Talk:Alex Jones

Obama the demon

It is hard to see how Obama making a joke about not being a demon is being "FORCED TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST ALLEGATIONS."Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Where did it say "forced"? It's reasonably notable (especially when New York Times cover it) when the 44th President of the U.S. defends himself in public and the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton specifically naming Jones. It's a logical expansion on what's already written (one line) about his "consistent" criticism of Obama and Clinton. What's the issue here? Mdmadden (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No it is not, Obama mentions many attacks in his time, want a list? This was not and is not a serious defense against an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, let's change the text from "defending an allegation" etc., make it read less legalise; "came out and critized.. etc." I'll go find several other sources on top of New York Times now. After all, mainstream sources wouldn't cover it unless it was notable, would they? Mdmadden (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is called a silly season story. This was not a serious comment by Obama, and treating it as if it was is just...well I think I will leave it at that. Is there any evidence that Obama has treated criticisms by Jones any more seriously then from any other pundit?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

At best we could say that Obama has responded to the claim he is a demon (do you really want to include that claim?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I know what the word "notable" means here, but it doesn't seem to mean what we mean by WP:NOTABILITY, it wouldn't qualify for an article of its own. Mainstream sources often mention trivia. That was just a funny story - why should we include it? Doug Weller talk 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Ping failed, try again. @Mdmadden:. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps not worth the addition. Cheers. Mdmadden (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017

I believe that it should be changed in the introduction that, "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website" as this website is supposed to be objective, I believe it should be change to, "Main stream media accuse it of being fake news." This would make it more objective and remove some bias from this page. Thanks for your consideration. Cchap88 (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We are already discussing this above. Please can we at least only have this raised one at a time?Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new here. :)Cchap88 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As stated, this is already being discussed above. TheValeyard (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We need to update the "Television shows and interviews" tab.

Hi, the world wide web. I suggest that we should update this tab about his appearances on TV as it's incomplete. I've found two sources already of one new TV appearance, Megyn-Kelly-Alex-Jones-Cage-Match and Megyn Kelly's Alex Jones interview got lots of attention, but not many viewers. I'd like to hear everybody's thoughts on this. By the way I am new to Wikipedia. Cchap88 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not list all his TV appearances only the ones that have attracted attention for being more then just an interview.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but how do you describe enough 'attracted attention,' the second source I linked says, "Kelly's sit down with Jones, a controversial, conspiracy theorist radio host and founder of the website Infowars, brought in an average of 3.5 million viewers Sunday night." Is that enough? Thanks.Cchap88 (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not to my mind, there has to be content that RS have commented on, rather then just a "Jones was interviewed" type comments.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding description of Infowars.com

Should the sentence at the end of the first paragraph be (A) "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website" or (B) "His website, Infowars.com, has been described as a conspiracy and fake news website" -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey - A or B followed by your reasoning

• A of those two options. To present this as a "description" is filler which provides absolutely no usable information about the site that isn't also conveyed by simpler language. If reliable sources describe it that way, so should we. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• B I'd personally just put the phrase "described as" in, because for the 1kb of extra data it's going to stop the endless IP address edits and acrimony from the community, whilst still accurately summarising the view of some RS sources. In what is a very modern phenomena ("fake news") it's not as though it's a scientific term, it's a subjective description with no ultimate arbiter. Thanks Mdmadden (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• A Alex Jones, via Infowars, is literally a purveyor of fake news....Pizzagate, the Chobani yogurt mess, "weather weapons", the list goes on and on and on of veritably false reporting. The deliberate dissemination of falsehoods has been extensively covered by reliable sources, there is no need to couch it in terms of "sources say". TheValeyard (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• A Writing that his website is widely regarded as a conspiracy and false news website is nothing else than stating a well known fact that has been explained again and again by reliable sources. --Lebob (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• A Call a spade a spade. Infowars is verifiably a conspiracy and fake news site, and the "described as" language is weasely. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• A per WP:DUE and WP:WEASEL. It is certainly a conspiracy website as described nearly universally by RS. It is a purveyor of fake news as described by RS as well. We do not need to attribute these descriptions because rejection of them is a fringe position. To accurately and neutrally reflect reliable sources, we should state these descriptions without qualification lest we try to instill doubt into the readers minds (again, WP:WEASEL). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• A. Although I could live with B, I think A is the better choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• A per EvergreenFir's comment regarding attribution. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Neither A sounds judgmental while B is prevaricative. Why not just say it is a website that publishes fake news stories and promotes conspiracy theories? TFD (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because doing as you suggest would be editorially skirting accountability/responsibility. The fact of the matter is that it is his website and should be described as such. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, then: "He publishes a website, Infowars.com, that publishes fake news stories and promotes conspiracy theories." This is not rocket science.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Publishes ... publishes" is bad writing and unnecessary, but I would support: "His website, Infowars.com, publishes fake news and promotes conspiracy theories." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Use the rewording proposed by The Four Dunces, as modified by later comment, above. It's as inappropriate for WP to engage in PoV finger-pointing labels as it is to weasel (actually, more so, since weaseling is just imprecise an easily fixable with attribution, while the former violates a core content policy). PS: If version A is used (in which case I'll lodge a WP:NPOVN thread about it), hyphenate "fake-news site" per MOS:HYPHEN and basic English grammar. It's a site of fake news, not a news site that doesn't exist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• A (Summoned by bot) Agree with Evergreen fir on weasel wording of B. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• A If a reliable source says something, we don't couch it in language like "reliable sources say the sky is blue." The way to go with reliable sources is to say "the sky is blue" and source it. If reliable sourcing isn't enough to get something said in Wikipedia's voice, literally everything remotely controversial would have to have the overtly cautious rhetoric. So it's a simple yes-or-no question. Is Infowars a conspiracy and fake news website? Reliable sources say so. Say the sky is blue accordingly. CityOfSilver 15:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• B This section needs to be reworded because its subjective to an individual whether something is 'fake news.' Alex Jones calls the mainstream media 'fake news' and they call him 'fake news.' Clearly only one can be right. On the off chance that Infowars isn't fake news, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and only write that they are 'described' as 'fake news.' Thanks for reading. Cchap88 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)— Cchap88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's not really how it works. Sources that have a long reputation for editorial control, fact-checking, and accuracy in reporting pass the Wikipedia's policy on using reliable sources. Infowars, which has published veritably, intentionally false tales, does not. We should and do err on the side of the sources with a reputation for honesty, not hold out hope that the someday maybe kinda Infowars could possibly be telling the truth. They don't. TheValeyard (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point TheValeyary. I still think B though. On an unrelated topic, are we allowed to use sources from Infowars.com? Cchap88 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)— Cchap88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not allowed to use them as they don't meet WP:RS. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• A - per all the above. And ... didn't we just do this?  Volunteer Marek  02:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• B, if forced to choose. I oppose the line even appearing in the first paragraph. “Fake news website” is an imprecise and subjective description. Is a “fake news website” one that engages in deliberate promotion of spurious information? Is it a site that puts out speculation that some consider outlandish? Is it simply having an unpopular opinion? Exactly how much of a site’s information has to be “fake” before it is considered a “fake news website”? I’m sure there are plenty of RS articles saying something to the effect of “Elvis Presley was a great singer,” but we don’t get to use that wording in his article just because a bunch of RS articles say so. The same applies here. Discretion is a necessity. It may also be of value to give a summation of what the sources say after using “described.” Some of the sources we’re presently using don’t actually go into much detail. One cites an appearance on an “avoid these fake news sites" kind of list created by a professor that has since been taken down, due to criticism. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• B, I think. As pointed out in a recent edit summary, this designation stating InfoWars as a fake news website is not endorsed and wasn't created by any government or official. Yes, it has in the past spun conspiratorial information in the past, but remember all the cases of inaccuracies in major networks such as CNN. To say outright that InfoWars is a fake news website, I would argue, definitely compromises Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• A per WP:SKYBLUE, WP:V and the third bullet of WP:YESPOV. It is a well-documented, easily verifiable and seriously uncontested fact that InfoWars is a fake news and conspiracy theory website. The arguments about WP:NPOV simply ignore the top section which explains what the neutral point of view is. I've seen several editors cite WP:NPOV in their support of option B, but not one of them has given an actual policy based reason based on WP:NPOV, instead merely citing it as if it were some sort of loophole that can be appealed to anytime they perceive an article as being unfair. Well, WP:NPOV doesn't require fairness, and in fact, explicitly denounces it with respect to articles like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• A - accurately summarizes the sources. Neutrality^talk 06:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• A Per sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• C Neither. If — according to Wikipedia itself! — conspiracy theory is a derogatory term, let alone fake news, saying that someone is a conspiracy theorist is tantamount to calling him crazy. And saying he's a producer/distributor of fake news is a libellous accusation. It's an epithet, not a descriptor. Libel, even! Worse, because mental disorder may be objectively diagnosed. It's like saying someone is ugly. And then go about collecting "reliable sources" that list them as ugly. Ridiculous. In fact, it's pretty obvious this little survey is meant to give an illusion of choice and debate between two equivalent "alternatives". — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Fortunately for us, it is the reliable sources, many of them, that use the term conspiracy theory and call him a conspiracy theorist. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, @Niteshift36:, seems very convenient. However, the Wikipedia policy is to consider large corporate mainstream media conglomerates as reliable only for statements of FACTS, not opinion. A derogatory term is by definition a statement of opinion, not fact. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Um, no. That's not Wikipedia policy. Further, it is your opinion that "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term. So what we have is your opinion that someone else is giving an opinion. BTW, your budget dictionary may have only a single definition. My Webster has 2. This would be the second one: "detracting from the character or standing of something". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Further, it is your opinion that "conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term.

Nope, as I said, it's Wikipedia's own description: The term is a derogatory one. (conspiracy theory) — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• First off, sign your replies, especially when inserting them in front of another editors response. Second, there's your problem..... you're using a Wikipedia article to define a word. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, thus, not relevant to this discussion in terms of how a term is defined. So, to recap: 1) Sign your responses and 2) Learn what a reliable source is or is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• 1) Done (don't be petty). 2) Learn what a reliable source is or is not. WP:NEWSORG clearly states:
  News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. … Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
  – Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• AFAIK, there is no mention of large corporate mainstream media conglomerates in WP guidelines. Arguments like this do not convince. O3000 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• News organizations, same thing. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Being derogatory doesn't make it untrue or even subjective. "Child molester" is a derogatory term, but that doesn't make the subway guy innocent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it does! How about opening the dictionary before wasting your time?

• derogatory
  from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
  adj. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
  adj. Tending to detract or diminish.

And 'child molester' is an actual criminal offence; conspiracy theorist isn't. It's just a slur. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If a factual statement tends to detract or diminish, that doesn't make it less factual. Conspiracy theories objectively exist, and Jones is a conspiracy theorist. Fake news objectively exists, and Infowars publishes fake news. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There was so much fail in that response that if you saved it as a text file and changed the extension to .jpeg it would produce this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy.

What's warranted and what's unwarranted? Subjective. Opinion, not fact. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That is why we follow the sources and not insert our own opinion. Sources say fake news, the Wikipedia article says fake news. Easy peasy. TheValeyard (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong. WP:NEWSORG clearly states:

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. … Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

— Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake this is third grade semantics, do you really need an explanation?! Fuck it; "Warranted" would mean "there are compelling reasons to believe it" and "Unwarranted" would mean the opposite. It's called context, for crying out loud and if you can't comprehend context, you have no business editing here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"there are compelling reasons to believe it" → opinion, not fact. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I was willing to explain third-grade semantics to you; I'm not willing to explain epistemology 101 to you. We're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You're in breach: WP:UNCIVIL. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• And if you take it to ANI, I'll be there to support the defense that your rampant WP:IDHT was the direct cause of a momentary, completely understandable, burst of frustration. Please troll elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• your rampant WP:IDHT → I can say the same about you or anyone else arguing the counterpoint, @Niteshift36:. In fact, I will. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for 1) Signing your response and 2) contributing some fan fiction to the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2) You're also in breach of WP:UNCIVIL, @Niteshift36:. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity Wisdomtooth32, take a look at my original word change and let me know what you think. It was something to the effect of "has been described by critics as a fake news and conspiracy website." Notice the "by critics" addition, I think that puts it more in the realm of opinion and not fact. You made an interesting point about "conspiracy" being an insult, which is basically what I have repeatedly argued "fake news website" is, an imprecise insult used by both sides of the political spectrum. I am also against 'A' and feel 'B' is better, but hardly ideal. Most of my previous discussion of these issues has been placed in Archive 12. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with your proposal, @Tidewater 2014:. And the same should be applied consistently to all Wikipedia articles. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we take it easy on Wisdomtooth32. They are entitled to their views, just as Mr. Jones is entitled to his. No one is going to convince Mr. Jones to stop running his show. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• A per WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV's avoid stating facts as opinions. Assertions that some editors might find controversial can (and, often, must) be stated as fact in the article voice when there is essentially unanimous agreement among reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• A, among those two. The site does have some content other fake news and promotion of conspiracy theories. It also attacks Wikipedia editors who try to maintain neutral characterizations of Jones as described in reliable sources. I do think it would be better to say infowars publishes fake news and promotes conspiracy theories, than infowars is a fake news and conspiracy theory web site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Aish - Although I do prefer suggested text above along the lines of: is a website that publishes fake news stories and promotes conspiracy theories. O3000 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Bish (no, not Bish), but I could get behind Objective's wording above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Something like B or the alternate phrasing of Objective3000 above. The only real reservations I have about the alternate proposal is that it overlooks the (few?) non-conspiracy pieces on the site, and not all websites are inherently "news-like" either. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• A, obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• A, though O3000's wording is probably better than either. [1] shows more than enough examples. It's clearly fake news, and RSs say that. No need to equivocate here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• B - Being a controversial topic, the site's reliability should not be described like we are biased. Saying "it is fake news" is biased on one side, omitting the statement altogether is biased on the other side. Using option B is a perfect compromise. Every875 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• A although I could live with Objective's wording. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Can we drop this for just one day?, sorry I forgot (in all the tooing and throwing I asked for an RFC).Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I may have said this in the past, I have no major opinion either way. From a purely blind and literal interpretation of policy we should say it has been called an fake news site (or some such). But I cannot think of any RS that actually contest the idea that Infowars is a fake news site (I mean even his own lawyers have called his performance an act, which he contradicted) (and form a purely personal perspective it is a fake news site).Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources are not included, and being UK I know AJ only vaguely by reputation. I tend to be averse to 'blunt' descriptions which seem inherently subjective, but is a viable form of words: "has disseminated conspiracy theories and fake news" ? ie what it has done rather than what it is. Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggested something similar in the above discussion, that is a workable compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

My concern is in the phrasing. The article should read more like a textbook than an editorial. TFD (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Close

I'm calling for a close. This has been going on for three weeks now and the consensus is very clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

True, so it seems that a more controversial sentence and endless IP edits and vandalism is the preferred option... (just joking) Anyways, the sentence already appears to be suitable and already reads alike to the more popular ‘A’ option. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I call for Tidewater 2014's wording ("has been described by critics as a fake news and conspiracy website") to be adopted in this and all other pages in which these accusations are used as descriptors. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well this is the wrong place to "call for" that and what gets decided here doesn't apply to all other articles, like the other one you are edit warring about the term in. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• There's bound to be constant acrimony going forward if the same wording is kept. I strongly object to the wording. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Aye! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• what gets decided here doesn't apply to all other articles
  Not automatically, and hence why I'm calling for it. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus support for the suggestion put forth by user Tidewater2014, unfortunately. This tangent is moot. TheValeyard (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus support for any suggestions put forth thus far. No tangent is moot until there is one. The matter is not resolved until it is. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, you're either lying or you don't have a clue what a consensus is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage: Please don't start an edit war. The neutrality of this article is clearly being debated in this talk page. You are forbidden by Wikipedia policy (WP:POV) from taking down the notice until the matter is resolved. It clearly isn't. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Same to you @MPants at work:. If you're calling for the matter to be closed, it's obviously because it's open. Wikipedia policy clearly states (Template:POV):
You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
* There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
* It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
* In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
— Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Template documentation != policy, for fuck's sake. Policy pages actually say "This is a Wikipedia policy page", like WP:CONSENSUS, which you really need to get off your ass and read. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You can stop vandalizing any time buddy. I'm going to revert every vandalizing edit you make. I've got all day to do this. --Tarage (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the content not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

While this is in dispute here, readers deserve to be notified of it with a Template:POV tag. I tried putting it on, but it's routinely shot down with empty charges of vandalism. Seems like some people will use any means possible to impose their opinions. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If most editors do not support tagging an article, then that is how it goes. You had your say in the Rfc above, allow the process to go on to its conclusion. An article tag is not an important hill to die on. TheValeyard (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Or you just don't want to draw attention, lest more editors drop by to have their say too? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Joe Barton

https://mobile.twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/933452214886191104?p=v

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/22/us-rep-joe-barton-deciding-how-respond-after-graphic-photo-circulates-/

http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/alex-jones-and-laura-loomer-release-revenge-porn-video-of-conservative-lawmaker-could-face-jail-time/

There's a controversy thats at play here Laura Loomer and Alex Jones were named in some political blogs for releasing the nude pictures of Congressman Joe Barton on November 22nd, 2017 note this controversy is still being verified by multiple sources and allegations that Alex Jones and Laura Loomer committing revenge porn is being speculated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:E10E:325:3306:D219 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F950Gr3oNL4

Here is an update Alex Jones has apparently watched the Joe Barton video and now a revenge porn issue is at play here for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:451D (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/infowars-likely-just-violated-law-by-posting-rep-barton-masturbation-video/

Update more outlets are reporting that Alex Jones may have violated the law over the Joe Barton video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This was placed in a separate, unrelated section above, for some reason.

These sources are pretty much useless. Sources need to be top-quality for something like this for many reasons. Sources for the Barton leak are easy to find, but so far I haven't much which specifically links this to Jones. The Wrap is pretty much it. From CNN it looks like this originated from an anonymous twitter account, not Loomer or Jones. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas Shooting update

I think we should expand the topic of the 'Las Vegas Shooting' in the controversies section about what he believes happened there. On an article he published he thinks there were multiple shooters, unlike the published story that it was a sole person involved in the shooting. EXPERTS CONFIDENT THERE WERE MULTIPLE SHOOTERS AT VEGAS MASSACRE I would like to hear everyones thoughts about this. Thanks Cchap88 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)— Cchap88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Infowars publishes a lot of content. Since it would be inappropriate and impractical to include every theory the site has advocated, we need to confine this to what is covered by reliable, independent sources. These source would have to specifically link this theory to Infowars or Jones as more than just a passing mention. Do you know of any such reliable sources commenting on this? Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Using Infowars for news is like watching Scrubs for medical advice. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's an unfair comparison if you ask me. One is clearly an absurdist comedy built around truly asinine predicates that could only make sense in some fever-dream induced alternate reality of the actual world, and the other was a sitcom that starred Zach Braff. 2A01:3E0:FF90:51:195:219:166:53 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

If this was Facebook, I'd lol-upvote that. 01:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Half of this page is missing.

Hello,

I have noticed that many of the sections of this page are missing. Should they be restored? Every875 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Every875. What is missing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For example, I started a discussion about a month or two ago about whether Infowars should be styled as Infowars or InfoWars. The chosen result was the former option. The section was called "Stylization of 'Infowars.com'" Every875 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Every875: Look in the archives (links at the top of this page). Sections are archived after thirty days with no response. Example: Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 12. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Well, thank you! Every875 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Jones vs TYT

There's nothing in this article, about Jones' confrontation with The Young Turks, during the 2016 Republican National Convention. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

True! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that time when Jones and Roger Stone tried to crash the Turks' broadcast and got chased off the stage? Not sure how notable or relevant it is to Jones' bio, but here's one source to start it off... Alex Jones, Roger Stone Hijack Liberal Livestream At RNC — And Things Get Very Real, Very Fast. TheValeyard (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal:

In July of 2016, Jones and Roger Stone attempted to interrupt a livestream of The Young Turks covering the Republican National Convention. They attempted to mock host Cenk Uygur, prompting Uygur to stand up and raise his voice, at which point Jones and Stone fled the scene.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget. Jimmy Dore spate in Jones' face. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We might could leave that out per WP:SKYBLUE. Or to put it another way. "Of course Dore spit in his face!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I sensing some L I B E R A L B I A S in your proposal? (Just joking) I think the Jimmy Dore part and Cenk’s ranting should be mentioned as well, aided with Ana’s intervention and Alex’s attitude of laughing it all off. Maybe not using that specific language, though.. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 December 2017

Change category from Low-importance Media articles to Mid-importance Media articles, and add this to the lead:

• VICE News (HBO) calls him the "the undisputed king of alternative media”, "Donald Trump's most powerful media surrogate" and "no longer a fringe player", racking up "well over a billion views, 10 times as many as NBC News’s YouTube channel.” Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. To put it mildly, this proposal is controversial for multiple reasons, and is unlikely to be implemented as-is. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is, as this Talk page clearly demonstrates. Everything about Alex Jones is controversial; that's his trade. Ok, didn't see that consensus was a requirement (now I did). Thanks. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)