To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why is Alex Jones described as a far-right conspiracy theorist?
A1: The preponderance of reliable sources describes him as this.
"The case of Mr. Jones and Infowars is tricky for many politicians and figures on the right. While many dislike the idea of tech companies censoring political speech, and Infowars leans far right, Mr. Jones regularly spreads lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory attacks against political enemies." ----The New York Times
"Kaiser, the Harvard researcher, said that Jones was a far-right 'beacon' -- a sort of gateway who could bring conservatives looking for right-wing media into the extreme fringes via YouTube's recommendations." --CNBC
"Twitter banned far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website InfoWars from its platform Thursday afternoon" --CNN
"Twitter announced Thursday that it had banned the accounts of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his far-right media company Infowars" --NBC News
"Facebook today removed 22 pages associated with far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones" --The Verge
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alex Jones article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But the gay frogs is pretty funny, you have to admit. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Might fail undue, one source has said this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with removal until such time as there is more/better sourcing. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the words of the author, not Facebook. Benjamin (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why do you think the source is unreliable? Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
