Talk:Alex Jones

Let's review, shall we?

Let's review for our newly-arrived Infowars/Newswars/Prison Planet minions, shall we? Alex Jones claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Coronavirus is a hoax, that 5G networks create Coronavirus within human cells (no explanation about the conflict between those last two), that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps, that the US is being invaded by South American walruses... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments / questions

• Q: Isn't Jones just an actor playing a role without actually believing all of that?

A: It doesn't matter. Millions pf people read his webpage, some believe it, and a tiny percentage go to Wikipedia to set us straight. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Q: Why doesn't this page cover the bit about gay frogs?

A: We only cover those things Alex Jones says that have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Q: OK, all that other stuff is just silly, but the bit about South American walruses is real!

A: No it isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

But the gay frogs is pretty funny, you have to admit. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Here it is for anyone who has not experienced this special moment: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVrntKgdN0 ]

It's like a turd sandwich with Wikipedia's Gay bomb page at the start, The Daily Mail[1] at the end, and Infowars in the middle! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvf6gz58xnI Guy (help! - typo?) 21:40, 10 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."

• [2], [3], [4].

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."[5]

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"[6]) 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,[7] additive-free tobacco[8][9], Holocaust denial[10], and the Pizzagate conspiracy theory[11]

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 true he 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)