Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2019

Change link on reference #40 to https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/branch-davidians-hope-a-new-church-can-close-wounds-279546.html 72.217.78.61 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

why?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh I see now, it might have been a good idea to tell us what the problem was.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018

In the first paragraph:

Please change X: Jones runs a website, Infowars.com, devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news,[12][13][14] and the websites NewsWars and PrisonPlanet.

To Y: Jones runs the websites, NewsWars, PrisonPlanet, and Infowars. These are devoted to a mixture of conspiracy theories, fake news[12][13][14], politics, alternative-health advice, and media criticism.

(This mends a run-on and describes the scope of the website more accurately.)

Please change X: Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his promotion of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories,[15] and his aggressive opposition to gun control in a debate with Piers Morgan.[16][17]

To Y: Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his promotion of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories,[15] and his contentious gun control debate with Piers Morgan.[16][17]

(Use of "aggressive" sounds unnecessarily biased, and stating that the debate was contentious gets the point of the thing across.)

Please also mend all of the scare quotes in the career section. It lends the article a sarcastic unpleasantness and "suggests" that the editorial "voice" is "creeping" into the "work." Caedmon scop (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Not seeing any need for this change, his shouting at Morgan was aggressive, and RS said so. and your first point is not an improvement.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC) really.

•  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You'll probably need to file an RFC for a change like this. SITH (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Is he a conspiracy theorist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.43.120 (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

RS say yes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones claims that the government kidnaps children and makes then slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, 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 Temple of Baal arches will soon be put in multiple large cities around the world, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the WTC wasn't brought down by terrorists but by the US government, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell... If it looks like a conspiracy theorist, and it acts like a conspiracy theorist, and it sounds like a conspiracy theorist, and it smells like a conspiracy theorist, the chances are that it is a conspiracy theorist. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to correct you Guy Macon. Alex never claimed that children were sent to mars, that was a guest on his show.Economics1234 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

InfoWars isn't fake news

InfoWars is not fake news. That should be removed. PatriotMan1776 (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@PatriotMan1776: it is, and it won't be removed (as has been discussed plenty of times on this talk page's archives). Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's review for our newly-arrived Infowars 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 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 Temple of Baal arches will soon be erected in multiple large cities around the world, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government committed the largest act of terrorism its own citizens experienced, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

What term do you prefer? Lies? Bullshit? Wilful fabrication? Fake news seems to be the most commonly used description for this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't recall who said something like "We should call it by its right name, propaganda" - but of course the most common term is fake news. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Fake News is a subset of propaganda, but they are not synonymous and shouldn't be treated as such. --98.173.248.2 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Some fake news is Yellow journalism rather than propaganda. InfoWars is, however, propaganda for a delusional worldview. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

Change 'fake news', VERY biased for a Wikipedia entry.92.18.32.162 (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Find an RS that disputes it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 🖋 11:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's fake news, it is called fake news, although I don't see any evidence of it being fake news in the article. Just being randomly described as "fake news" by the MSM (although InfoWars is ironically becoming mainstream). wumbolo ^^^ 14:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And the other sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Infowars is not mainstream and never will be. Mainstream is a qualifier used almost exclusively by those with fringe views - quacks speak of mainstream science, as if pseudoscience is of equivalent merit, political extremists talk of mainstream media as if extremist propaganda is of equivalent merit. Mainstream means that something lies in the zone where the facts are agreed but people may differ on interpretation and weight. Something that the WSJ, WaPo and NYT all say is true, is almost certainly true, whereas something that InfoWars, Breitbart and Fox News say is true could be completely false. The most obvious clue to this is to look at cross-references between sources. Mainstream sources cite each other pretty freely, but the far-right media bubble makes almost no reference to any sources outside the bubble - something that changed during 2015/6, especially when Breitbart started taking market share from Fox. Fox countered this by joining Breitbart in being isolated from the mainstream. The right wing media bubble, including InfoWars, is a positive feedback loop with no effective error correction. Remember, Der Stürmer and the Völkischer Beobachter were very popular and profitable but never mainstream, they were always part of the far-right media bubble - their only mission to those outside the movement was propaganda. Anyone, left, centre or right, can pick up a copy of the Washington Post and read a hundred things that are not in the least bit controversial, whereas virtually everything Alex Jones says is tendentious at best and often outright lies. And Jones admitted this publicly. He framed InfoWars as entertainment, not journalism, in his custody case. He tried the opposite in the libel case and failed. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

None Dare Call It Conspiracy

There is a dispute about whether the Bircher conspiracist book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971), which influenced Jones' world-view should be described as anti-Semitic.[1] It was described as such by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1972,[2] but this is not mentioned in the source used for the article.[3]

There is no question that the book is seen as anti-Semitic in reliable sources, although it uses coded language and explicitly says it is not anti-Semitic. It is subtle compared with obviously anti-Semitic works such as the Protocols or Mein Kampf.

Nonetheless, I think it violates synthesis to add the description when it is not in the original source. It implies that Jones is an anti-Semite, without any source that explicitly says that. (Although the article does mention that former employees accused him of anti-Semitism.) That makes it a probable BLP violation.

TFD (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, if the source does not say it is neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to offend the sensibilities of all of Jones' non-antisemitic fans. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is currently not an exception to WP:BLP, but you can of course open an RfC if you so desire. GMG^talk 15:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, you can always expand the article on the book, which is clearly inadequate at present. TFD (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is already a discussion about this at BLP noticeboard. Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Take it to talk"

Re: [4] I am taking it to talk.

Without appearing to take sides, I would like to hear what the objection is. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Æthereal (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to go out for several hours. If Guy has no problem, revert my revert. O3000 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the objection is whether it's WP:DUE to go on an aside about Jones' other crazy statements about Soros considering they're not specific to this conspiracy theory. I am neutral about the edit and am not sponsoring it or its reversion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think a better question would be "why should this material be included?" I also question why it was added under 'Khan Shaykhun chemical attack'. The passage "mainstream media sources downplay the comments" and "frequently" are not supported by the sources, so this is rife with WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 18:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not a fan of Jones, but I'm not sure this section is called for. He gets criticism about plenty of his claims. Ones like Sandy Hook, which resulted in lawsuits, seem notable. This one.....not so much. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a rather lot of them. Picking the most notable ones has a lot going for it. Hmmm. Just thinking out load, given his huge audience, every claim he makes is likely to result in multiple people checking Wikipedia. I wonder whether a list of all of his claims that have been covered by reliable sources would be appropriate. Or maybe not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In my thinking, since it's so prevalent with him, limiting this to incidents that went into lawsuits etc would be the route to go. Otherwise, we'd end up being a weekly recap of his show. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• My only problem is that it's ambiguous. A small rephrasing based on the same sources is likely to be fine. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to rewrite my reverted edit to clarify that "the comments" referred to the remarks by Soros on 60 Minutes, not the constant anti-Soros comments from Alex. The infamous comments to Kroft by Soros are often downplayed or outright denied in the MSM, à la the two Post pieces. More such refs are to be found at George Soros#Conspiracy theories and threats where Alex, Roseanne, Gohmert, etc., are mentioned by name.

As for the "frequently" usage, Alex is well known to attack Soros routinely. This is obvious to anyone who even quasi-frequently hears Alex's rants, which are still very popular notwithstanding the massive deplatforming of his shows and ranting videos.

I'm bringing up the issue of Soros's war experience since it is still a hot topic 20 years on from the Kroft interview, as those 2018 Post stories attest. I placed the new paragraph in the Khan Shaykhun subsection only because that is where Soros is already mentioned.

If there are no further objections, I would like to replace (tomorrow?) the reverted paragraph with the following text (plus the five refs):

"Jones frequently refers to Soros as a "Nazi collaborator" in reference to remarks Soros made on 60 Minutes in a 1998 interview, although mainstream media sources downplay the alleged culpability revealed in the comments made by Soros about his World War Two experiences."

Æthereal (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per my previous comments. In fact, I think this may be worse.- MrX 🖋 00:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is WP:SYNTH, among other things. It appears that this is the only source from that edit which actually mention Jones. That's a bad sign. That source doesn't mention the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, or anything about Syria at all, unless I missed it. Editorializing about this being "mainstream media" is also a problem. If a reliable source says that the "mainstream media" treats this as such-and-such, and that source specifically contrasts that to Jones, and does so in relation to Syria, we could summarize that source appropriately. The 60 Minutes link absolutely should not be used. Ideally a link to a clip might optionally be included strictly for convenience, but this one is a WP:COPYLINK uploaded by a random person (who might have edited it in some way) so... No. Too many problems. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Nah I was in a hurry and reverted and asked for review on a contentious and well viewed article because I was uncomfortable about the edit (which is not a great reason). The subject of the article has so many problems. Let us stick to those that are well documented and meaningful. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Meh! Pretty much do not care either way, its silly trivial. and par of the course. I can see why the objections have been raised, but if you act like a dick expect to be called out for it (which is all Jones is doing, "look at me").Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

As for the argument that the video could be doctored, there are many copies of the interview and its detailed transcript all over the web (but conspicuously absent from the extensive CBS archives). I had to scrounge around to find ones without snarky commentary. As for the subheading, maybe a new one along the lines of "Attacks against Soros" is called for. Thanks very much indeed for all your consideration in this matter. Æthereal (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The video should not be linked at all, since these multiple uploaders do not have the legal right to do so. We do not knowingly link to random copyright-violating clips from Youtube without a very good reason. Since the video isn't about Jones, we do not have a good enough reason. Further, if one video was doctored, all the others could've been taken from that doctored copy, since we have no reason to assume any of the uploaders had access to a clean original. This is why a youtube reupload is not necessarily a reliable source, even if the original is reliable.

More importantly, this article should summarize what reliable sources say about Jones. If one source mentions his attacks against Soros, the article should mention that in proportion. Any details would have to be supported by sources which explained the connection to Jones. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Per this revert, this is still editorializing language and misuse of sources. Saying this is "sufficiently well known" is a form of editorializing. The use of "mainstream media" is also editorializing. It is not clear why this one conspiracy, mostly supported by passing mentions, deserve an entire section. The use of obscure congressional records from 2006 seems like both a WP:PRIMARY problem, and WP:OR, since the source obviously doesn't mention Jones at all. Believe it or not, congressional records are prolific, not presumed to be fact-checked, and congresspeople are not automatically experts on everything they choose to talk about. If Mark Souder's opinion about Soros is relevant to Alex Jones, find a reliable source which links all three and summarize exactly what that source says.

As a media personality, Jones says many things. We are not capable of documenting all of them, nor would we want to if we could. If this is really necessary for some reason, please consider proposing it here on talk for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As for the various sourcing arguments, the Snopes page at https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/ includes both the transcript and the video of the infamous 1998 Soros interview on 60 Minutes. The page downplays his perceived culpability by showing how he contradicts himself — just the sort of downplaying by mainstream sources that I mentioned in my abruptly-reverted edits. Æthereal (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Need to revise Sandy Hook Conspiracy section

Jones appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast, where he claimed that he originally questioned Sandy Hook, but has since revised his views on it. He stated that he believes it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8600:8068:91C9:C58D:272:C0EC (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Has this been discussed by a reliable, independent source? Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

What I found is this: "It’s clear that to Rogan, Jones is a genuine friend, his lovable lunatic, the guy who always provides a wild conversation, as long as you can tolerate listening to his rapid-fire fantasies. But to justify inviting the controversial conspiracy theorist on to the podcast, Rogan made sure to walk Jones through an apology for that whole Sandy Hook affair, practically holding Jones’ hand to keep him from meandering into his interdimensional child molester theories.

In a brief moment that almost approached self-awareness, Jones reckoned that he’d plunged way too deep into conspiracy theories, to the point where he was questioning every single atrocity as a possible false flag. At least, every atrocity that might ignite a gun control debate.

It was interesting to see how Jones portrays himself as a victim of unfair media coverage, as a man simply examining events from every possible angle. Somehow, his delusions always heavily support alt-right talking points, but that’s surely just a coincidence. Surely." So maybe not revised, but apologized for his past comments on it? 2601:644:8600:8068:91C9:C58D:272:C0EC (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Unfortunately that source is only of limited use here, since it's from one of Forbes' "contributors" (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com contributors explains the difference.) For what is, basically, a blog, we would need to attribute everything to the author (someone named Dani Di Placido) and would also have to explain who he is, and also have some specific reason to cite him. It's an interesting and well-written article, but I don't think it's usable for this. If you find anything else that meets WP:RS, let us know, and I will also keep an eye out. Grayfell (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think what we have means we can add "but on Joe Rogan podcast Jones said that...".Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would we do that? What Jones says is only really of interest when combined with reliable third party commentary, because by his own admission he plays the part of crazy person. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Stupid dispute

Jones apologists want to remove the words "anti-semitic" from the following:

As a teenager, he read conservative journalist and conspiracy theorist Gary Allen's anti-Semitic book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which had a profound influence on him and which he calls "the easiest-to-read primer on The New World Order".

References

Nobody seems to dispute that he read the book, but it's being asserted that calling the book antisemitic amounts to WP:SYN because the sources that call the book antisemtiic don't mention Jones.

Newsflash: They don't have to.

He read and was influenced by the book. That is supported by sources. The book is antisemitic. That is supported by sources. The antisemitic nature of the New World Order conspiracy theory is hardly a secret, it's discussed extensively in Byford's Conspiracy Theory and Antisemitism.

I have no opinion on whether mention of the book as an influence should be included, but if the book is included, there's no reason at all why we would exclude mention of the fact that it's antisemtiic. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

In "Conspiracy Theory and Amntisemitism," Byford wrote, "In the writing of the likes of Robertson, Allen or Marrs, the involvement of American bankers in the financiang of the Bosheviks is not explicitly discussed as an example of a Jewish conspiracy. In fact, all three authors have, in one way or another, sought to distance themselves from the notion of a Jewish plot. Howver, as soon as one looks more closely into the sources for their claims about 'Western conspiracies' and 'American businessmen', a different picture emerges."[5] The phrasing loses this subtlety, because it possible to read the book without being aware of its anti-Semitism. A lot of people don't know that George Soros conspiracy theories and in fact most conspiracism is anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that one can read it without being aware it is antisemitic does not change the fact of it being antisemitic, though. In fact subliminal antisemitism may be more serious than the overt antisemitism. All of which is very interesting, but the fact remains: Jones claims to have been influenced by this antisemitic book. Either we include that fact or we don't, but doing half the job by including the book and not including its nature, doesn't cut it. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What do RS say? It does not matter if he read the book (I have read the books, they have not all turned me into a pirate or to have a dire to kill American Indians (or Welshman). We need an RS making the link between his reading the book and his views.)Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Relevant text from the Rolling Stone source linked above - The most enduring influence, though, was a 1971 bestseller he found on his father’s bookshelf: None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Authored by Gary Allen... ...As a teenager, Jones read the book twice. “It’s still the easiest-to-read primer to the New World Order,” he says. That reads to me like an RS making the link between his reading the book and his views - it explicitly calls it the most enduring influence on him. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This is called synthesis, sources X says X source B says Y so conclusion X is true. Maybe I was not clear, we need a source linking the books antisemitism with Jones. As the source above says you can read the book and not pick up on its antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see where the synth is. If we were saying 'this book made him antisemitic', I could see it, but that's not what we're doing - the sentence says that the book is antisemitic (supported by a source), and that it had a profound influence on him (supported by another source) - that doesn't seem to me to be getting into synth territory. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Guilty by association, we are not saying he is, just a book he has read is (and that it influenced him, so yes we are trying to imply it).Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, no one is questioning that the book is anti-Semitic. The problem is that the phrasing you prefer implies that Jones was aware of that, adopted those views and is an anti-Semite. That may or may not be true. A reliable source that mentioned both Jones and the book's anti-Semitism would discuss that issue, but the Rolling Stone article does not. Note too that in "Conspiracy Theory and Amntisemitism," Byford, after mentioning the author of None Dare Call it Conspiracy, goes on to discuss Jones as a 9/11 truther. But he does not discuss any perceived anti-Semitism held by Jones. The SPLC's article on Jones discusses the influence None Dare Call it Treason, but fails to mention the book was anti-Semitic and makes no claim that Jones himself is.[6] TFD (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The phrasing is pretty clear: he was influenced by the book, he didn't go to the book to bolster pre-existing bigotry. So: he was influenced by an antisemitic book. In fact, he calls it a major influence. That seems important. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article, Byford and the SPLC all consider it unimportant. In any case, saying that someone was influenced by an anti-Semitic book implies that person is anti-Semitic. Wikipedia articles should never imply anything. While it's fine to call someone anti-Semitic if sources say that, it is wrong to merely imply it. TFD (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it implies that he was influenced by an antisemitic book. Whether he is antisemitic as a result or not would be a question for other sources. Whitewashing the nature of the book so that we don't give the impression that someone who was hugely influenced by a work of antisemitism might in turn be a mite antisemitic is a case of us drawing inferences in order to push back on including verifiable fact that perhaps we wish were not verifiable. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019

Jones runs a website, Infowars.com, devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news. Should be changed to Jones runs a website, Infowars.com, known for frequently publishing conspiracy theories and fake news. I think the first version is a biased statement, as not all of what is published on InfoWars is fake news. CallMeElement (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The current wording has already been discussed many times on this talk page, and elsewhere. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, which support the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

In the beginning of the article Mr. Jones is described as a "far right conspiracy theorist." I feel that it would be more accurate to label him as a "far right political commentator". Stating that Mr. Jones is a conspiracy theorist can imply that everything he says is a conspiracy, and prevents him from ever being seen as correct. Yes, Mr. Jones has pushed or promoted conspiracies in the past, their have been cases where he has stated factual information. GonnaJoinDaFlock (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: The current wording has already been discussed many times on this talk page, and elsewhere. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, which support the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

Remove the "far right" before conspiracy theorist in the first line, and wherever else this occurs. Alex Jones is not far right, he has stated so in many appearances, and many positions he takes are not "far right". This is falsely stated in the media. JoshMM60 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"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[7]

"Far-right conspiracy host... " --Rolling Stone[8]

"Twitter banned far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website InfoWars from its platform Thursday afternoon" --CNN[9]

"Twitter announced Thursday that it had banned the accounts of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his far-right media company Infowars" --NBC News[10]

"Facebook today removed 22 pages associated with far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones" --The Verge[11]

I'm just copy-pasting. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Jones dismissed more than two school shootings

A quote from the article. Emphasis mine;

He has accused the United States government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 attacks, as well as claiming that two school shootings were "false flag" operations.

Before Sandy Hook, I also remember him claiming that the Virginia Tech Massacre was a false flag operation. Some of his followers drifted away after this. I don't have any citations about this, but they might be out there somewhere. I should go looking for them, and so should you. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Facebook's discussion over Alex Jones' 'anti-Semitic' post on Instagram

There might be something you can use here:

• Leaked emails reveal Facebook's intense internal discussion over Alex Jones' 'anti-Semitic' post on Instagram

"The emails revealed that Instagram is considering labeling Jones a "hate figure," which would involve barring him from the platform. Jones was barred from Facebook last year."

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Alex Jones blames conspiracy claims on 'psychosis'

Alex Jones blames conspiracy claims on 'psychosis'

He said it, so quoting him is not a BLP violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I am no fan of Alex Jones,[12] but I have a bit of a problem with quoting what someone says during a deposition unless is is a purely factual statement. The reason is the nature of a deposition. A good lawyer (and I have to assume the Jones has hired good lawyers) will instruct a client to avoid lying about anything factual that could be checked, but at the same time will coach his client to spin his motivations in whatever way will give him the best chances at trial. Then the lawyer often instructs the client to tell a completely different story about his motivations at trial. So the words came out of AJ's mouth, but they may very well have been composed by a high-priced lawyer who coached him on what to say.

There is plenty of negative material we can use without using this. It may be allowable under Wikipedia's rules, but IMO it is a violation of basic fairness and is extremely likely to be a distortion of what AJ actually thinks. (Of course his entire show is likely to be a distortion of what AJ actually thinks, but I can't help him there.) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

In two minds, whilst what you say is true I also say that if if someone says it in court, tough don't tell porkies in court. I would (however) rather only use this is RS analyse the claim, as part of a "why Jones is a liar" type phrasing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The deposition was recorded and is on YouTube. I stopped watching after maybe two minutes but if that's the sort of thing you like, this is a fine example of it. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones deposition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7siWJ86g40 180.129.67.37 (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones is not far right

Alex Jones does not believe in white nationalism, anarcho capitalism or racism. Since these are the core few ideologies which most would agree on to be the permanent, major ideologies of the far right, he is not far right. The inclusion of the phrase 'far right conspiracy theorist' is blatant slander. Yes I do have reservations about whether it's just for society to use the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' at all, but that's not even my point. If you ignore the triviality and subjectivity of 'conspiracy theorist', there's still the objective truth that Alex Jones is clearly not far right and this labelling must be the result of either great sloth, great stupidity or great hatred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.108.112 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"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[13]

"Far-right conspiracy host... " --Rolling Stone[14]

"Twitter banned far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website InfoWars from its platform Thursday afternoon" --CNN[15]

"Twitter announced Thursday that it had banned the accounts of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his far-right media company Infowars" --NBC News[16]

"Facebook today removed 22 pages associated with far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones" --The Verge[17]

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add one of those sources immediately after the claim that Jones is far-right. As it stands, zero of the sources provided immediately after that sentence state that he is far-right. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:DF0C:C801:ADFD:99DA:DF8A:BC70 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

FAQ

Feeling this talk page needs an FAQ for all the restarted discussions. Anyone have thoughts and questions to include? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt, but it is unlikely that the new editors who keep having the same discussion over and over will read it. The Infowars website receives approximately 10 million monthly visits, so it is fortunate that we don't get a lot more of this sort of thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree, but with some 15 pages of archives, a few concise bullet points would help with refutations in a hurry. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. We could even include a table of cut and paste responses that hat the section with a link to the FAQ in the hat summary. I say we go for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Started. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news"

Jones runs a website, Infowars.com, devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news This sentence implies that Infowars only posts conspiracy theories and fake news which doesn't seem to be the case. It also reports on mainstream events that are neither fake news nor conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:DF17:5101:ED93:6051:7F1E:53F0 (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Devoted does not mean solely.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Unaware of the debate here, I recently changed the wording to "devoted to opinion, commentary, conspiracy theories and fake news", however it was reverted. I don't understand the issue; clearly InfoWars is a political commentary website and not all articles are fake news -- just take a look at the homepage. User:Guy Macon? 84percent (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

OK what do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"Jones has spent much of the past 23 years on the outskirts of political society, spreading conspiracy theories and lies about some of the most tragic events in modern American history. He is 'almost certainly the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America,' according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."[18]

"Alex Jones is a conservative radio show host based in Austin, Texas. He hosts The Alex Jones Show and runs InfoWars.com, a website known to traffic in fake news and conspiracy theories."[19]

"...InfoWars, arguably the most influential conspiracy-theory outlet in the country..."[20]

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but none of those say his site is devoted to it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem if you nuke "devoted" and use another phrasing. I would object to any statement that Infowars is a legitimate source of opinion or commentary. Jones spends his time doing three things: [1] reporting "news" meant to inflame his audience, much of which is either completely fake or at the very least misleading -- like reporting on one illegal alien who committed crimes without mentioning that statistically they have a lower crime rate than US citizens. [2] pushing conspiracy theories, [3] shilling his overpriced products. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If you wanna change how infowars is depicted, 84percent, the best place to start is our article on it, not here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Gay Frogs listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gay Frogs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Gay Frogs conspiracy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gay Frogs conspiracy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Should "Inside Job" Be Quoted?

"He has claimed that several governments and big businesses have colluded to create a "New World Order" through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and—above all—inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria"."

I've always thought the term "inside job" was one of Alex Jones' taglines as a Radio Announcer; something that made him uniquely identifiable as a media personality. If he didn't actually invent the term, he certain popularized it into common parlance. Despite that, I don't think the term is encyclopedic. If you deconstruct the "inside job" term, it's an accusation of a conspiracy theory that alleges that elements within American society that would be expected to protect human life (the US government, the Bush administration, the government of Israel, American Airlines, the CIA, etc...) betrayed that trust, and collectively committed the criminal act of mass-murder, among other crimes. "inside job", to my ear, is the second half of the Alt-Right battlecry "9/11 was an inside job", and to repeat it without quotes seems POV to me. There must be a more encyclopedic, neutral way of expressing the idea of 1) an allegation of a criminal conspiracy, and 2) heinous crimes, without stooping to the use of this term, particularly in the Lede. Also the term may not be as well-understood by people who are not as immersed in the internet parlance as others. If the term is to be kept, I think putting quotes around it, and sourcing the quote directly to Alex Jones himself (and not Wikipedia) would be a good idea.Tym Whittier (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Please remove the reference which states that Alex Jones is Far Right. This is a matter of opinion and Alex Jones himself has stated on many occasions that he is not far right. He is moderate with views that fall on both sides of the political spectrum. Stating that he is far right is disingenuous at best. John.k.kennedy (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: Discussed often and well sourced. You would need to change consensus. O3000 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Our content is based on RS, which happen to state the truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This "truth is highly subjective, and the left/right paradigm is fundamentally flawed and an oversimplification of extremely complex dynamics. "Far-Right" is a Leftist pejorative used for the specific purpose of marginalizing dissent. There was no need to conflate a consensus among both the RS and the Editors with "the truth". Particularly in politics, "the truth" frequently doesn't even exist and/or is unknowable, however those that attempt to claim to have a monopoly on what it is and is not always have a political agenda. Further, your statement was not very "welcoming". The previous Editor's statement was a sufficient response to an obviously new User.Tym Whittier (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

New article in the Houston Chronicle

"Facebook said Thursday that it has permanently banned several far-right and anti-Semitic figures and organizations, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Infowars host Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer, for being 'dangerous'... " [21][22] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I added it yesterday.- MrX 🖋 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Missed that. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

Alex Jones is not Alt-Right, he confirms himself to be a Libertarian GavinSJ (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: We do not accept self-descriptions like this. We use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

FAQ again

Back in April, Zero Serenity had the useful idea of starting a FAQ for this article, see above. If I comment way up there I don't think anyone will notice, so I'm doing it here. Zero Serenity's subpage Talk:Alex Jones/FAQ doesn't itself have a talkpage, so I'm not sure where to comment, and also hesitate to simply change it myself, but I have a concern. Zero Serenity, I think your initiative was great, but why does your point 2 ask Why is Alex Jones listed as right-wing? Because he's not, AFAIK. The answer provided in the FAQ is "The preponderance of reliable sources label him as having this perspective. See answer 1". Again, no, at least I don't think so. Reliable sources support far-right, surely. And as for "See answer 1": all the six quotes in answer 1 have the word far-right in them; none have right-wing. And the opening sentence of the article itself says Jones is far-right. That's changed to right-wing every now and then, mainly by new users, and then promptly reverted by an experienced user. It happened today, for example. Far-right is well sourced. Did you possibly mistype in Q2, Zero Serenity, and meant to say "Why is Alex Jones listed as far-right"? It's asked again and again. It would be useful to have a FAQ to point to next time it happens. So, does anybody have any more ideas for questions? Bishonen | talk 19:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC).

Couldn't think of a reason to not go ahead and change it. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. I agree that "far right" is more consistent with reliable sources and the language used in Q1. –dlthewave ☎ 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, I tried to err a little more on caution, I guess. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

Delete fake news reference as it is not fake news but an alternative source of news ONEKING7 (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done We go by what reliable sources say and don't use inaccurate terminology. --bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Political leanings

This has gone way too far, and the consensus of the community is clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is far-right used as first sentence when there are other labels used and he himself has different description of his views? Frankly, he is just conspiracy theorist and his political beliefs and convictions seem dubious to me. Therefore I don't think we should take worst characterization (of many) and put it as statement of fact in first sentence and would avoid mentioning political beliefs at such place in article.Sourcerery (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC) We don't use self-descriptions. We use the preponderance of WP:RS. If you search the talk page archive for far right, you will see a large number of past discussions. O3000 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Well I just did, yes there are plenty sources calling him far right, but also calling him conservative and right wing so that's neither here or there. Most sources however describe him as conspiracy theorist and I will note that there was no consensus for FAQ you put in the article, it was just bold edit.Sourcerery (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC) No, it was discussed on the talk page. I would not have made that edit without discussion. Wasn't even my suggestion. Please WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Nothing bad about bold edit, why are linking AGF? Point stands no consensus was obtained so don't tell me "look at FAQ" when you know fully well in what circumstances you made it.Sourcerery (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Yes I know the circumstances under which I made the edit. I made it at the suggestion of an admin, and it has been approved by others. O3000 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC) And where I can see that approval and consensus, in archive there was only one editor you interacted with when making FAQ?Sourcerery (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC) For the third time, I did not create the FAQ. O3000 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC) There is no doubt that the conspiracy theories Jones promotes are far-right. The descriptor is appropriate. – bradv🍁 14:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Really, how exactly do vaccines play role in far right ideology?Sourcerery (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I don't AGF this one. You read my edit comment and chose to interpret is backwards. We're going in circles, read the FAQ please. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Where is consensus you claim you have, don't redirect me to FAQ, Objective3000 made it without consensus.Sourcerery (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Read the archives for this talk page. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I did and found no consensus for FAQ.Sourcerery (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC) It's a fact that anti-vaccination is a big deal for the far right, and not just in the US."Rightwing populists ride wave of mistrust of vaccine science See also as an example[Rightwing populists ride wave of mistrust of vaccine science] [23] - there's a lot more linking the far-right to anti-Vaxxers. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Yeah sure, clear correlation. Serbia with most cases has lesbian prime minister Ana Brnabić and ex-communist Ivica Dačić as first deputy prime minister.Sourcerery (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC) ??You seem to have missed the point completely. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC) "Why is far-right used as first sentence when there are other labels used and he himself has different description of his views?" This question has been asked many times, and the answer is always the same, which is why the FAQ was created: The preponderance of reliable sources use the term "far right", and we write articles based on what reliable sources say about the subject. We don't use a term just because the subject describes themselves that way or editors feel that it is inaccurate. Sourcerery what objection do you have to this explanation? –dlthewave ☎ 19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Sources use other terms more than they do term far-right like conservative, libertarian, right wing, paleoconservative what not. Why is out of all terms that are used to describe him, the worst one chosen for the very first sentence? FAQ was challenged many times and was written without consensus, it was a bold edit. His political views are secondary to the fact that he has habit of believing in outlandish things that are not necessary political, although they can sometimes be seen as such like when he called Hillary "a god damn demon". Saying Bill Gates is a eugenicist trying to wipe out minorities can arguably be seen as left wing conspiracy, is he far left[24]? Government is controlling the weather is among greatest hits as well.Sourcerery (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Your claim that we have chosen the worst way of describing him is a lack of good faith and your claim that the FAQ doesn't have consensus is false. It was selected because the preponderance of reliable sources used it. Of course, not all sources say this and certainly not the folks coming here to express their opinions that he tells the truth, is a moderate, etc. You will find folks complaining about the terms used on all articles about fringe people. We follow the best sources. You can certainly try to change consensus here. That's what the TP is for. But, edit-warring, section blanking, and assumptions of bad faith are not effective methods of consensus building. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) Sources that support "far-right" are provided in the FAQ. Sourcerery Could you provide your sources which use a different term more frequently? –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC) That is not true, majority of sources do not describe his place on spectrum at all especially one used for first sentence where is contention. Others that acknowledge that there are differing views are ok, statement in first sentence pretends it's statement of indisputable true without any differing views, which is simply incorrect. He is described in third paragraph by different labels and far right is among them yet I never disputed that, some have indeed called him far right.Sourcerery (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Please see the six sources in the FAQ which support "far right". I ask again, where are your sources that contradict this? –dlthewave ☎ 21:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Sources quoted for the first sentence which is the sentence in question, they don't use.Sourcerery (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC) The fact that he's far-right is extensively cited both in the body of the article and further down in the lead itself. It's not necessary to source everything in the lead as long as it is cited in the body; in this case it's easy to see why that's the case, since the first sentence has to cite a huge number of points and therefore already has six sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Misrepresentation at best, still likely BLP violation. If there are differing views and all are indeed covered in body you can't cherry pick worst term and put it as unchallenged statement of a fact in first sentence while pretending no other terms are used when it comes to his place on political spectrum, then use FAQ made without consensus to enforce that.Sourcerery (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Are there any RS (does he deny it?) that say he is not far right?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Yes, plenty of sources in article use right wing, conservative, paleoconservative, libertarian and most often, they just call him conspiracy theorist. Why was worst label chosen for first sentence, plus presented as statement of fact without differing views is dubious, especially for BLP. He himself identifies as libertarian (not that suprising when you hear gems like "government is controlling the weather").Sourcerery (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Plenty of sources do not say the sea is wet. Not saying something is not the same as saying it is not true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Yes it does, you can't prove a negative. Prove to me god isn't real.Sourcerery (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC) It is not our place to prove (or disprove) anything, but rather to repeat what RS say. I suggest you read wp:or and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Cherry picking worst term is editorialising and violation of BLP in this case.Sourcerery (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Well without sources we can't fix it and endless argumentation will not help... —PaleoNeonate – 11:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Well we are in luck, because we have sources in article already that show differing views. I would also point out sources quoted for first sentence, the one in question don't use term far right at all.Sourcerery (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Sourcerery I count at least six other editors here disagreeing with your interpretation. Amongst them are an admin and former arbitrator, and a serving ArbCom clerk. Their positions don't give them any particular editorial authority, but you must see that they are very experienced at evaluating sources and writing good content, and they have the trust of the community. Consider me number seven - it seems to me that the sources support the current wording - do you think we might drop this now please? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Well if their position gives them no authority why bring it up. I think this is clear violation of BLP and have laid out my case why and in my opinion there was no rebutal at all, only some whataboutery. FAQ abuse as well.Sourcerery (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC) You have made the accusation that the FAQ was created to enforce non-consensus and abuse the process several times now on multiple pages. This is casting aspersions, and is 100% false. This needs to stop. Make your points without assuming malevolent behavior. O3000 (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I have said FAQ was made without consensus and was abused to shut down discussion on challenged term. Creator confirmed it was bold edit without consensus.Sourcerery (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Consensus is that as majority of commenting editors agree, it is not majority of Wikipedians agree.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Thank you for clearing that up, I know what consensus is and editor that made FAQ confirmed my notion.Sourcerery (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Really, where? Come that that what notion?Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC) [25] He didn't wait for consensus he was being bold and made it (nothing wrong with that), he tries to play it down a bit, but it is what it is. It woudn't be big deal if it wasn't abused to enforce BLP violation.Sourcerery (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "there was one in affirmation and no in declination", that is consensus, everyone who commented agreed. The fact he says he made a bold edit was precisely because there was no objection.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Of course, he didn't even wait a month after starting a topic. There was no time for proper consensus, that's why it's bold edit. When something has consensus than it's not bold and wouldn't be called as such.Sourcerery (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I believe I already made it clear why I brought it up, but I'll explain again. I said that while their position gave them no editorial authority, it does show that they have the trust and respect of the community; people in those roles are also usually very well-versed in our BLP policies - if Doug Weller doesn't think that this is an issue, I am confident that they are right. Continuing to make the same points, in the face of disagreement from so many experienced editors, seems pointless, and looks a teeny bit like WP:SEALIONING. I don't think this is likely to go anywhere, and suggest that we all drop it and go do something productive. GirthSummit (blether) 12:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Cool suggestion, but I would prefer mine which includes deleting far right from first sentence since it acts like it's statement of fact, and deleting far right part from FAQ.Sourcerery (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Yes, you've made it clear that that's what you'd prefer, thanks. You haven't convinced anyone that you're right though, so absent any new arguments or viewpoints, I think we should let this rest. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Your opinion is noted, I have differing view. This more matter of rules than "convincing" in my opinion.Sourcerery (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Can an uninvolved admin step in now, this is beyond a joke.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

FBI Investigation?

I came here to see if we have covered what two web sites say is an FBI investigation:

• Alex Jones offers $1M reward as FBI investigates child pornography planted on his Infowars server

• Alex Jones Offers $1M Reward After Alleged ‘Malware’ Attack That He Says Planted Child Porn on His Servers

Is this just another made-up story from Jones? A google search turns up plenty of coverage on the usual alt-right fake news sites, but has any legitimate site actually confirmed that such an investigation exists? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This looks like an RS? https://www.ctpost.com/local/ctpost/article/Lawyers-Alex-Jones-sent-child-porn-to-Sandy-Hook-14005437.php --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's see how it pans out. WP:RECENTISM O3000 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree, lets wait.Slatersteven (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I concur. Better to be sure we get it right get it right with something that traces back to law enforcement or a court case instead of passing on what either Jones or the lawyers suing him claim happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

NYTimes article today[26]. Sandy Hook lawyers say images turned over to FBI. Jones lawyers say FBI cleared them. FBI hasn't said anything. Just they said they said at the moment. We won't even know if there is an investigation until/unless the FBI says something. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Still not enough for inclusion in this article IMO, but getting closer.

It is reasonable to believe that Jones' lawyers sent the Hook lawyers a huge dump of every email received or sent during a certain period. That's a standard tactic in response to a discovery request. It is also reasonable to believe that Infowars gets a huge number of emails, most of which are never read. And it is reasonable to believe that some idiots have sent Infowars emails containing child pornography (lets hope they used accounts that the FBI can trace to them). I would be surprised if Wikipedia doesn't get an occasional email containing child pornography.

It is not reasonable to believe that Jones' lawyers purposely included child pornography in material sent to the Hook lawyers. It is also not reasonable to expect Jones' lawyers to read a collection of emails that most likely contain over a million emails before dumping them on the Hook lawyers. Why should they, especially if the email server marked them as unread?

Here is my prediction for what happens next: Jones hires experts to try to trace the senders, and if he succeeds reports them to the FBI and makes a huge noise about it in an Infowars broadcast. The FBI quietly goes after the senders and if possible puts them in jail. And Wikipedia will stay out of it until something (unlike the NYT article) comes up that can be traced to specific legal filing or announcement by law enforcement. Our BLP rules say that we don't add material that even implies involvement with child pornography based solely on statements by lawyers. Jones get the same BLP protecton as anyone else -- no more and no less. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, all this speculation can't be used anyway, so it's best to wait for more information. —PaleoNeonate – 10:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, its an accusation, not a fact. When we know what happened then we add it, we do not need it now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fully concur. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, porn featuring transwomen has nothing to do with child pornography

@ContentEditman: why in the world did your edit summary re-inserting the useless trivia that Jones was watching legal pornography featuring a trans woman has anything to do with the recent child pornography allegations? I'm really trying to WP:AGF here, but there's a long history of homophobes using fear for predation of the children as a guise to engage in discrimination against people who aren't straight - see, for example, the various state bathroom bills in the USA currently. I sincerely hope that your statement was merely poorly worded and you weren't trying to imply that trans porn is somehow indicative of or morally equivalent to pedophilia. And again, if this was merely a moment where you misspoke, I'm happy to leave this here and assume good faith. But it's a worrying line of reasoning for reinserting what is, again, useless trivia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point. For the record, the percentage of pedophiles is similar for every sexual orientation. Gays, lesbians, transexuals, Bisexuals, etc. have pretty much the same percentage of pedophiles as heterosexuals. IIRC there are some gender differences, but it is unclear whether this is just because males and females have different crime rates in general.

There is no reason to for our article to mention anything any amateur sleuths have managed to dig up about Jones' porn watching habits. See WP:BLP. I also noticed a recent edit summary calling him an "evil man". This is also a violation of WP:BLP. As anyone looking at my edit history can see, I am not exactly a fan of Jones, but he deserves the same NPOV and BLP treatment as anyone else. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep —PaleoNeonate – 14:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I wholly agree, we should treat him like a human being.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no, if Jones disappeared off the face of the earth forever I wouldn't shed a single tear. But WP:BLP still applies to him, and harm that results from tying a porn video he watched featuring an adult trans-woman to the kiddy porn Sandy Hook thing is not even about protecting him. It's about protecting LGBTQ+ people who face this sort of nonsense on a daily basis. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia has a WP:Child protection policy. If it were to take a stance on bathroom policy, it would be anti-trans. W.r.t. BLP concerns I agree with the reasoning. wumbolo ^^^ 11:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The introduction should not unambiguously state that Alex Jones is far-right.

I saw the FAQ but frankly I found it unsatisfying. None of the sources that are given show that Alex Jones holds beliefs typically associated with far-right ideology, meaning no beliefs mentioned in wikipedia's own definition of far-right: extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies. Either these sources should be added or the introduction should make clear that this is not a fact but rather something that some journalists/organisations claim.

Lucas12233 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources say that he is far-right, so we do. We don't make evaluations like this ourselves as that would be original research. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clearing that up. Lucas12233 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones Loses Appeal, Sandy Hook Lawsuit Moves Forward

"Infowars founder Alex Jones has lost another legal battle against families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. Jones must now pay all costs associated with an appeal filed against a parent of a Sandy Hook Elementary School victim, says the Texas Court of Appeals..." Source: Connecticut Public Radio

Discussion

Do not use talk pages to soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Not soapboxing. Instead, responding in one place to the many past (and sure to be many more in the future) posts asking us to not call Jones a conspiracy theorist or to not call his webpages fake news. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think he's wrong about the walruses. I think they're elephant seals. O3000 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, listen to this[27] and compare it with this.[28] I'm just saying.

(And yes, while we are having a bit of fun, the purpose once again is for the hundreds of people who come to this talk page and demand that we treat InfoWars as a legitimate source of news to see this and understand why we refuse to do that.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And I think it's valuable. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 30 0August 2019 (UTC)

A search of the archives shows why it is valuable.[29] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Biased

It’s funny how they say Alex is a far-right conspiracy theorist, yet when I go on a page that is clearly Communist, I call it far-left, people freak out. These “editors” are a joke and Wiki is showing their bias when it comes to stuff like this. DigitalDogg21 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That maybe because we go with what RS (not we) think.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How come Alex Jones is back on youtube?

I though Alex Jones was banned from youtube?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkByT0s4X1VZVsS9bnV5Teg/videos

112.199.232.228 (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Jones and his fans keeps making new channels and YouTube keeps nuking them. Sometimes one sticks around a little longer if it has very few viewers. here is where you can report any you find:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802027?hl=en&ref_topic=9387085

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

wp:notaforum.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't help but wishing that you would be be a bit less liberal with those "notaforum" comments. Our Alex Jones page has extensive and well-sourced content on Jones' removal from various websites. Asking why he seems to be back on YouTube (and by implication whether we should cover same) seems to me to be a legitimate question about the content of this page. My answer was, I believe, a good explanation of why we don't cover every attempt Jones makes to evade his YouTube ban, and pointed the person asking the question to a better place to ask it.

In general, if someone asks a good-faith question and the answer is brief, it is sometimes better to just answer the question asked instead of telling someone who just posted to Wikipedia the very first time that they did something wrong and should have asked their question at the reference desk. If the thread reaches three or four entries, that would be a good time to bring up WP:FORUM. Many times a brief answer and then moving on is a better choice. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No a good question would be "why do we not mention the fact". Yes you are right I am not Liberal enough, which means I can tell the next person to ask "Alex Jones if a great bloke, you're all just being mean" the same response without any possibility of Hypocrisy. I treat all users the same.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"And your second theory is that we are all "caught up in a form of dogmatic groupthink". This "groupthink" would include me and Slatersteven, who regularly disagrees with me on various issues. We tend to disagree in a civil manner, because we clearly both want what is best for the encyclopedia, but there are many examples of him concluding that I am completely wrong or vice versa."[30]

See you at the next Groupthink Cabal Meeting. I believe it is your turn to provide the Beluga caviar. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is kind of my point I can (and have in the debate you reference above) say "look at the talk page history for my alleged bias". But I have had my say, when I see an edit suggestion I shall comment further.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

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.

---

change far-right conspiracy theorist to A right-wing talk show host 108.41.137.226 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: - This has been responded to in detail. It is well sourced and there are no child slave colonies on Mars. O3000 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2020 (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.

Alex Jones ReMarried

If you read the story today (March 11, 2020) about Alex Jones' arrest for DWI, it mentions his wife calling the cops on him for domestic abuse... how can this be, if Alex Jones has not remarried?... apparently, his new wife's name is Erica Wulff... the problem seems to be both her Jewish heritage (given that jones courts an anti-semitic audience), and the fact that she used to be a yoga instructor and a sex-worker. It seems this was brought up in the divorce case... I edited the personal section, but the edit was reverted... there is very little information about it, out on the web, but it does exist (tho the reversion edit stated "Not a reliable source." on both sources cited.

Here was my original edit:

On January 13th,2017 Alex Jones married Erika Wulff (aka Onya/Ajna/Enya)

So is there anything i can do now, to get my edit to stick? Bobwolfe23 (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bobwolfe23: The edits really need to cite mainstream sources. Hoaxer Info doesn't even appear to be a professional news site, just a blog. Even if we don't like a subject, while they're still alive (and for a little bit after), WP:BLP applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Agree this needs top line sourcing as it is about a BLP as you can get.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Arrested for DWI

Can someone add that Alex Jones was arrested on suspicion of intoxicated driving? https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/conservative-radio-host-alex-jones-arrested-charged-with-dwi-on-tuesday-morning/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.225.45.202 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds minor. WP:UNDUE O3000 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Also arrested and guilty are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is major enough to add. I’m not sure if I should yet. Dellwood546 (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of adding this information Jono1011 (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

i also agree, this should be added... i did add in that he had been remarried (note the fact he has a wife in the dwi story), strange that she wasn't listed on his page already (probably because she was an escort... and possibly her jewish heritage might upset some of jones' anti-semitic followers?) Bobwolfe23 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

and it already has been deleted... hmmmm? how can your wife call the sheriffs if you are not married? Bobwolfe23 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I am going to add it. Dellwood546 (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• And I have removed it. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and we are not a vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. GMG^talk 14:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Trivial nonsense. We don't need this. Guy (help!) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems pertinent Jones blood alcohol level ranged from 0.076 to 0.079; the legal blood alcohol limit while driving in Texas is 0.08. Beth Timken (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

...It seems pertinent to include this information in the article. Beth Timken (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WHY?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure I understand why it's important to include how it turns out someone actually didn't commit a crime. GMG^talk 16:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

We have a guy accused of selling bogus coronavirus cures, and a traffic infraction, which likely didn't occur, is under discussion? O3000 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

But we should not be putting in accusations, only convictions unless the crime is a series or major one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

True. Although I think we are OK saying he has received a cease-and-desist order from an AG. O3000 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I would argue (given the current crisis) it counts as a major crime, one of significance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree. But, such usually end up with just a consent decree. O3000 (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not consider this "Tabloid-like". A criminal charge (even when not persecuted) Often effects ones reputation heavily and has many other consequences, being a criminal charge, it should be notable. If dropped, which may be quite possible, it can always be removed. Thanks, Dellwood546 (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The item under discussion below:

On March 10th of 2020, Alex Jones was arrested on charges of suspicion of DWI after police detected a strong odor of liquor coming from his vehicle after he was caught driving 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. Jones blood alcohol level ranged from 0.076 to 0.079; the legal blood alcohol limit while driving in Texas is 0.08. The charges are yet to be proven in court.

and here is ref from Portal:Current events/2020 March 10. X1\ (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So he was under the legal limit and drove no faster than everyone else on the road. Lock him up! Not exactly worthy of mention here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, that is showing, in my opinion, some possible bias (User talk:BullRangifier), may I remind you that such is a class B misdemeanor criminal charge in Texas, being the same as small narcotics possession. This has less to do whether he is guilty or not and more about notability. Anyways.Dellwood546 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Being under the legal limit is a crime?? Or do you mean the 5 miles over? I don't understand. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content not users please.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

New York AG tells Alex Jones to stop pimping bogus coronavirus cures

Seems important to include in article. https://nypost.com/2020/03/12/new-york-attorney-general-tells-alex-jones-to-stop-selling-bogus-coronavirus-cures/ 49.245.80.26 (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes this maywwell be.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd also strongly support this information being added to the article, the story has also been reported by these news outlets [1] [2] Jono1011 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Also in Time, Fortune etc. Guy (help!) 15:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, Fortune and Time are both reprinting the same AP story, but there is independent coverage from places like NYT and Forbes. Having said that, the controversy section is bloated, comprises fully half the article by length, and needs to be tightened by at least 30% or so. It's the same problem going on at Julian Assange, meticulously documenting every tiny detail instead of summarizing the information in a way that is accessible to readers. GMG^talk 11:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I could certainly go with a tighting up, but (given its topicality and potential seriousness) this still warrants inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I haven't really messed with this article very much. I think I have it watchlisted because of vandalism. But having "Relationship with Donald Trump" placed under the controversy section is the one major thing that seems pretty out-of-place, and is probably an implicit bias via ordering. I struggle to imagine a situation where support of a political candidate in-and-of itself would be considered a controversy rather than a political view. GMG^talk 12:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That would rather depend on how controversial the politician is.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That would rather depend on the preponderance of reliable sources. From the looks of those used, it appears the controversy is Trump associating himself with Jones, and not the other way round. Compare David Duke, where Duke's support for Trump is also listed under politics. Trump endorsing Duke would be a controversy for Trump. Duke endorsing Trump? It's hardly controversial that a far right figure would support the farthest right candidate. In other news, water is wet. GMG^talk 12:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

At any rate, having significantly tightened and reorganized the controversy section, I've added a bit on coronavirus to the products section, as we ought not be adding things to criticism/controversy sections unless they absolutely cannot thematically fit anywhere else. GMG^talk 13:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Update photo of Alex Jones

• Possible to update photo of Alex Jones on the wiki page with a more recent photo like in below source?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/infowars-host-alex-jones-charged-dwi-texas-n1154816 112.199.240.84 (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No. See WP:MUGSHOT. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Also works of local governments in the state of Texas are copyrighted. GMG^talk 14:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Having a mugshot there purposely slanders the individual. The other is a professional and recent enough pic Pupuce2020 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Note for the So Called Edit War

another rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Btw do you calls of rape from Kavanaugh, pee pee tapes, russiagate, kids in cages from picture of AOC screaming at a parking lot.. Etc etc to be real news? Websites and groups like CNN have announced these fake news and conspiracy theories for a long time and many are found out to be just that. So if I go to the CNN wikipedia right now or newscasters from these sites will I be able to see them labled as far left wing, fake news, conspiracy theory sites? I prove my point you pick a few artices and statements from a site or a individual and you place labels on them. These are your opinion. If they were not you would place these on CNN, Abc, msnbc, and others right now. I bet you won't. 7valentine7 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Issues with this Talk page's FAQ

another rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Slightly elaborating upon my post here yesterday which has been labeled a rant (and I see that as reasonable, so no offense taken), I would like to address that the FAQ at the top of this talk page has an apparent problem related to the content handling of this particular Wikipedia article, specifically regarding the commonplace (mis)identification of the article subject's political affiliation identified in the first sentence of the article as "far-right". I am new to this and I did not view the talk page archive, so apologies if my question has been already properly answered. The FAQ says: Q2: Why is Alex Jones listed as far-right? A2: The preponderance of reliable sources label him as having this perspective. See answer 1. A2 references A1 for identification of various sources as RS (reliable sources), which says: Q1: Why is Alex Jones listed as a Conspiracy Theorist/Fake News? A1: The preponderance of reliable sources label him and InfoWars 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 "Far-right conspiracy host... " --Rolling Stone "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 problem is that the FAQ relies upon sources of information that are clearly not "reliable sources" in this matter because they uniformly state both adverse and contradictory statements of their invested competition of Alex Jones and his broadcasting company InfoWars. The bias is real and obvious, because all the "reliable sources" are media publishing companies that compete for business against Alex Jones' (independent, unaffiliated, "outsider"-type -- not grouped into the "mainstream media") media publishing company. Prison Planet, one of the media publishing web sites handled by Alex Jones, contains this statement about Alex Jones: (prisonplanet.com/about-alex-jones) Jones avoids the bogus political labels of "left and right" and instead focuses on what really matters — what's right and wrong. As a tenacious journalist, Jones has broken hundreds of national stories over the span of his career, a feat that... We can see it is handled by Alex Jones because at the bottom of the web page it contains the copyright footer for the name of his company: © 2020 PrisonPlanet.com is a Free Speech Systems, LLC company. All rights reserved. It can be reasonably presumed that Alex Jones wrote or endorsed this about himself because it appears on a web site his media publishing company manages. We can safely say that Alex Jones considers the first sentence of this Wikipedia article to be "bogus", that is, absurdly inaccurate. And we can also reasonably presume inaccurate (call an unreliable source) allegations by competitor The New York Times that Alex Jones "spreads lies" and spreads "inflammatory attacks against political enemies" because we clearly have the evidence that Jones does not identify political enemies, at least in the context of the New York Times' assertion "Infowars leans far right". Jones explicitly wrote about himself, "Jones avoids the bogus political labels of "left and right"." My question is this: If we have clear and present references to how an individual identifies themselves, should this information be considered more reliable ("closer to home") in describing the person than perpetual pernicious negative and adverse information uniformly published about them by business competitors? To exalt adversity against an individual by presenting such as definition of them in the first sentence of an encyclopedic entry about them seems to promote the agenda of the alienating bias against them. As I mentioned before, I am concerned with the antagonistic, biased, non-neutral position overtly welcomed through republication here from journalistic sources of questionable integrity of motivation, and it appears that Wikipedia here is simply following the lock step of libel rather than doing its best to adhere to its own guidelines, which I am guessing are supposed to boldly present objective neutrality. At least that's how this article is in comparison to the rest of Wikipedia we have come to trust to at least be somewhat accurate. In this specific case, it seems in my judgment that if we cannot maintain neutrality of viewpoint in using a label due to discrepancies between an original source and hearsay, or between clear first-party sources and antagonistically libelous third-party sources, then it is best to simply omit the discrepancy, if not explicate the discrepancy within a sub-topic in the article. Without serious and deliberate proper consideration of this overt problem, it will continue to look like Wikipedia is promoting news media conspiracy against the article subject, in this case against Alex Jones, clearly exacerbated by the fact that Wikipedia has placed Alex Jones' "prisonplanet.com" media publication web site on its own blacklist. --98.115.222.127 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

We need an RS saying this (not his lawyer).Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

We don't deal with "truth" here. We deal with verifiability. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, it requires attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

I can live with "disseminating".Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Far right

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.

---

We've got someone trying to eliminate "far right" as a description of Jones, despite the five sources that call him that. Someone deal with this please, I'm tired of these idiots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's truly hilarious to be called an idiot for defending and upholding Wikipedia's core values by removing subjective information in favor for the objective. If Wikipedia was just 100% paraphrasing news articles, it would be a mess, and frankly it is especially on Alex Jones' page. This article is chock full of negative portrayals, but if the public should entertain them, which is fair, then they should also be given a neutral unbiased introduction. Honestly this page needs full protection because of all the vandalism of ignorant offended SJWs who believe everything they see on the news. I won't even begin to talk about the hypocrisy of the issue either.

Katabatic03 (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's talk Wikipedia policy. :We report what reliable sources say. We do not evaluate for ourselves, that would be original research, which is not allowed. We also do not label things by our personal point of view, which is also forbidden -- see WP:NPOV.

Do not revert "far right" from the article again. It's now supported by 7 references, from sources such as USA Today, Forbes magazine, Haaretz, and Bloomberg News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Jones is absolutely far right. THere should be no dispute about that. I agree with those who say that it is an accurate description and that it stays in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I will add to the chorus that Jones is far-right as far as Wikipedia is concerned, based on many reliable sources. Nothing about this seems like an extraordinary claim, and "bias" doesn't mean false equivalence. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I invite everyone who edits this article in the future to take a look at WP:YESPOV. This Wikipedia policy clearly and specifically says that you cannot use what a news article says as an expression of fact in Wikipedia's voice, you can only address the articles' viewpoint. There are already several sections on Alex Jones' article for showing what people in the media think of him. His introductory paragraph is especially not the section for that. Therefore you cannot write in the article that "[he] is... far-right", you must say that he is alleged to be this or that people say that he is this. However, you shouldn't do that in the introduction either as that is too specific for an introduction. There might even be a policy on that but I'm just going off of common sense for that one. So, I will revert the article and notify an admin next time someone puts "far-right" in. Katabatic03 (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Actually I won't revert it in lieu of the edits made over it. I think I'm just going to notify an admin. Katabatic03 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't need yet another new talk page section for this.

Your comments about "news articles" is wrong. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, including news articles, in almost every significant article about the modern world. The YESPOV bit only applies to opinions. Few of these sources are opinions, so "far-right" is not automatically an opinion any more than "conspiracy theorist" is an opinion. In other words, your dislike of a factual description doesn't make it an opinion. However, your opinion about what is "too specific" is just your opinion. Sources decide WP:DUE, not editors. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

People like you guys who twist Wikipedia policies to keep an article conforming to your political agenda make me sick. You guys are literally labeling him just because sources label him. He himself has never adopted those labels. If you want to label him you have to address the labels not insert them as something purely factual. But I’ll leave the page alone since it triggers everyone when I fix it. I wonder how many celebrities are appalled when they read their Wikipedia pages... Katabatic03 (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. For now, at least, Alex Jones still has many places to share his various opinions, but this isn't one of them. As an encyclopedia, this article should summarize reliable, independent sources. This is, basically, the goal of all articles, celebrity or not. We summarize reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "You guys are literally labeling him just because sources label him." That's almost right: we are describing him as our reliable sources describe him. Grayfell is absolutely correct, that is what we do. Because the vast majority of us aren't experts on the subjects of most of the articles we work on, we rely on reliable sources (which policy you'd be better off reading than searching around for some policy you think supports you) and report what they say. If reliable sources conflict, we report both versions. What we do not do is report what biased, one-sided, POV-agenda sources say, because they're biased, one sided, and report from a POV, nor do we make stuff up, or poll other editors and our readers as to what they think. This is the way we work, and it's going to stay the way we work, because it's been successful: it's made Wikipedia one of the most visited sites on the Internet, and earned us a hard-won reputation for accuracy and reliability.

Of course there are people-- iike you -- who don't like how we operate for one reason or another. Most often it's because we won't report what they, in their personal experience, believe to be the "objective truth". Well, the fact of it is, we don't much care about big "t" "Truth", what we care about is the WP:verifiability of the information we report. There are a lot of competing "truths" out there -- hell, every religion has it's own version of "truth", and every political group, and every group of more than 3 people (if they can agree on one). To figure out which one of these "truths" is "objectively true" is nearly impossible.

Even in our science coverage we don't look for "truth", we report what the consensus of scientists in that field say, and if there are significant wp:fringe views, we report what they say as well, but not to the extent that we do the mainstream view.

A little thought will show that this is the only way an encyclopedia run by non-expert volunteers can possibly operate. There's no "hypocrisy" here, or at least very little of it, we're doing exactly what we say we will do in our policies, and the vast majority of people appear to value it. What you are asking for is something else entirely, something that does not fit in with our policies, our goals, or our philosophy. If you want that, you'll have to go somewhere else, or start your own encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, in case you think that we're BSing you, Greyfall has been here for 12 years and has over 66,000 edits to almost 22,000 pages, while I've been here just shy of 15 years and have around 250,000 edits to over 50,000 pages. That's not to pull rank on you, it's just to show you that we really do know Wikipedia, and its rules and policies and, most importantly, its philosphy. We could not have possibly lasted this long if we didn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

So you do not believe that the designation "far right" is an opinion? Or perhaps you do believe it's an opinion and use it because it been used by media sources. Well tell me, is it a matter of contention? Would Alex Jones himself describe his views as far right? Because he doesn't, nor has he ever as far as I know. So why do you use media sources when every single one of them has a certain political agenda. You'd be very hardpressed to find a truly neutral media source and yet you keep on using them as if they are the objective truth. I find that very interesting. I also wonder how you define a media source as a trusted one. Because you cannot have so many inherently biased articles on Wikipedia and claim to be a neutral and wholly objective online encyclopedia. Alekaa20025 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A: we go with what RS say. B: North Korea says its Democratic, is it? Just because someone says something does not make it true. C: Has Jones denied it? D: We do not claim to be neutral and wholly objective, we claim to represent what RS say. Ironically I...but then we are not a wp:soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I'm not inclined to pay much attention to the opinions of an editor who attempts to soften descriptions of what the Nazis did to the Slavic population of Eastern Europe. [31] Pretty typical of the type of people who support Alex Jones, unfortunately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So you aren't willing to pay attention to people because of what they have done in the past? Alright your choice but it isn't you that makes the decisions. If anything this shows that you have a certain bias against people based on their political beliefs and thus your opinion matters even less in my view. I am simply focused on objectivity, and have always claimed as such.

Regardless here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia reliable sources page.

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The article is not based primarily on such sources.

As such Alex Jones has sources which define his own views. I wouldn't say they are much more unbiased than these definitions the media gives out but it's still fair sources which should be given representation. And as far as I see they are not. Alekaa20025 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well as a claim he is not far right could be seen as unduly self-serving (as he is denying a serious accusation made by multiple RS) it would in fact violate SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that Alekaa20025 softened Nazi atrocities just a month ago (not, as they put it, "in the past", and has generally just been on a crusade against mainstream sources on behalf of far-right (and, outside this article, overtly white supremacist groups), I've blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2020 (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.

"Far Right" - needs altering

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.

---

Alex Jones may well be far right. However, this is contentious. It has very negative connotations. This is contentious material about a living person that is potentially libellous. Wikipedia should be objective. It doesn't matter how many citations you find for people name calling him as "far right" - many of the people cited hate him which is why they call him that (most of the sites cited are left leaning and could be biased as a result).

IF he is far right, then I think it would not be contentious if he was described more specifically in his political views eg. what type of far right is he? This wouldn't involve name calling and being potentially libellous.

Having that phrase "far right" within the first sentence of his page seems designed to brand him in a negative way. If it were written somewhere further down the page with its many attached citations that would be more acceptable because it would have less affect on the article. Also putting it like this: "he is seen by many (citation, citation, citation x1000) as far-right", that would be much more objective and would not be a smear.

I am not saying he isn't far right, I am saying that having that written at the top of his page, is a hugely defamatory, negative statement and is designed to slander him and therefore is not objective. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Read the above thread. There's no reason to restart this argument. Again. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have read it and have written this to give the reasons for the argument. The fact this is being brought up "again" after long sustained debate, speaks volumes. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It speaks to nothing except the inability of some readers to accept that we report what reliable sources say. It has been discussed many times, and people keep coming backl with the same arguments, which were not valid then, and are not valid now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please justify why what I have said is not valid. Gd123lbp (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2020 (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.

Beyond my Ken is silencing discussion

They are closing down debate by archiving discussions. This is not acceptable for a free and open platform like Wikipedia. Gd123lbp (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Because you keep trying to restart an argument that has been settled over and over again. WP:LISTEN Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• How is archiving it silencing? It's preserved in the archives, where anyone can review it in its entirety. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Its in the archive, but once a conversation has died we do not need to keep it visible here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Gd123lbp, it's in the FAQ, dude. Guy (help!) 15:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Gd123lbp, I know you're new here but a simple search of the archives of this very page would show you this subject has been "debated" so many times it's actually prominently displayed on the header right above you. And I say "debated" as it's not a debate with no evidence. Can you show some reliable sources arguing he is not far right? A a simple Google news search would show literally hundreds of thousands of sources showing he is. The reason your discussions are being archived is because an editor comes and makes the same argument consistently with no reliable sources to back up their point. It's someone constantly saying the Pope isn't Catholic over and over with no evidence. Actually exhausting. Glen 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Depressing, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Far-right"

This is the wrong term for Alex Jones' political views. I'm pretty sure you mean "Libertarian" StongOx1745 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the FAQ please. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I did, but you can't seem to fix it. Your "reliable" sources don't seem to be reliable at all considering that the man himself (Alex Jones) said he's libertarian. StongOx1745 (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, not self-descriptions. O3000 (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I mean, we can certainly have this discussion. But you need to do it on the correct terms. You need reliable secondary sources that describe him as libertarian as opposed to far-right. He can be both, and not all libertarians are right. But this isn't something we discuss amongst ourselves and not something where we "take his word" for it. Everything on Wikipedia lives and dies according to the sources. GMG^talk 19:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias against Alex Jones in this article

Far-right was bad enough but now Jones has suddenly acquired a new title "political extremist". This kind of emotive political rhetoric is not appropriate for wikipedia. This is a topic of much debate, rather than something that can be assuredly put in the first descriptive sentence of Alex Jones' wikipedia article.

Alex Jones is a very unusual character with a peculiar outlook on the world. He certainly leans right politically, but his views are quite idiosyncratic. They certainly do not align with typical far-right people or extremists who tend to be very closed minded and totalitarian.

Jones displays many signs of lateral thinking, divergent thinking and open association in his thought. This is NOT how a natural conservative thinks. This is explained quite well by psychologist Jordan Peterson in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq1i4enQVDE (albeit about Russell Brand in this case but is quite similar if you listen to Alex Jones speaking).

Direct quote (Dr Jordan B Peterson): "you are a very 'open' person, and you can tell because you think laterally. You have an idea, and this reminds you of a whole bunch of other ideas. And so you'll move laterally across ideas. A more conservative person will stay within the category. Your conversational style is marked by divergences. That is actually called divergent thinking, its a hall mark of creativity."

This explains why Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist; because he is a very 'open' person (open to unusual thoughts and information).

Tarring him with the labels "far right" and "political extremist" are designed to defame him because these phrases hold many negative connotations. This is just cheap tactics from people who do not understand him and do not want to because they do not like his support for Republican ideals. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As Guy Macon says over at Talk:InfoWars#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... Sounds legit to me!

@Gd123lbp: To compare Alex Jones with Russell Brand without a source that explicitly makes that connection (aside from the intellectually dishonest WP:SYNTH issues) borders on a BLP violation against Brand. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Guy Macon makes my point quite nicely about Alex Jones holding very idiosyncratic views that are not typical of the far right or extremists. Or even of the republican party (unless you can point out to me which of those things quoted is a republican value!) At no point have I defended any specific thing Alex Jones has said or InfoWars so that is just irrelevant. I was making a personal observation, not from a source, just watch any video of Alex Jones talking, you'll notice the same speech patterns and divergent thought just like Russell Brand. "far right" and "Political extremist" are certainly BLP violations against Jones! Gd123lbp (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No true Scotsman. At any rate, we cannot substitute our judgement for the sources, and there is no shortage of sources that call Jones an extremist: WGBH. - MrOllie (talk)

Gd123lbp, I have a serious question that I have always wanted someone who doesn't like our coverage of Jones to answer. In the above conversation MrOllie used the term WP:SYNTH. Notice how it is a link? Yet you appear to not bothered clicking the link or reading the page that the link leads to. It can't be that you don't know what a clickable link is; you inserted a link on your post. So why am I seeing responses that appear to show that you have never read Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material? Is there some way that simply putting "WP:SYNTH" in a reply isn't reaching you? Is there some way we can do better? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, do you believe that NASA is shipping children to a slave colony on Mars, that lizard people control the government, and that the Democrat party (and a pizza restaurant) is a front for satanic child molesters? Or , do you think these are not extremist -- but normal Republican ideals? O3000 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw Jordan Peterson, a YouTube link, and Russell Brand and then I questioned whether I should keep reading. You need a much better argument, one that relates to Wikipedia’s content policies in some way, to even remotely start convincing people. Aside from that, I’m not sure calling Alex Jones the peak of lateral thinking and human enlightenment would be the hill I‘d want to die on if I were you. I mean, his defence in a legal suit against him was that he was playing “a character”. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I read the link and have already responded regarding it. Also, what do you mean by "our" coverage of Alex Jones? Are you in a group of people with an agenda? Gd123lbp (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, go read WP:AGF until you understand what's wrong with that question. That sort of paranoid assumption doesn't combine well with trying to whitewash this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Not going to get a straight answer from Gd123lbp. A shame, really; it is possible for people who strongly disagree with each other to have a friendly and open conversation about why they believe what they believe.

Alex Jones describes himself as "Libertarian" but there is a good reason why reliable sources describe him as "far-right" instead. Conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones believe that the government is dishonest, all-powerful, and fiendishly clever. Libertarians generally believe that the government dishonest, incompetent, and dumber than a bag of rocks that the other rocks make fun of for being so stupid.

Alex Jones' conspiracy theories requires that a large number of individuals coordinate to uphold a common lie, with nobody spilling the beans and no leaked evidence to uncover the truth. This is despite the overwhelming financial incentive for news outlets to uncover and expose government conspiracies. Libertarian note that the federal government isn't even able to keep the president's (pick your favorite) sexual activities secret. Libertarianism is not about screaming at the audience about gay frogs.[32] Libertarianism is a political philosophy concerning the proper use of government force, with a serious and lengthy intellectual pedigree. You can disagree with Libertarians -- many do -- but they are clearly not crazy or putting on an act for ratings. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll do better by giving that a read as well judging by how extremely patronising you have been. Gd123lbp (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon - If Jones is "crazy or putting on an act for ratings" then it is incorrect to call him a genuine far right person or political extremist who seriously holds those political views. Gd123lbp (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gd123lbp: I'm assuming you're here in good faith, I just think you're misguided and wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't think that Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden are "putting on an act for ratings" simply isn't paying attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

WE go with what RS say, not what we think (yes by the way I think it is an act, but I am not an RS).Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI the OP is someone that thinks someone fired for a racist outburst is a "victim". FDW777 (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So?Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)