Talk:Alex Jones

"Fake news website"?

What manner of business does Wikipedia have in asserting an opinionated statement in the opening paragraph? You don't see the articles on Hitler saying "he is reported to be a bad guy" with 15 different citations, or Bush saying "is considered one of the worst presidents in history". This is clearly intentional and designed distort the rest of the article to the author of this claim's perspective. Allow the merits of what this man does to stand on its own. --Lunatic, Esquire (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, as you pointed out yourself, there are 15 reliable sources calling Infowars a fake news site. So find 15 reliable sources saying it's not a fake news site, and we have something to discuss. Oh, and cross your fingers that no other editors find even more RSes claiming it's a fake news site, because I guarantee you that there are dozens more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, we have had to do this because (as with the above thread about Jones not being far right) someone will fetch up and go "But you only have 2 RS saying this". So we end up with a long list of RS saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You two clowns are doing a great job making sure that nobody with half-a-brain believes anything on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work!!! 50.4.213.130 (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a PA, please strike it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that this claim is based on there being reliable sources describing info wars as such, but it doesn't strike me as right. If you actually follow the link for "fakes news websites", it describes them as "Internet websites that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news". Perhaps I'm taking "deliberately" too narrowly, but doesn't that imply an awareness that Alex Jones doesn't have? I don't think he's trying to mislead anyone. Infowars publishes news that is false, but I think Alex Jones believes it.

Then again, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia places reliable sources above internal consistency. WilliamLehnsherr (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Shame then about what his lawyer said in the court case about it being an act.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a little ridiculous to pretend lawyers not wanting a shock jock's radio show to be admitted as evidence in a custody trial = "fake news website".72.80.143.187 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamLehnsherr:Erm didn't Jones' own lawyer admit that "He’s playing a character" and "He is a performance artist"?123 Bennv3771 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. I always figured he was exaggerating or playing up some of his views, but I never thought he wasn't a genuine conspiracy theorist. He may not act or talk in real life the way he does on his show, but I doubt he's playing a character the way, say, Stephen Colbert did. WilliamLehnsherr (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. I'll rather trust what the reliable sources and Jones' own lawyer say than a random person on the internet. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If he plays up some of his views (I.E. exaggerates) then he is knowingly being untruthful.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Jones presented the argument his bombastic character on the program was an act because he was in a custody battle. It was a credible legal defense to help him retain rights to his children. This can be presented in the article but to sum up his message as being entirely fictitious and knowingly so is disingenuous.

It is obvious to me the powers that be wish to maintain a certain visage with this article and my input is not appreciated. I will not press the matter. -- Lunatic, Esquire (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually he did not, his lawyers did (he then contradicted them). It was another users who suggested he played a character. Either way his legal team said it was an act. If this was a lie to win a custody battle that means...he lies in order the create an impression. Also no one said we can use this in the article to prove he is a liar. What we have said is that RS say infowars is fake new, so do we. Appeals to Jones's integrity however fall due to the fact he is a proven liar.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that's a lie. Alex Jones is basically a pundit. All pundits are "actors" in a sense. The idea that you can take someone's punditry and use it as a character smear in a court case is obviously, palpably absurd and this motive adequately explains the lawyer's actions and statements + is backed up by the RS's. 72.80.143.187 (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

HIS lawyers swear trying to smear him?Slatersteven (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Add in label of "anti semite" to Alex Jones?

Alex Jones recently claimed that Charlottesville protesters were really “just Jewish actors”, I was wondering whether new label of anti semite should be added into the article heading to describe Alex Jones.

Alex Jones: Charlottesville protesters are really “just Jewish actors” http://www.salon.com/2017/08/14/alex-jones-charlottesville-protesters-are-really-just-jewish-actors/ 175.156.2.214 (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

WE are disusing this above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not even remotely quoted in context. He was referring to actual plants or hoaxes committed by Jewish people, such as the recent JCC bomb threats where the suspect turned out to be a Jew.72.80.143.187 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake News?

The opening paragraph contains a statement with sources that Info Wars is a "fake news site". However, CNN and Buzzfeed are two other news sources that have been caught (with undoubtable evidence) creating fake stories and news scenarios, yet their articles and their reporters articles do not state in such a bold manner that they are "fake news sources". This makes wikipedia look biased. Shouldn't this be altered? Smcc1112 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources called CNN and Buzzfeed "fake news" as a defining trait, you could, hypothetically, propose that be added to those articles. Those sources, as far as I know, do not exist, while they do for InfoWars. Wikipedia covers things in proportion to WP:DUE, not through balance (which inevitably degrades into false balance). In this regard, Wikipedia definitely has a bias towards mainstream scholarship. I don't really see the problem with that, but regardless, this talk page isn't the place to challenge it. Grayfell (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough point, although there is evidence of both CNN and Buzzfeed faking news. Smcc1112 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No. There's a world of difference between a major industry player like CNN publishing a story with falsehoods in it (and then issuing a retraction) once in a blue moon and a minor website run by a noted conspiracy theorists that regularly publishes almost entirely fictional stories on an daily basis and repeatedly doubling down on it when called out. This is an extraordinarily uninformed comparison. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There is evidence of them faking news. CNN has been caught staging what they attempted to report on and Buzzfeed has so many news articles that defy basic science you could easily describe them the way you have described Info Wars, as the ratio of real to fake news they publish is so overwhelmingly weighted towards fake I don't even need to provide examples, as a simple glance at a majority of their top articles does more damage to their credibility than I ever could. It's quite obvious who truly is uninformed here, CNN could be argued as reliable, sure, but for Buzzfeed to be listed as reliable is laughable at best. I stand by my original proposal to remove the "fake news" remark from the opening paragraph. Wikipedia can not call itself an educational website with such blatant bias and lack of attention to detail displayed in a situation where Buzzfeed is considered more reliable than Info Wars, when both sites are equally "fake" and report from behind the most extreme values of the left and right political wings respectively. Smcc1112 (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, if reliable sources call either of these fake news as a defining characteristic, bring them forth. A pearl-clutching article in a tabloid about a single overblown incident doesn't cut it. WP:RS calls for "a reputation for accuracy and fact checking". Daily Mail doesn't have that reputation.

Oh, and yes, Buzzfeed publishes a lot of pure garbage, but they also differentiate between journalism (for which they have a good reputation) and entertainment content (or clicklbait, which is indeed unreliable). This is something that InfoWars doesn't, while Daily Mail merely does poorly. In this regard, Buzzfeed News is dramatically more reliable as an outlet than either. Grayfell (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. Personally I still don't agree that the "fake news" statement should be there but I understand you and the sites position on it. Thanks for your time. Smcc1112 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to create a drinking game where I take a shot every time some IP, new user, or account who has less than 50 edits despite being registered for more than 5 years accuses WP of having a "[adjective] bias" based on some extraordinarily uninformed claims and even more extraordinarily poor logic. I'm going to get SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO drunk... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Might I just add, MPants, that your maturity level is astoundingly high. You really are making this site a better place with that attitude, and acting like this will definitely attract new contributors. :) Smcc1112 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm mature enough to see through the bullshit in "CNN is fake news!!1!1" ;) But seriously; if you can't even be bothered to acknowledge where I and Greyfell have pointed out a number of fatal flaws in your argument, you really don't have any business here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's like they're reading from a script. First accuse Wikipedia of bias. Then complain about what reliable sources say. Then try to pretend that an established source is really just as bad as some shitty ass garbage source. Then pontificate about how Wikipedia has gone down hill and how by not letting them stock the article full of their bullshit the editors here are "driving away contributors". Every. Single. Of. These. Accounts. Does that. And yes, it's always "IP, new user, or account who has less than 50 edits despite being registered for more than 5 years". Volunteer Marek  15:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You forgot "and finally start attacking those who disagree with them". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

Add descriptor "political commentator" ahead of "radio host" and potential change page name as such. DanKasich (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please get consensus before asking to change the lead. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones Political Party

I removed republican from Alex Jones political party. I put libertarian and got several reverts on it and was going to push to have a dispute resolution. However, after reviewing archived discussions, it had been agreed to with review from 'admins' that Alex Jones's Political party can't be decided. As he has political document showing different parties by different legitimate sources including records for past times he ran for office. After reviewing this information from the archives I decided to go with their original decision to leave it out and note it here. Contentcreator (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What "review from 'admins'", can you link to the discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Russia

I removed the description of being an alleged pro-Russia propagandist from the lead. It was cited from Accuracy in Media, which as you can read is basically a carbon copy of Infowars itself: anti-UN, climate change denialist and believing in a liberal conspiracy. You shouldn't include the allegations of a group like this in any biography of a living person. I have no qualms for allegations of being a propagandist being re-inserted if the sources are stronger Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants do you even know who AIM are when you reverted me? They more frequently make these allegations against liberals, who they believe control the media. If someone put one of their allegations on an article about a liberal, you would, like your profile says, rightly call them a POV pushing charlatan. Why is it acceptable here? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Read the article on them, look at their website. Maybe you had a case of mistaken identity but if you still think they're reliable or non partisan I will be amazed Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

[1] it's an organisation which thinks Fox News swung to the left because they aired a piece reiterating the scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made. So was my edit summary correct or incorrect? You can't just answer like a six year old and say "no it's not" Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

if you revert me again I will go to ANI because it's very troubling that an experienced user does this Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether Fox thinks them left wing is irrelevant. As to Accuracy in Media has this source been disused at RSN?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, they've never been discussed at RSN because Anarcho is the first editor to ever question their reliability, as far as I can tell. And you can run off to ANI if you want. Here's a link: WP:ANI. Please do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)