seem to only express the opinions of the editors. None of the changes I have made should be controversial. However, it seems that some editors have an agenda and an obvious bias against this public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfrost66 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you check the sources to ensure that they're all opinion pieces? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The articles I removed were indeed opinion pieces. Jackfrost66 — Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Scanning very quickly, I don't see that any source you removed indicated an opinion piece — in its URL, anyway. Maybe you can point out where I got it wrong. soibangla (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Please restrict your comments here to explain and defend the specific edits in dispute and not to share your assumptions about other editors. Also, please read WP:AGF and WP:EDITWAR. General Ization Talk 02:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Please read the FAQ — Alalch Emis (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Are only left-wing information sources allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfrost66 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Opinion and biased sources are allowed here. If controversial, they should be attributed, not deleted. -- Valjean (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I assume that means I can add an entry with a Breitbart news article as a source and it won't be deleted? Jackfrost66 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Jackiefrost66
Breitbart is explicitly blacklisted. InfoWars too, IIRC. Yes, it's that bad. soibangla (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Likely not, since Breitbart has been deprecated by community consensus for publishing blatant falsehoods. You may also wish to look here for more information. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
That's sad to hear. I figured Wikipedia was just like the tech giants in controlling speech and furthering an explicitly left-wing agenda, and I guess that is true. I won't make any further edits to try and maintain neutrality. Do your thing. Jackfrost66 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
If you believe that the intent or the effect of your edits was "to try and maintain neutrality", thank you for committing to not do that anymore. General Ization Talk 03:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
...You really thought that was funny, didn't you?Jackfrost66 (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
No. My comment was rooted in Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:CIR. General Ization Talk 03:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Nah. It's just that Breitbart and InfoWars are garbage, that's all. Hope that helps. soibangla (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
And so is fucking Media Matters. Still allowed though.Jackfrost66 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
No, you must use RS, and Breitbart is so bad it's deprecated.
What you need to realize is that your edits/deletions were not based on any RS. You just deleted content you didn't like so the article would align with your opinions and beliefs. That's really wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valjean: Did you read any of my edits? I simply removed the stuff about him serving as an "entry point" to white nationalist ideology. And that is in the opening of the article, among other EXTREMELY biased nonsense meant to bash a guy the editors obviously disagree with. I added nothing biased back into the article myself. How tone-deaf are you?Jackfrost66 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes they did read it, and they have told you that we go with what wp:rs say. Your edits removed soruced content, and wp:POV pushing can be as much about removiing negative content as inserting positive content. You need to read out polices.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jackfrost66: If you are curious about what sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which lists sources and their status as reliable as not. Not every source is on there, but a lot of the big ones are, as Soibangla mentioned above Breitbart is blacklisted source and can't be cited on Wikipedia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Update on Alex Jones photo

Are there any more recent photos of Alex Jones that can replace the current one in the header? For example like the one with his wife in this link:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10344629/Alex-Jones-wife-arrested-domestic-violence-charge.html 124.197.78.74 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The only photos of a living person that can be used on Wikipedia are those that are freely licensed. We certainly cannot use a copyright restricted photo like the one you linked to. Please feel free to suggest another freely licensed photo. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Alex Jones again fails to show up for a deposition in the Sandy Hook case against him

From NPR: Infowars host Alex Jones on Thursday defied a Connecticut judge's order to show up for a deposition in Texas in a case brought by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting who sued Jones for calling the massacre a hoax 01:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:B858:3590:F10E:CA10 (talk)

Should probably be a parodies or pop-culture section

Including at least Stephen Colbert's "Tuck Buckford", also here... AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Alt right?

Alex jones doesnt fit the openly white supremacist ideology of the alt right in fact i wouldnt even consider him ”far right” in the international sense. he is an extreme american conservative clearly a part of the american ”radical right” but he doesnt have even contacts with open white supremacists but with the likes of nick fuentes who appeal to their conservative side with jones rather than of their white nationalist side they have with their audience 176.72.17.154 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, not our personal analyses EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I wouod agree, he is a con man who has found a way to fleece white supremacist's and the alt right, but (per above) wew go by what RS say, and not what I think. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
He's described as alt-right by some RS, and it certainly deserves a mention in the views section. I will say, I wish there was a better solution to the opening sentence because we say he's alt-right, far-right, and conservative all in the same sentence. This is problematic because it's not that RS unanimously see him as all those labels, his ideologies are just described differently source to source. I think it would be better to remove such labels from the first sentence and introduce them just a bit later in the lead so context can be added that the descriptions vary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
As what he says is his brand, his product, I disagree. 12:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, come on. This lying conspiracy-spreading d-bag is very clearly alt-right. He espouses alt-right ideologies and his audience is a bunch of insane alt-right conspiracy freaks.

Unfair

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Alex jones has made many claims proven to be fact and not just fake news he talked about Epstein well before that was popular and known wide seems like an unfair left wing written page on him 2601:98A:480:C050:0:0:0:8166 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

What else can you expect from Wikipedia? Par for the course. Imagine if Wikipedia focused on the deceptions peddled by their favored MSM 'reliable sources' and rightly framed them as conspiracy theorists. Where would that leave them? Of course the page is unfair. Of course the slander is laundered through news worthy 'reliable sources', like late night hosts. It is a veritable caricature of propaganda. Editors should seek to make this cartoonishly lopsided presentation even more extreme and biased. If a photo of one of the late night hosts winking into the camera is available, I suggest that it be included so readers concerned about fairness understand what a farce Wikipedia is. This is the best way to resolve this issue within the current ideological framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.20.36 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not going to remove this as a violation of wp:soap and instead respond. Fisrt off MSN is far from a favoured source (as an example, it is not used once in this article). 2, Most of the sources we use here are not "late night hosts" (Jones however is). So can you give an example of a news story Jones broke that turned out to be true? Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This is called a broken clock moment if anything. Even Hitler had em’.SinoDevonian (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Can you give some examples, that Jones was the first to break, or uncover? After all I can say that A. Joe Biden is now president and B. he is also a small pink cat. That does not mean because A is right B is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022

Change compiled to complied 73.250.122.106 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove Newsweek source for "alt right" in lede, and possibly remove the label "alt right"

Because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it's not a good source.

I don't think the other source is particularly strong either, so maybe "alt right" should be removed as a label. I don't see a whole lot of material on this page supporting the idea that he is a white nationalist, more so, that he is a conspiracy theorist. If "giving a platform to" white nationalists makes one a white nationalist, then every FAANG web platform is guilty of doing that at some point. After trump was elected, it seemed like every news channel was interviewing Richard Spencer. Does that mean they were "giving him a platform" and were consequently white nationalist? The academic source is from a seeming obscure academic journal, and the label is so contentious, it shouldn't be applied liberally. I'm not saying Jones is some sort of saint, but "conspiracy theorist" is a perfectly apt label. If you over-label people as white nationalist, the label loses its significance, and people jokingly call themselves "white nationalist" for their slightly non-mainstream views, and we forget that white nationalists are real. BungaBungaParties (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

BungaBungaParties, what was your previous account? You are clearly not new to editing Wikipedia. You may have a point about Newsweek. I will look into that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no consensus as to whether Newsweek is reliable or unreliable. This specific article was discussing the falsehoods that Jones spread about Stephen Paddock and Antifa. There is zero evidence of any such connection. So, the question is whether not "alt right" is a proper descriptor. Perhaps other editors might want to chime in. As far as I am concerned, "right wing extremist" might be a better descriptor, along with "conspiracy theorist", both of which are well supported. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

In the Sandy Hook school shooting, third paragraph down, change "committed suicide" to "died by suicide"

On March 25, 2019, Jeremy Richman, one of the plaintiffs, whose daughter Avielle was killed, committed suicide.

change to:

On March 25, 2019, Jeremy Richman, one of the plaintiffs, whose daughter Avielle was killed, died by suicide. MydogisPepper (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no project-wide consensus to remove "committed suicide" from this encyclopedia. So, how do reliable sources describe this particular death? Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I see many reliable sources using the phrase "committed suicide" in connection with this tragic death. Why should Wikipedia try to exclude this commonplace phrase? Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

this article contains way WAY too much slander against him, its no good to see just how much slander there is against this truth speaking man Deltadouchnozzle (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no slander in this article. 68.196.162.105 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Claiming Alex Jones speaks the truth does not come across as accurate in light of the developing news on August 3 that his own lawyers sent his phone/text messages and financial details to the lawyers repesenting the Sandy Hook families he in on trial for slandering. The judge's warning to Jones indicate the trial is moving from defamation to a perjury charge. Colonial Computer 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs)

Filmography is lacking his own film

He has been making conspiracy-minded films, since the late 1990s, "America Destroyed By Design Planet" was one I remember. On IMDb, there is a list https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1093953/ , IMDb is a reliable source, so why isn't there a list here? I know these films are trash, but shouldn't they be listed? --88.134.150.232 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

IMDB is not an RS (see wp:rsp). Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Alex Jones is a self-employed news entertainment host

closing as pointless Dronebogus (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This should be what he should be listed as on this page rather than conspiracy theorist.

legacy media news entertainment hosts: Sean Hannity, Don Lemon, Brian Selter, Joy Reed, Tucker Carlson Thomassowell (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
RS? Thomassowell (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
wp:rs reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Others in the industry. Got it. Thomassowell (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
And academics. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps quoted or interviewed through the industry members? I didn't see any referenced directly in the sources. 2600:6C58:6400:11A4:D0F:8E7:FCF6:4E36 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Assuing you are correct, so? if they said it they said it. If they did not you could demonstrate how they have retracted it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
SO? Context matters. 2600:6C58:6400:11A4:D0F:8E7:FCF6:4E36 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Its ca,led wp:policy, we go by what RS say, if you want to challenge any of the sofuces we use take it to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The be,st policy is to pursue truth. 2600:6C58:6400:11A4:D0F:8E7:FCF6:4E36 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Our policy is wp:v. This needs closing now as it is going nowhere. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

"Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American conservative, alt-right, and far-right radio show host and prominent conspiracy theorist."

Please delete 'an' and insert 'a disgraced'. Court judgements are a reliable source, so it's impossible to complain about. 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:B5A7:5B87:D20F:5240 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "disgraced" isn't already fully priced into that description. To add it explicitly might imply that other American conservative, alt-right, and far-right radio show hosts who are also prominent conspiracy theorists could have reputations in good standing. Seriously though, I don't think we can add that yet. There may be some reliable sources that describe his as such but we would need a broader consensus on it than that before we could say it in Wikipedia's own voice. Probably if he actually got charged and convicted of perjury (which is well within the realm of possibility given recent events) then we could say it. In the meantime we can continue to document each notable rake he steps on and our readers, who are not stupid, will be perfectly able to judge his standing from that. DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
IS he disgraced, source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki is biased and untrue

These are not truthful facts , merely disgruntled opinion-----and should not be presented as fact but opinion 107.10.203.30 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Waco

"The Waco siege at the Branch Davidian complex near Waco, Texas, had an impact on Jones." No source. 85.191.187.31 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have stopped reading at that period. The source for the entire paragraph is SPLC's profile on Jones.

Sandy Hook Trial

i believe we should make a separate article on the Sandy Hook trial thing Draft:The Alex Jones Sandy Hook Trial MrMemer223 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I would agree, we can cover it here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

September 11

It seems like some of Jones's followers have cleansed his role in starting up truther conspiracies from the wiki page. He also was producer for that movie Loose Change.

Here are some photos of Jones leading 9/11 truth protests. Can a photo be added to the wiki page?

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/alex-jones-is-about-to-explode/ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.136.42 (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

UNsure what it will add. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
It would be a copyright violation. --Nowa (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Jones sending nude photo of his wife

This sentence in the personal life section, Jones sent a nude photograph of Wulff Jones to Roger Stone without her consent or knowledge., should not be included. (1) It's marginally relevant to Jone's personal life, (2) It's notably embarrassing to Wulff Jones who is not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE or even notable for her own article. Also she's the alleged victim of this and it could be damaging to her emotional health and reputation. This is just unethical victim outing. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 20:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against including it but its a bit weird that it is placed where it is. Maybe it should be moved into another section covering Jones' conduct and maybe her name should be left out of it. We can just say "his wife". This is about his behaviour and not her specifically. I mean, I'm pretty sure he'd have done the same thing to anybody else in the same situation because that is who he is. DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand why WP would have any effect on Wuff, who already knows about this. Seems OK to include. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
That seems like it is purposely included to have material that would make one think lowly of Jones, which honestly seems petty and pointless given the rest of the article. Unless his wife claimed some damages here I would exclude this as lacking weight to include in his biography unless his wife seeks damages or something along those lines. nableezy - 02:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I would agree, its a shot thing to do and sums up the kind of person he is, but really adds nothing to our article. As we already easily demonstrate the kind of person he is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
If this were some saucy tidbit from a tabloid and those involved were remaining tight-lipped about it, then maybe. But reading the sources makes it clear that is not the case. The lawyer mentioned that there were some intimate messages included in the phone records, but it was Alex Jones himself who spilled the beans that it was a nude photo of his wife, and not in an overheard aside, but in a ranting broadcast on his show to the world at large.
And his wife was a grown-up woman when she made the decision to marry Alex Jones, who is hardly reticent about the sort of person he is, and further made the decision to discuss the photograph with the media – not to ask that her privacy be respected, but to say that although she is upset with what he did, "that’s really the least of my problems right now.”
And this isn't about making "one think lowly of Jones" or to "demonstrate the kind of person he is", that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We are here to record what reliable sources – The Guardian, Insider, The Young Turks – say about the subject, as well as what Jones and his wife say. As to due weight, I do not believe that we would be having this discussion if reliable sources revealed that Jimmy Fallon had sent nudes of Nancy to Chevy Chase, then ranted about it on The Tonight Show while she gave her views to another outlet.
I'm a defender of privacy and due weight on Wikipedia, regularly removing salacious gossip and the names of non-notable minors for instance. But on this occasion the incident is relevant to both the article subject and tangentially the Sandy Hook trial, it has been voluntarily spoken about publicly by both perpetrator and victim, and pearl-clutching over it is misplaced. Captainllama (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Lacks weight, in the universe of sources about Jones how many of them even mention this? And maybe chill on the pearl-clutching bs too? And the absurd hypotheticals. You arent talking to Jones fanboys here, so kindly cut that crap. nableezy - 13:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Fake News the same thing as Far Right?

The article and the talk page cant seem to distinguish between the two. I think that the points should be labeled correctly. An example is the FAQ section above, which asks the question "Why is Alex Jones listed as a conspiracy theorist or producer of fake news?" and proceeds to answer with a because it is far right. Does this mean all far right opinions are fake news? Conversely does it mean all fake news is a far right opinion?

The article equating all far right opinions with fake news has the potential effect of readers immediately forming an opinion that the article itself is not legitimate and is politically biased. While it is easy to see how a lot of far right opinions can be considered biased and incorrect information, it does not immediately apply the label of Fake News which itself is a loaded and controversial label which has gained popularity in the recent years.

Fake News can not distinguish between satire article, jokes, incorrect information, memes and even disinformation. Adding another category of far right opinions to an already vague term will just cause confusion. 197.249.251.11 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not wish to edit the article without an editorial consent of some sort, perhaps writing this on the talk page is also incorrect, but i think this is a point that needs to be addressed in order to improve the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.249.251.11 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 197.249.251.11 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Sid

wp:rs say he is both, not that both are the same. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
yes, but there should be a distinction. The article is not clear on that. Sid raptor (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Were do we conflate the two? Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
seperate the terms. Say it is a far right website known for publishing fake news Sid raptor (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
were do we have them together? Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The FAQ section on this very talk page for one. The first question is Why is Alex Jones listed as a conspiracy theorist or producer of fake news?, which is answered by wp:rs stating Infowars is far right. the general tone of the article leans in that direction as well. Sid raptor (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
A better way of stating would be : Infowars is a Far Right, conspiracy theory website. The website is known for publishing fake news. Sid raptor (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
So you want the FAQ reworded? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
FAQ and the section of Infowars in the main article Sid raptor (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Where do wee conflate far right and fake news, provide the passage in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am not questioning the content, just the presentation Sid raptor (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
currently reads: Jones is the publisher and director of the InfoWars fake news website responsible for promoting conspiracy theories.
Better Option:
Jones is the Publisher and director of Infowars, a Far Right leaning conspiracy theory website that has been a known publisher of fake news or content of questionable legitimacy. Sid raptor (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The fake news label is another can of worms though. Without any WP:RS provided. if there is a proven fake news article, should it not be linked along with a wp:rs confirming it as such? Unfortunately conspiracy theories both left and right are by nature difficult to prove. Once proven or disproven, it no longer remains a theory. Sid raptor (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Although, I suppose we don't need a wp:rs to state that water makes things wet do we? Sid raptor (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done. It's true that participation in far-right politics does not necessarily involve the publication of fake news. I've revised the FAQ question to read "Why is Alex Jones described as a far-right conspiracy theorist?" in Special:Diff/1106698080. — Newslinger talk 00:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

alt/far

Alt-right is a far-right movement, isnt that a bit redundant to include both (one after the other)? Our alt-right article says A far-right movement, it rejects mainstream political ideologies such as conservatism and liberalism. nableezy - 00:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Or, if we need to include all the options, say described variously as alt-right, far-right, or conservative? nableezy - 00:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of far right in favour of alt right. The preponderance of sources label Alex Jones far right, while only a handful label him alt right. Wikipedia should reflect what the majority of sources say. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Its discussed by more people down below, and alt-right is a subset of far-right. Im unaware of any sources that dispute Jones being alt-right. nableezy - 23:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Alex Jones was active on the far-right long before the term "alt-right" was even invented. Discounting Newsweek, which since their purchase in 2013 is an unreliable source, that leaves a single academic source that describes Jones as "alt-right". Is that really due in comparison to the dozens, perhaps hundreds of sources that call him "far right"? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
It should include both Andre🚐 01:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Having actually read the scholarly source open access. It doesn't even call him alt right either. It actually states that members of the alt-right are parts of his fanbase, and that Alex Jones spreads alt-right political messages, but nowhere in the paper is Alex Jones explicitly identified as "Alt-right". It also apparently states that "Ben Shapiro" is alt-right:

Not curbed by corporate interests, a wide range of personalities use digital platforms to address large audiences with opinions from across the political spectrum, including the left leaning humorous podcasts of Chapo Trap House; blogger, atheist public intellectual and one of the ‘Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse’ Sam Harris; YouTube Professor Jordan Peterson, a Christian traditionalist and critic of authoritarianist political correctness and Alt Right, former Breitbart editor, neo-liberal podcaster Ben Shapiro, amongst others.

Which is not something I think most sources agree with. I'm removing the claim within 24 hours if nobody can find better sourcing for this claim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Indeed The Economist magazine was forced to apologise for calling him "alt-right" [34]. @Newslinger: do you have any opinion on this source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
"Of lizards and ideological entrepreneurs" establishes that "Jones incorporated a mix of Internet and, later, social media platforms into his strategy to sell conspiracy and Alt Right messages to ever wider audiences", which supports the claim that Jones is a figure in the alt-right movement. But, I agree that we need sources that explicitly describe Jones as alt-right for Wikipedia to do the same. — Newslinger talk 12:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"Conservative" is redundant and "Alt-Right" doesn't make sense

The "conservative" label doesn't make sense. If Alex Jones is on the radical right, then this would, by definition, include all the less radical aspects of the label, thus redeeming it redundant. This in the same way one would not call a Marxist-Leninist a communist and center-Left. He should just be called "far-right". Also, I do not believe he is part of the alt-right. All people on the alt-right are far-right, but not all individuals on the far-right are alt-right. The alt-right is a subgroup of far-right individuals who originated from of a broad online movement in the early to mid 2010s, and I do not think Alex Jones is a part of this movement. And he also does not appear to be a white supremacist, which nearly all alt-right individuals are. Neophilosophy121 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, there is only one source for the term conservative, whereas there are multiple sources for far-right. Should he be labeled conservative simply because of one source? Neophilosophy121 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
See above #alt/far nableezy - 19:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the conservative descriptor is redundant in the lead sentence, since the branch of far-right politics in the United States that encompasses Jones (the radical right) is a subset of conservatism in the United States. As the far-right descriptor is amply sourced, the lead sentence should only use the more precise descriptor. I've removed conservative from the lead sentence in Special:Diff/1106697198.
The alt-right is a subset of the far-right, but I'll need to do a more thorough source review before forming an opinion on whether one of these descriptors should be removed. — Newslinger talk 00:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that not all readers are American. "alt-right" might not be as readily understood as far-right to readers in some countries. I think it makes sense to include both. One for specificity and one for broader understanding. DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If we're only using one it should be the most specific, which is alt-right. I restored alt-right while removing far-right. nableezy - 16:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We should include all of the above. Andre🚐 01:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Intro needs to include the court results vis a vis his harm to the Sandyhook families

The intro seems to be dated in not including the results of the Sandyhook defamation trials. 67.220.13.96 (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

I want to fix some mistakes you put in the article Captain Pingu (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Specify what things you wanna change. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023

Alex jones is not far right, he is a libertarian. 2600:1700:E370:940:E4FF:8663:934F:150E (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to bring sources to the table. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: See the FAQ near the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
This article already mentions that Alex Jones is alt-right, which refers to a subset of the far right that tends to lean right-libertarian. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Fake news"

The phrase "fake news" is used in the introductory section.

That phrase, devoid of its history, is an entirely accurate description of what is intended.

Unfortunately, because of its recent history as an epithet for entirely unfake news, it has acquired meanings that undoubtedly make it confusing for many people to read.

I strongly suggest replacing it with a non-idiomatic phrase (like, say, "false news", or "untrue news that has been fabricated"), in order to avoid this problem. 71.24.152.113 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be removed all together, and instead just state that Alex Jones is not a credible source of information. And the Majority of stories that he covers are either exaggerations, hyperbole or out right falsehoods.And that he uses his "persona" to get views. Not to mention he was extremely critical of just about everyone in government before Trump jumped on the scene in 2015, where he conveniently decided to hitch on too the Trump bandwagon, which the article mentions.
68.189.2.14 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the language that the preponderance of reliable sources use to describe the topic. And reliable sources overwhelmingly describe the main product that Alex Jones has sold over the years as "fake news". So too shall Wikipedia. If disinformation operatives are fighting to redefine the term, so what? That is what professional liars do. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Per above we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible X reinstatement

Thought I'd check on whether my recent edit [35] on Jones' possible X reinstatement announcement makes the article worse as per WP:DOREVERT or whether this is a case of WP:BADREVERT? Personally I think such an announcement is a relevant development to his bans/suspensions, that may or may not receive a further update in the near future, but otherwise would pass the test of time. If there are further updates, then obviously the line can be modified or removed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, this is just musk saying he might do it, not that he will. When he does we can say so. If musk does not reinstate him what relevance does this even have? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Good question. I've added a [needs update] after However Musk denied that Alex Jones will be unbanned criticizing Jones as a person that "would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame" to clarify the relevance here, as is now outdated, as per edit ref. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
How is that outdated, until he is reinstated it remains true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
We document what happens or is planned to happen, not what could happen. And Musk changes his mind with the wind. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
And Musk changes his mind with the wind. Agreed. So I'm not sure why However Musk denied that Alex Jones will be unbanned is still in there. It's outdated at best, misleading at worst, based on Musk now considering reinstatement. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, he definitively said no a year ago and that has held. Now he may very well change his mind about anything. But I don't think his musings on X about future possible changes are enough to change the current text and the current text is not incorrect. If he changes his mind, we will change the text. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion has become redundant, in 12 hours there will no doubt be a more significant update covered by RS. [36] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Can't believe you had me read that sick thread. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I didn't have you read that thread? I was only referencing the post. You chose to read the thread, that's a conscious choice, an obvious mistake. Thought you would have known better than to read the thread, I was obviously mistaken. Either way I apologise, in hindsight, I was assuming too much WP:COMPETENCE when I clearly shouldn't be assuming it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
1. I always look for the context. 2. I suggest you strike your snarky personal attack. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
How is Can't believe you had me read that sick thread not WP:PA here? You're either trying to gaslight me into thinking I'm responsible for what you read (I'm not), and/or there is a competence issue here based on ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Look for context sure, but reading the comments?! CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm not trying to gaslight anyone and I'm pretty sure I'm not incompetent. How can I look for the context without reading the context? Stop digging. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
HAs any announcement been made yet? If not can we close this (and people ned to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-poll-shows-x-users-want-us-conspiracy-theorist-jones-account-back-2023-12-10/ I think we an now add "but he has now been reinstated". Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Now we can say he reversed himself. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I like "reversed himself". I am totally going to use that as an obscene euphemism at some point in the future. ;-) Seriously though, I see that it has been updated now and the wording looks OK to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
"reversed himself" I hate when I do that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

Under the first sentence for the section called "Early Life and Influences", "od" should be "of". "Jones was born on February 11, 1974, in Dallas, Texas, and was raised in Rockwall, 25 miles east od Dallas." Please change "east od Dallas" to "east of Dallas. 66.44.244.32 (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Jones/Archive_17&oldid=1194928561"