Talk:Alex Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

RfC regarding description of Infowars.com[edit]

I may be involved in this discussion, but I don't see any room to dispute the outcome of this RfC. The clear majority of participants preferred to keep the existing language, and those opposed to it did so exclusively through vague claims of bias and nonspecific references to WP:NPOV. Additionally, this exact question has been posed numerous times before (see various archived discussions), and never received any traction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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[edit]

  • 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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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. Neutralitytalk 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)
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)
  • Apparently ANI didn't agree. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Did you have good arguments? No, you just got some admin to suspend my access and talked amongst yourselves. Bravo. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, you really have no clue what you are saying do you? I didn't get anyone to do anything. I didn't even edit anywhere on Wikipedia from the time you placed you complaint until today. The discussion was closed and the boomerang had hit you in the butt before I even saw your complaint. Peddle your paranoia elsewhere. I'm starting to see your interest in Alex Jones and your keen interest in the subject of conspiracy theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 18 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[edit]

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 ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Close[edit]

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)
  • 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Las Vegas Shooting update[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.[edit]

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[edit]

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 like a bitch.

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)
Oh yea. Kasparian's fat-shaming Jones, thus contradicting her disapproval of fat shaming. Jones really stirred up events. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Plenty to cover, especially regarding the hysterical ranting of The Young Turk’s anchors, as you provided an example of. Should also be mentioned that the incident was soon addressed both on Infowars and TYT, as well as the TYT broadcast momentarily being cut during the occurrence. Cheers, trainsandtech (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It was not that notable. Some second tier sources cared about it for 5 minutes and moved on. There is no continuing coverage or enduring notability. This minor publicity stunt was like watching two ugly girls fight. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
But it fits this article, as Jones' disrupting TYT appears to fall in line with his style. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Documenting every example of Jones being disruptive isn't helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that I was responsible for removing this from Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian and Roger Stone's articles. I agree with Niteshift36 that this wasn't a notable incident in the lives of any of the players involved.LM2000 (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 December 2017[edit]

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.”[1] Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ VICE News (2017-01-06), Info From The Fringe With Alex Jones (HBO), retrieved 2017-12-18 

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)

"Man in background" cameos[edit]

I might be mistaken because I'm basing this on a half-remembered synopsis of the film, but I seem to recall that the cameo in question was pivotal to an important scene in the film, and written specifically for Jones. If so, then that's a compelling reason to include this entry. It would make the cameo one which would be quite memorable to both the film audience and Jones' audience. (for those not following, this is regarding this edit). Pinging @TheValeyard:. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's an actual role with substance, fine, but the editor who added it listed it as a cameo, which is generally understood to mean a quick appearance granted to an already-famous person, e.g. Stan Lee's Marvel one-liners. TheValeyard (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't normally include a cameo in a filmography list, either. I just seem to recall that this was a particularly notable cameo, though I could be misremembering. As for Stan; I think that was probably not the best example to make your point (there's actually significant RS coverage of Stan's cameos), but I see it nonetheless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If nobody else has any new info on it (I couldn't find the synopsis I remember reading again), then I think it's safe to just say I'm misremembering and leave it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I know it was discussed at length before, but the text in the opening paragraph 'Infowars is a conspiracy theories and fake news website' just sticks out like a sore thumb. It is an overly bold statement which is not compatible with a neutral point of view. I know it is mentioned in the 'reliable sources' but generalisations, even from these sources should not be quoted as they create a misreprentation. Such an assertion creates mistrust of the neutrality of the lead and may cause readers to suspect bias, something Wikipedia prides itself on avoiding. Oscar248 (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Do any RS dispute the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at the top of this page. O3000 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Have you read the extensive discussion about this issue before opening this section? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Prison Planet[edit]

The prison planet seems to be pretty short. Not sure if it needs expansion or not. While I can’t think of anything else that should be added, it just feels as if it could be expanded. That’s just my two cents, but does anybody else have anything else to say different? Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Geekynerdyguy1996 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it needs expanding/Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2017[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 03:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The InfoWars host has received much more coverage and generated much more interest than other people named Alex Jones (which is unfortunate). Alex Jones (Welsh presenter) is the only other person with this name with non-trivial usage, but even in the UK, Alex Jones the radio host has received 2x the interest of Alex Jones the TV presenter. feminist (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose way way way too many Alex Jones. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe so, but there are still many many Alex Jonses.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd say this is just WP:RECENTISM. Unless Alex Jones makes an impact on world events I wouldn't call him the primary topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Which other Alex Jones has made an impact on world events? I don't see why we should set such an arbitrary standard. feminist (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, Alex Jones (Welsh presenter) is also very prominent. The other entries are all minor, however, so it really comes down to those two. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support A handful of Alex Jones athletes and a few random persons of middling fame ("Presenter" ? Seriously). One of the leading purveyors of fake news and conspiracy theories in the modern era is demonstrably more notable than the rest. TheValeyard (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Alex Jones is MUCH more well-known than the presenter, and is relevant in this political climate. If Alex Jones the conspiracy theorist receives much more attention in Wales than the Welsh presenter herself, we might as well move the article. Every875 Talk to me 00:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Easily the obvious reason someone would be searching for Alex Jones. Pageview analysis also shows people looking at the Alex Jones (radio host) page than the disambig page. He's the reason people are typing in Alex Jones. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Alex Jones and his media organisation Infowars (which I personally think is also prominent enough to have it's own article) are much more prominent than anyone else on the disambiguation page. Do an internet search for Alex Jones and see what you come up with. Essentially exclusively information, news articles, commentary and so on about him and the Infowars website. Some people like him, some people hate him. All in all, the controversy that surrounds him and his place as a sort of media mogul has made him much more well known than others by that name. Also, if you do a Google search for Alex Jones, what Wikipedia article comes up? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. With over 6 times the views as the Welsh presenter, and with the DAB page earning a fairly significant amount of views (~100 per day), it's clear readers would be best served with this Jones at the undisambiguated title. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - With almost nine times the page views as the Welsh presenter over the past year, this article is likely the PRIMARYTOPIC.- MrX 23:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Alex Jones is well known and gets thousands of views today to his websites and videos. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – based on the Google Trends posted by the request move nominator, as well as page views here, the radio host is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. He has been highly politicized in association with Donald Trump, U.S. politics and conspiracy theories. CookieMonster755 01:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There are a lot of Alex Joneses but this one seems to be the primary topic.LM2000 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've actually being weighing this in my mind for a while, but I'm going to have to go with Support based mostly on the pageviews. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support easy choice based on page views and media prominence. Mdmadden (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Support radio host with the dominant source coverage and who interviews the president of the US is more vital then a regional welsh tv presenter. GuzzyG (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Image[edit]

A new public domain image of Alex Jones is available. I am unable as a new user to update the page myself but would propose this new image be used as the current image is blurry and also outdated.

Alex Jones Portrait

Michael R Zimmermann (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and made the change, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone objected. I'm open to discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The text under the image "Jones in 2009" should be updated to "Jones in 2017" as this image was created in December 2017, other than that - looks excellent. Thanks ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Michael R Zimmermann (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It says own work. You shot this yourself Michael? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I found the image to be originally from Infowars.com itself: [2] Every875 Talk to me 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any indication that this image has been released into the public domain. Curiously enough, there's a link to a press kit (which would be PD by implication) right below it. I'm afraid this is likely to be deleted as a copyvio unless you can provide some proof that it was released into the public domain (searchable/downloadable off the internet is not the same thing as "public domain"). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware that an image being "searchable/downloadable" does not make it public domain. I am also aware that this image is being used on Infowars.com as I directed the employees who manage the website to update it with this photo. I am the creator of the image and have submitted the affirmation to wikimedia via email. Not sure exactly what kind of "proof" you are looking for here, I am an producer for Alex Jones / Infowars, I created this image and have released it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. A quick web search backs up who I am and what I'm claiming. And good catch on needing to update the press kit, that will be done soon with this new image added. Michael R Zimmermann (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay. So long as the OTRS accepts the proof you submitted, this is perfectly kosher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge InfoWars to Alex Jones (radio host)[edit]

No consensus. I count 5 for, 5 against, and some neutral comments. Arguments for merging include the strong control Jones has over Infowars and a significant overlap of coverage. Arguments against the merger include claims of independent coverage for both and the fact that Jones is not the only important actor of Infowars nowadays. I don't see either side as having an overwhelming advantage for now, but I think this can be re-examined in the future. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

InfoWars used to be a redirect (per a previous AfD long ago). It was recently recreated as an article. Considering the elapsed time, a separate article may now be legitimate. On the other hand, keeping the information at one place also has benefits.

  • Merge As nominator. —PaleoNeonate – 21:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Infowars is a major organisation in terms of its following with multiple regular contributors besides Alex Jones - notably Owen Shroyer. There are more such as Roger Stone who also has his own article. Whilst keeping the information in one place can mean it is easier to navigate, the Infowars article does display notable information (referenced in this article in the Owen Shroyer section) that would not be applicable for the Alex Jones page. Oscar247 (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore to a redirect as nothing at all new has transpired since that discussion. Alex Jones is InfoWars, InfoWars is Alex Jones, there is zero notability for Jones' platform independent of him. If the likes of Owen Shroyer ever rise above their current status of minor, middling non-celebrity, then their pertinent info can be written at Owen Shroyer. We should not maintain an article on a blog just because one of the sub-bloggers has said a handful of controversial things. TheValeyard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone point to any distinctive separation in notability between InfoWars and Alex Jones? Aren't they the same thing? O3000 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
This is my take on it. But if it can be shown that there is a clear separation then the article should be kept.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Restore to a redirect Not only can we simply expand the Infowars section here at Alex Jones, we have concluded here that Infowars must be spelled with a lowercase "W". Even if my argument loses and InfoWars stays as its own page, please rename it to Infowars with a lowercase "W". Every875 Talk to me 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore to redirect - no compelling reason to create a new article now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep independent Alex Jones has projects besides the show and the show includes people other than Alex Jones. Both entries are lengthy and should focus on their respective subjects. It would be inappropriate to cover other hosts and details about the show here just as it is better to cover personal information and aspects of Jones life and projects here rather than on an article aboit the show. Both are pbvioualy independently notable generating lots of coverage and controversy. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Infowars article itself needs work (I'll volunteer to help out if I can), but I think should be independent. In the same way that things like Glenn Beck and his TheBlaze are separate entities, and Bill O'Reilly and his No Spin News and many others. The only difference I can deduce is Infowars is about 10 times the size and impact, in terms of media coverage, as all the other combined; so not sure under what logic they'd be merged. Mdmadden (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Something for either side to consider Can someone list three sources currently cited in the InfoWars article that are provide in-depth coverage of InfoWars without being about Alex Jones? Because that's the standard. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep 1) the nominator didn't provide a reason for merger. the fact that it used to be a redirect is not a valid reason 2) major website and news source 3) the article is large enough to stand on it's own, merger would result in loss of large chunks of the original article Karl.i.biased (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore to a redirect -- the subject is not independently notable; anything that's worth mentioning about him is already said in the target article. As said above: "Alex Jones is InfoWars, InfoWars is Alex Jones, there is zero notability for Jones' platform independent of him." --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep An organisation can still be notable even if the leader is very prominent. This is in my view due to the high prominence and following of InfoWars, prominent co-hosts with their own articles, as well as notable contributors e.g Mark Dice amongst others. This article passes GNG by flying colours and whilst this does not always mean a stand alone article is warranted, it is a very good indicator and this article allows for more notable, reliably sourced information from InfoWars. Probably about time this nomination has been closed - this has been here for nearly 2 weeks. Although I strongly believe InfoWars merits a stand-alone article and believe the discussion should be closed as 'Keep', I would understand a no consensus closure as opinions and arguments are almost split down the middle, and therefore consensus for merging is very clearly in my view not shown. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special pleading[edit]

I recently reverted this edit by JzG because I think it helps characterize Jones better (by showing his reaction to his critics) and because the special pleading involved was in Jones' voice, not in Wikivoice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It baffles me that we would "balance" reality-based criticism of an obvious crank, with the crank's own self-justification. However, the worst part is not that we include his self-serving nonsense, but that we give him the last word. That leaves a false impression. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Because we need to put reaction to any criticism. Especially as it demonstrates his attitude towards creating controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Guy, I sympathize with that position, but I think the point I made above about it helping characterize him outweighs those (in short, I think his response is more incriminating than the critiques themselves). Do you think there's a way of not putting his response at the end? I can't think of a phrasing that wouldn't leave him with the last word, but I'm certainly open to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alex Jones (Welsh presenter) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)