Jump to content

Talk:Alex Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 7valentine7 (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 24 May 2020 (→‎Note for the So Called Edit War: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Findsourcesnotice

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 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) 23:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he's an actor, these claims are taken out of context and should be framed in the context of his radio show persona. It's a blatant lack of integrity to take claims of a character and portray then onto the individual Objective Reason (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need an RS saying this (not his lawyer).Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why the context of these words is always excluded. Reliable sources in Wikipedia no longer includes direct sources, which means that the context is removed. If neutrality is the goal, it changes the entire page. Note that I presumed he has been an actor since 2007, based on the fact I've never seen these words on anything outside of his program. Not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that would be intellectually honest Objective Reason (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You think he is an actor playing a role, I think he is a conman rolling the rubes. Neither of us are RS, what we think is not admissible. What we do is go with what RS say, if RS do not say he is an actor neither can we. End of story.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players;” Shakespeare was really talking about something other than what a lawyer attempting (and failing) to win a defamation lawsuit might claim. If there’s a claim related to a lawsuit, it could be added as such. Otherwise, I think any claim he is simply an actor is a non-starter. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Objective Reason (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Your argument is an ad-verecundiam, note that Removing the context is the issue. I'm not even claiming he's an actor, please do not divert the objection. The context would allow this plausible scenario to be true or false. This removes the need to "source" the 'claim', not because I'm an authority figure, but because it would be self evident. There's been 1000s of examples of people using a character to promote themselves since the beginning of time. What's abundantly clear is that the claims are nonsense which are in constant flux. Why is this a point of contention? Objective Reason (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't deal with "truth" here. We deal with verifiability. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its not self evident its wp:or. You say it is self evident an actor, I say it is self evident he is a conman (and not an actor which has a specific connotation). That is why we have wp:v to ensure that our own opinions do not become a source for argument.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Are you unable to read or are you being intentionally dishonest? The word "truth" was never typed, I said neutrality which means PUT EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS IN CONTEXT (Such as, "On XYZ RS, Alex Jones Claimed Y"). I've been against Alex Jones for a while, but to attribute a view to someone based on a secondary source requires context for validity, not "Truth".Objective Reason (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm in no mood to argue with anyone that resorts to statements like: Are you unable to read or are you being intentionally dishonest? Happy New Year. O3000 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, note that my objection was to illustrate the lack of framing of the OP, and how context changes the perception, It's frustrating that I can't be clear.Objective Reason (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it requires attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, what? I do not understand how attribution removes the necessity of context. I have RS quoting Seinfeld, are you saying the OP including links to RS without context would make it valid? Objective Reason (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can find An RS that says Seinfeld is an actor (or even fictional character), the analogy does not work. As I said I think Jones is nothing more than a snake Oil salesman who uses politics as a front. That is not the same as being a fictional character in a TV show (even if it is a fictional representation of a real person).Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to understand the objection. If I Quote seinfeld from a reliable source, but the source is a review for an episode, that doesn't netgate the source, it NECESSITATES context to put asinine claims into a realm of believable. Read the OP, there's no human being that reads that and concludes anytthing rational. By the way, being a con man is acting, but this looks like total nonsense. It begs the question if this is in the question of a radio show/ a debate, a paper, an article, or word of mouth. It's essential to ascertain what the beliefs are.Objective Reason (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But whilst we have RS that says seinfeld is an act, and thus we can agree on that not everyone thinks Jones is an actor (and no being a conman does not make you an actor, it makes what you pretend to be an act). That is at the heart of this, the fact that it is not self evident what he is. So how then do we frame this "the Actor Jones" the conman Jones" The "might be a conman or an actor Jones". Hell maybe the claim it is an act is an act, who knows? Maybe he is a fantasist, mad, Max Headroom? The simple fact is we do not know, and cannot know. So we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished, I tried illustrate that we have the same opinion (Alex Jones is lying to viewers without telling them), but it's clear if you won't accept conning as acting then you will not attempt to see my objection in a objective manner. Objective Reason (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones the Quintessential Dark tetrad

Alex animated Sadism matches well with Gen-X cartoons and Millennial memes. He uses conspiracy theories to push his audience into rabbit holes, once they are deep in he starts selling them Super Male Vitality anti-conspiracy products. ToddGrande (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToddGrande: Are you suggesting a change to the article, or are you just expressing your opinions about Alex Jones? Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Sundayclose (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Spreading" misinformation is pointy and should be replaced

"Spreading" misinformation is pointy and polemical and should be replaced by "disseminating" or equivalent, imo. A virus also is said to "spread". I think it's a little too cute to keep this verb in the article. An encyclopedia should be more sober than double entendres. Dr. K. 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with "disseminating".Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Disseminating" is fine, but "spreading" is not in any way a "double entendre", nor is it "pointy and polemical", it's a fine Germanic word which was probably first used in connection with agriculture and spreading seeds. In fact, the definition for "disseminate" I just looked up defines it as meaning "to spread". The Latinate word may sound more "encyclopedic", but the Germanic word is just as acceptable, and just as neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since we all seem to agree on "disseminate" I will go ahead and replace it. I will not argue the finer semantics, if you don't mind, BMK. Thank you. Dr. K. 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K., no strong views. Spreading is accurate, disseminating is a bit precious. Promoting? Publishing? Broadcasting? Spreading might be the simplest and easiest word. Guy (help!) 19:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No strong views either, other than for spreading. If you think spreading is the best, please go ahead and change it. I don't think spending any more time on this is proportionate to its value. Dr. K. 19:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article violates Wikipedia Guidelines

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

This article contains biased libel and violates Wikipedia's own guidelines, and guidelines for moral, ethical, professional documentation by all logical and rational premises.

Now I don't have the time or initiative to go through the whole thing and prove every point pedantically which any intelligent person can see is plainly obvious, but I'll go with merely the first sentence in the article.

"Content must be written from a neutral point of view."

In the very first sentence of the article, which displays in search engines by the way, it says "is a far-right American radio show host and conspiracy theorist". Both "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" are unsupported statements of biased libel. Now to libel an individual in the first sentence twice is unfitting for any professional documentation, presuming it wants to maintain public opinion of it as credible or academically sound. The individual described clearly does not identify themselves as either "far-right" or "conspiracy theorist", as plainly evident by all their professional publications around the internet. Now the few sources added to support the libelous and unprofessional defamatory labels used in this first sentence of the article come from widely-discredited, non-reputable fake news outlets known for their defamation of character, a point that is basically common knowledge nowadays given the exhaustive content available on the subject all over the internet and other media sources. Now I'm not going to prove everything or argue a point here, but in short, within the first sentence are two lies that should be removed in order to maintain "a neutral point of view" for the article's content. In my opinion, Wikipedia's handling of this article is disgusting and embarrassingly, deplorably dishonest. If Wikipedia cannot follow its own rules against defamatory and smearing libel, it ceases to be a reputable source of information for any intelligent and discerning mind. I have made my point.

It would be neutral to change the first sentence to "is an American radio show host", because that simpler statement is generally proven by all sources, both biased and non-biased, both libelous and honest, across all relevant documentation, which I have seen publicly available, on the internet.

I don't have an account, but I do the courtesy of letting anyone know who has any interest in the integrity of Wikipedia, and wants to maintain its desired content goal of being "written from a neutral point of view".

Now I mention this because it is a common issue on the internet: deletion of this post will be considered censorship in full violation of Wikipedia's founding premise of being editable by everyone.

--98.115.222.127 (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the So Called Edit War

I made my point. I wont revert anything else right now. Though I still stand that the edits made that are not mine are opinion based. You should not allow opinions to guide your editing. Rather it be popular or unpopular opinion even if news sites say so does not make it true. We caution that opinions should not rule on wikipedia. Facts should.

Just because it appears those from a certian side of the political spectrum take more notice in rules and procedures to cover for the fact that you rewrite history based on opinions does not mean that what is written is fact.

Instead the writing of articles based on popular opinion and based on only news you consider as factual because it proves the narrative you wish to present does nothing but destroy the use of wikipedia.

Opinions are not fact. While you accuse individuals of conspiracy you prove that opinions which is a big part of what makes up conspiracy is in fact exactly what drives you.

Change facts to opinion and you only become what you accuse. 7valentine7 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Jones&oldid=958480313"