Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

NPOV

This entire article needs NPOV cleanup. There is absolutely no material about refutations of Jones' ideas. Additionally the whole thing reads rather like PR. I have removed the term "Conspiracy Realist" from the page because it is an inherently POV waesel word term. Jones deserves a comprehensive fair article, what we have is far from that.


I disagree entirely. If anything, this is propaganda against Alex Jones. I have very little bias with regards to this, I just googled to find out who he was. I can see how he might be seen as a bit over the top, but undeniably he is also a critical journalist who brings out some valid points. Claiming that this is propaganda FOR Alex Jones is completely skewed, and takes the discussion off track. My impression reading this article was that the authors were desperate to make him look like a looney, especially with the first section ("Views") and the very poor descriptions of his filmography, which I believe is what most people will look at. 84.210.30.185 02:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the people on this page calling for more criticism of Alex Jones should start signing.... 84.210.30.185 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


It is absolutely ludicurous that "conspiracy theorist" is listed as his occupation. Conspiracy Theorist is not an occupation, if it was then Tony Snow should have "propagandist" as his occupation (since that is clearly part of his job) but that would again be ludicurous. This is clearly a sign of POV and even character assassination (regardless of what you think of him, I personally disagree with him greatly).

128.100.36.147 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to "conspiracy theorist" being removed as his occupation (even though it is the reason he has an occupation), provided it appears in the infobox above occupation, as "Known for", and prominently in the lead. To do less would be a clear violation of NPOV. It is what he's known for. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know a thing about him other than some stuff I've read on his website. The term investigative reporter strikes me as much more NPOV than conspiracy theorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.251.29 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


I'd never get involved in editing this article, but I'd say it makes it pretty clear the guy is either a nutcase or a phony or both according to mainstream standards. As such, his success in media is both noteworthy and scary. I don't think there is a problem with POV however, and I think it's fairly objective.

Jones on homosexuality

Are there any concrete refs on Alex's take on homosexuality? (I'm not saying he's gay so relax.) Listening to his show some of his guests (like Alan Watt) have implied homosexuality is being promoted by the NWO as a way to bring down society. But searching around I haven't found any "Alex Jones: homosexuals are evil." articles. (The fact that Alex is a Christian doesn't necessarily mean he is anti-gay.) --Anonymous Coward

So what are you trying to say? :p Kidding...kidding. --Ιουστινιανός 08:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter? I've never once heard Jones refer to gays, except in the context of hypocritical 'Christian Conservative' politicians engaging in gay acts.--Baltech22 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen any references tying into this. rootology (T) 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jones has said several times on his radio show that while he morally opposes homosexuality due to his religious persuasion, he very strongly supports equal rights for homosexuals due to his libertarian political beliefs.Vulcanhacker

Any reference for that? Regardless the man thinks the members of the NWO engage in gay sex with each other (including Nixon at the Bohemian Grove), and Jones has close ties with Pat Buchanan, so I think it's safe to say he doesn't support gay rights and equality. McDanger 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
As an Austinite and occasional bemused listener of his show, I'm fairly certain that I've heard Jones make seemingly anti-gay comments about "predatory homosexual recruitment", and against gay marriage or civil unions, as well as referring to homosexuality as "perversion" and alluding to a covert "gay agenda". I also think that I recall him making positive comments about non-discrimination. Whether that's contradictory or not, it's one of those peripheral issues that takes a back seat to his central diatribe on the air. --SamClayton (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jones On The Bible

Jones often claims that the Bible is "all about" standing up against evil and corruption. On the June 5, 2006 Broadcast of his show, a caller challenged this claim, citing Matthew 5:39, and asked Jones "was Jesus lying in that verse" (referring to Matthew 5:39 of the Bible), to which Jones replied "Yeah!" Jones went on to claim that Jesus "beat" the money changers and "smashed their heads." He went on to call Christians who don't resist corruption and tyranny "scum" and said they would all "burn in Hell". On the October 16, 2006 broadcast of his show, Jones responded to the same caller's implication that David's submission to Saul despite Saul's repeated attempts to have David killed disproved his claim about the Bible by saying, among other things, "God cursed Israel with a king because they asked Him for one."

The archives at GCN live provide access to all previous broadcasts of "The Alex Jones Show". Anyone can pay a nominal fee to access them and listen to the shows themselves for verification of the content. I include this because I feel that Jones misrepresents the Bible to justify his "infowar". No matter how worthy his cause is, I feel this is very wrong to do.

Jesus never lied. Come on, its the same guy who claims the government caused 9/11. 66.218.13.249

This is misinterpretation. I even remember hearing this... He said 'yeah' in a sense 'yeah and moon is a blue cheese', or 'yeah, thats nice opinion of yours, good bye'. If this is the best 'Bible' attack on Jones you can bring on, you are pretty weak. Come on, stop using text out of context. Do you really have to lie to make him look bad?

TRee Hugger- WTF? A large part of the old testament was about God telling prophets to go against the Machine or fight the man. Prophets criticise unjust kings commonly. While the rest of the old testament is about God telling the Isrealites they are the chosen ones and can run amok slaughtering anyone they choose and stealing their land.


Jones is right on alot he says about the Bible. Yes, God does require rulers (and everyone else for that matter) to be just and God requires people that have the wherewithal to do so, to stand up for the oppressed, weak, helpless, and poor. I am constantly amazed at how many silly jackasses there are out there that have no knowledge of the God of the Bible. - NoSnooz

I thought this page was to discuss the article and not the subject Dividebyzero


Jews were all out warriors who stood up against all nay sayers. Some theories say that christianity was added to the bible to water down the warriors of the jewish world... I may agree with many of these theories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.254.65.58 (talk) 02:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article is silly and unencyclopedic imho...will fix it up a bit. Paul 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I take it back, that was mostly due to vandalism by 70.247.106.166. Paul 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Predictions

Since Jones is cited as "predicting" 9/11, why not throw all his predictions in there.

  • "This is only the beginning. In the next few years, in this second phase--the period of escalating violence. They're gonna allow limited nuclear exchanges." "There's going to be more. This is only the kickoff." (9/13/01)
    • Depleted Uranium is "waste" from nuclear material. It has no nuclear use other than being low-level nuclear waste. It's not even really useful for dirty bombs. Robbh66 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Some studies suggest otherwise. http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,2074419,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.230.190 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Within 2 years I'm predicting...that you're going to see a suitcase nuke in this country. You're probably going to see a release in a few years of something communicable. & I am predicting that you will see a lot of conventional bombings...in the next year or so." (10/18/01)
  • more Antrax anyone? Take the chip or else!
    • Perhaps you mean Anthrax? Anyways, the suitcase nuke prediction is wrong and the Anthrax prediction was made a month after Anthrax had already hit numerous places. Robbh66 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "I'm telling you now...there's a very good chance there gonna blow something up overseas or here." "The evidence is all tilting toward...blowing up a building. They're really setting us up for a smallpox attack." Chemical attacks are "almost a guarantee in the next six months or so." (9/26/02)
Bali Bombings? Ex-primeminister said western intel tied to it.
Saying "they're going to blow something up overseas or here" is not a prediction- it's a given. It's been happening for years and it will continue to happen for years. He was dead wrong on the smallpox. Robbh66 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "They're preparing for new terrorist attacks that are much larger. & they're planning to bring in foreign armies....The U.S. government is going to engage in large terrorist attacks domestically & probably internationally...They may kill millions of Americans." There was going to be a nuclear release in Iraq, an international depression, formation of a world government, probably a nuclear release in Iraq, an international depression, a world government formed. Also, "They may kill millions of Americans." (7/11/02)
  • This quote can't be word for word.
  • They're going to blow more stuff up. (4/13/04)
7/7 49 dead can't be that? Tavistock Institute thanks you for your help.
Like I said above, this was not a prediction- it was a given. Its happened for years and will continue for years. Robbh66 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "I predict Arnold is gonna save children at a school shooting, or there'll be some type of bombing, & he will land by helicopter & run in & direct things. I predict it....I see it all aligning. I see it all coming together. I see their plan, clear as day....He'll fly in & things will be burninig & he'll run into it & save someone." [circa March of 2005. Kinda proves Alex is living a fantasy, doesn't it?]
    • Lenina Huxley said it was in the Swatzinegger Presidential Library!Demolition Man
  • Alex also said (several times) they were going to roll out Osama bin Laden "on ice" before the 2004 election.
  • citing media reports on remarks made about his head being frozen (Tim Osman/bin ladin that is)

from [1].

Jones has also predicted that WW3 will begin before the Elections in November. Now, I bring all this up because if the article is crediting him with a successful prediction of 9/11, shouldn’t that be in the context of one lucky guess in the midst of dozens of other bogus predictions? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

He puts those among his non-official views, he has done that a lot of times. But he has never called any of those fears by any "operation" name, he only did it pre-9/11. And of course, now. Other than that, he sometimes will go into "daydream" mode. Remeber that he is a talk show host also, and its easy to find quotes on things he have said during the year. But he has never raised the alarm like this or the previous one. --Striver 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that pretty much a cop-out? A 'non-official' view is... I don't even know what the hell that is? How can you hold a view, but not officially hold it? Is that like the opposite of what Bush is doing with gay marriage? It's rather insincere, isn't it? To say a lot of stuff that you basically pull out of your ass, then only stand by the really shrill ones that you feel really strongly about, and disavow the others? --baltech22 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
What a complete cop-out. You can't have a non official view that you use for all of your predictions depending on whether or not it suits you. If he makes the decision to broadcast something over public airwaves than it is his official view. He cannot go back and say "oh, that was unoffical so it doesn't count!" Robbh66 05:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He does say he is speculating on many occasions, guessing, theorising, based on many collections of supposedly credible media outlets reports that may get sanitised later or be archived on the sites.

When Alex makes predictions, I say consider them more like scenarios to ponder. No individual in our country has a more scrutinizing eye on what's going on in the world than Alex. Of course, he is not going to call a majority of events right. Who could? I only know, and we all do if we're honest, the way history is playing out, we are in perilous times now. More than our liberties are at stake; our lives, as well. --WikipediaBG 17:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph Cleanup

This paragraph: "He stats that he has received multiple death-threats over due advocating his views, one time being beaten down by four persons. He states that he had received a death-threat as late as 2006-08-16, and that he has made himself ready for being killed, something he views is likely to happen if he succeeds in receiving much more attention. He further has said that he has a "life ensuarence"."

Has numerous spelling and gramatical errors, and needs to be cleaned up in general. I don't have time to listen to the talkshow segment provided as a source at this present time, but if no one else fixes it then I'll do it in a few days. Kytok 04:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Split

This page is 35 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

And i am still expanding it. --Striver 01:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex,

I am often amazed/baffled by your extraordinary ability to recall facts and dates.

I have recently noticed that there seem to be a group of people who are "helped," cognitively, in some fashion, reffered to as "Synthetic Telepathy"

I deal with these people as well. It seems they want me crazy or dead ! Of course, diagnosed or reffered to as -Schizophrenia-

I tell ya, the fu*$ing mind rape is wonderful..DUDE!

Really Alex...these ARE the THOUGHT POLICE--MY GOD!

Don't be THIS MAN. Don't you fu&%ing say you are one of these guys. People BELIEVE in you, Understand?

Thoughts/comments...etc ? Not gonna let you go until you have acknowledged. THE TRUTH

The above seems to be either someone with mental issues or more likely a troll. Is it against wikipedia "rules" to remove something like this from the talk page? 84.210.30.185 03:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It needs deleted for being a waste of time.

Agreed. It provides no information and has nothing to do with this section of the "talk page". 134.130.78.41 12:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Brain Injury

On Alex Jones Radio Show March 27, 2008 Alex Jones stated that he received a brain injury when he was beaten by a person with a lead pipe. What is the best way to discuss this in the article? Kilowattradio (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC) doesn't sound true at all alex has also claimed to have been attacked w/ knives, etc has never backed it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.121.209 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Category

Did you people miss the sign at the top? It states that ALL negative text MUST be sourced to somebody ELSE, or it must be AGRESIVLY DELETED, and its DOES NOT COUNT towards the 3rr. Wikipedia CAN NOT label anybody with a pejorative category per POLICY. I am for the FOURTH TIME reverting it per WP:BLP and the template at the top. --Striver 21:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It's somewhat misleading to point out that "ALL negative text MUST be sourced to somebody ELSE, or it must be AGRESIVLY DELETED" This is entirely true, however, you should of pointed out that it is actually ALL controversial claims. That means positive too for those of you who are fans. Robbh66 05:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A large amount of the content of the article describes various conspiracies which the subject alledges have occured (eg: theories). How is he NOT a conspiracy theorist? Just because some people consider "conspiracy theorist" to mean the same thing as "crackpot" doesn't mean that it's true. This person is clearly a "conspiracy theorist". --Versageek 21:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Conspiracies do not 'occur', they are being perpetrated. 195.64.95.116 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no lack of sources which call Jones a "conspiracy theorist". www.infowarscom/articles/sept11/conspiracy_theorists_boycot_stone_film.htm [Unreliable fringe source?][2][3][4][5] Furthermore, if he is not a conspiracy theorist then we should remove references to him from articles about conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories. -Will Beback 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dude's a very prominant theorist of conspiracies. What's the point of having a category for conspiracy theorists if the prominant one's aren't in it? This is a POV push.--Cúchullain t/c 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Which should end the discussion on whether or not to label him a conspiracy theorist. You can't put him in prominent conspiracy theorists categories when it suits you, but not have it in the article when it puts him in a negative light. This is a pretty simple and straightforward concept. Robbh66 05:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We should not have a pejorative category such as "conspiracy theorists". Yes, people call him a conspiracy theorist, but wikiepdia will not do it per policy: The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim..

"conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term. And wikipedia will not call him that. But wikipedia will report that SPECIFIC people call him that. Ie, the intro can state "X, Y and Z view Alex Jones as a CT", but it will NOT state "AJ is a CT". Puting him in the category is equal to embracing those peoples view, and wikipedia WILL AGRESIVLY remove that PER POLICY. --Striver 00:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sourced. The so-called "pejorative term" is more than acceptable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There's really not any dispute here over whether or not Jones is a conspiracy theorist, because he is; the term "conspiracy theorist" may be somewhat perjorative, but he does indeed theorize about conspiracies. BarrettBrown 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Using the meaning of "conspiracy" and "theory" to conclude that it is not a pejorative label is... not honest. Its is sources that people lables him as such, but wikipedia WILL NOT PER POLICY endorse that pejorative labeling. --Striver 11:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Numerous sources, including at least one posted on Jones' own site, refer to him as a "conspiracy theorist". It is not against Wikipedia policy to use the term. If you think that it is then please post a reference to the policy. Simply repeating an opinion in caps does not make it more persuasive. -Will Beback 11:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The source on his page is a mere copy paste of some other source, he does that often and it does not imply enorsment, as he also does that with people holding the opposite view. --Striver 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read my post again, Striver. I wrote that the term "may be somewhat perjorative." How you get from that that I'm trying to "conclude that it is not a perjorative label" is beyond me. 70.112.97.118 15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I sugest you read the bolded "all kinds" a bit above.--Striver 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, Wikipedia will use the label "conspiracy theorists", because we have a category for them.--Cúchullain t/c 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Put dead people on that pejorative labeled category, they can not sue wikipedia.--Striver 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(Undent) I think it's quite fair to use the "conspiracy theorist" category here; if Jones isn't one, then there aren't any. Moreover, note that he is listed on Conspiracy theory.

Being a conspiracy theorist is a pov statment, nobody will address themselves with a pejorative label. Even if they did that ones, it would not be enough, i say once "i am an ashole", you dont get to put on my biography "Striver, wikipedian and an ashole". Maybe if you could find multiple references of him refering to himself as a conspiracy theorist, then it would be valid.--Striver 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine, that might be using Wikipedia to document Wikipedia. But simply read the first few paragraphs under "Views". Assuming that this is an accurate description of Jones' beliefs, then this much is true: he claims that a secret, powerful group controls banking and the media and is manipulating public opinion to destroy, or weaken, US sovereignity. What about that is not conspiracy theory? Deville (Talk) 22:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" has a clear pejorative conotation in the english language. Even if factualy correct, the pejorative conotation is enough for not endorsing it. And then, Alex does not view his statments as "Theories", he belives them to be factual. A "conspiracy theory" is usualy meant to mean STRONGLY unlickely theory, such as Bush being a lizard-man. Clearly, Jones does not view that his theories are such. --Striver 00:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Then should we removes mentions of Jones from articles about conspiracy theories? If he's not a conspiracy theorist then he isn't relevant. More seriously, there is no rule against using pejorative terms for people, so long as they are properly sourced. Do you have a source for him saying he does not consider himself a conspiracy theorist? -Will Beback 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The text at the TOP of this page:

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy as it directly concerns one or more living people. Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals."

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

"These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.", "The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."
  1. Removed immediately
  2. Three-revert rule does not apply
  3. Includes other articles
  4. Of all kinds
  5. Firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim

There is no debate on this issue. None, its an absolut and firm policy:

"Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all."

Basicly: Alex Jones does not reffer to himslef with the pejorative "Conspiracy theorist" term, and has not been sentenced as one in a court of law, hence, it is controversial, disputed and pejorative term that will not be applied to him.

The term is pejorative in the sense that it labels him a nut-case, as person that belives in non-sense. Wikipedia will not endorse that. However, Wikipedia can describe his views as "controversial", describe him as a part of the "9/11 Truth Movement" or just plainly state that "Jones belives x".

And yes, this extends to other articles as well, per above. I suggest you creat a non-pejorative article to inlude him in. --Striver 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What you can do, is to cite in the "views" section some specific people who call him a conspiracy theorist. That is legitimate and welcomed. --Striver 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "conspiracy analyst" instead? --RevWaldo 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "journalist" and "radio and television personality?" I can accept "alternative journalist." GeorgeC 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All of GeorgeC's suggestions are acceptable by me. --Striver 07:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


In my opinion, perhaps "conspiracy theorist" should be replaced with "investigative journalist." Somewhere it could be mentions that his critics consider him to be a "conspiracy theorist." This would maintain neutrality. Do I have permission to make the edit?-- Mr. Edit 11:00PM EST 26 September 2006

As stated before, you would have to name specific sources, i.e. person x and person y call him a conspiracy theorist, not just 'critics'.

It's interesting how people argue that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist because he theorises on conspiracies, yet these same people would go berserk if someone were to change the page on 9/11 to say that the official story on what happened is nothing more than a conspiracy theory in itself, because it is a theory about a conspiracy and is not fact. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, however I would resist the use of such a POV term on Wikipedia unless people who promote the official theory are counted as such also. Coconuteire 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can't prove it, it's a theory, hence "conspiraacy theorist". Jones has never submitted any of his ideas to be vetted by an impartial third party. If he does, and they prove viable, then he ceases to be a conspiracy theorist and becomes a sucessful social activist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.193.148 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree, he has theories, and the same must be said for the official stories behind countless attacks, incl. 9/11 and 7/7, which have yet to be proven also. Coconuteire 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Look up the definition of "occupation" and it becomes clear that the word in most instances implies what they do that they get paid for. Alex Jones is NOT paid to be a "conspiracy theorist," rather, he is paid for being a radio show host and paid for being a documentary filmmaker. Saying that his occupation is "conspiracy theorist" lacks a neutral POV. It should be mentioned shortly into the article (with sources, perhaps including the fox news snippet with Michelle Malkin calling him a "crazy conspiracy theorist") that there are people who oppose his views and call him that.--Shink X 05:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder Striver where you get your definition of Conspiracy Theory? The closest thing I can find to it being officially called a pejorative term is Wikipedia, saying that it 'can' be used pejoratively, but that normally it is a neutral term. Sahuagin (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Typos

the article is still locked so i can't edit it, but there are multiple typos on his "Opposes" and "Supports" sections under more than one entry.

Related discussion

Is currently ongoing at the actual policy page, here, for those interested. rootology (T) 03:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reuters calls him a conspiracy theorist here: [6]. Not a dog 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No it did'nt. Give me the quote. --Striver 07:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theorists" were mentioned in the title of the piece, but only implied that Alex Jones was a conspiracy theorist. GeorgeC 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That's right, and implied is not good enough. --Striver 00:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Reuters is reportedly owned by a Bilderberg member. GeorgeC 05:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article needs some copyediting, particularly moving punctuation in front of references. It can't be done right now because the article is protected. --Anchoress 05:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I could also do without the year-by-year biographical data. Just hit the key events. I don't think the tables are necessary either. GeorgeC 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then split them out to a new article and make a summary. that is how wikipedia works. --Striver 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It can also do without a 3 paragraph blockquote. (Greg Palast's views). --Mmx1 04:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
yes, this extensive quote should be removed as generally unencyclopedic (see WP:QUOTE for starters) -- ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Striver, like I said the article is protected. None of us can do any of these edits, so it's kinda useless to tell us to. Anchoress 05:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Spellcheck, for the love of *insert your favorite deity here*

I'm not here to comment on the article itself, but rather on its presentation. There are numerous glaring spelling errors in the text, which make the article look more amateurish than controversial. If it's gonna be locked for the time being, could someone with admin powers step in and do a quick cleanup? I'll give you candy. --RicardoC 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Muse

Why was the info about Muse supporting Terrorstorm removed?

Relevance would be my guess.--71.233.121.48 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be more relevant on the pages about Muse and Terrorstorm, just not on Alex Jones' page. Coconuteire 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gullible Simpletons

Alex's conspiracy followers are known as the Gullible Simpletons. Shouldn't this be in this article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.144.26 (talkcontribs) .

Our policy requires that I ask for a citation for that. Tom Harrison Talk 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose "Gullible Simpletons" actually believe that the "Northwoods Document" was declassified to destabilise 'merica; I further suppose that the survivers of the USS Liberty in 1967 actually think that the Israeli's accidently attacked with unmarked jets and torpedo boats while jamming 'merican frequencies and LBJ called back the planes TWICE because it was good fer 'merica. Then thair is the "Lavon Affair", Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonken, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Georgia guidestones, Texas Monthy Magazine's BumSteer award to the FBI for creating a creaton clan group to blow up a refinery ( as thay was invested in gasoline futures?) but the baffons couldnt set off the bomb the agents built for them; and about 20 other factual events that I lernt 'bout from listening to right wing gun nut whako antigovernment shortwave radio that wernt taught in skool nor the lamestream media that is taught in jernalizm skool to write to a jethro (clampit ) 6th grade level.

I "listen" to( but am not a "follower" of) Jones on many occassions and his preacher rants and suppositions about the "globalist plans" are not that entertaining to me. THE interviews and information research points are what I have always found to be the crown jewels of 'niche' radio on WWCR WWRB and the likes of Chuck Harder and his "For the People" organisation that was destroyed by the IRS perhaps due to "Pat Chote's" run with Ross Perot as VP. Many conspiracy's aren't simple premis but are SUPPORTED BY MUCH RESEARCH AND TRIPS TO THE LAW LIBRARY AND RARE BOOK STORES ET CETERA AD NAUSIUM.

Just because you are constantly under pavlovian conditioning and social engineering to dumb you down it is no excuse for this level of selective ignorance and bigotry and predjudice without exaustive research slapping the label and derogatory use of "conspiracy theorist" Posted by annon fed up with the real simpletons thotcriminal...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.140.21 (talkcontribs) .

HA HA HA. Thank you, annonymous coward... I listen to Alex Jones. I acknowledge that, at times, he enlightens us to things we otherwise may never have known. However, I also note that he tends to get overzealous and way too emotional. I do not "follow" anyone, let alone someone like that. It's a fact that the first time I, and many others I'm sure, learned about Operation Northwoods, it was from a "conspiracy theorist" like Alex Jones, or from Jones himself. I personally didn't learn of it until I saw Loose Change, their first edition. And they would fall into that same category, I believe.

Your "suggestion" was nothing more than argumentum ad hominem. And not very well done, either. --Ιουστινιανός 08:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Consolidate articles on movies into this article

It seems to me that sections of the now-deleted articles on the Jones' movies need to be readded to this page, to establish his notability. I would say no more than two or three paragraphs per movie, to summarize Jones's key theses. Calwatch 04:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of his "movies" are chopped and pasted home movies with continuity problems and really nice intros followed by a introduction rant that is usually too long. I have just about all of them up to the martial law including the "emergency" releases. His Blairwitch style on Bohemian Grove was above average. But his 'movies' as movies go, are not that critially aclaimed from a production value or videography perspective. If you want to establish notability the videos arent the direction to go. Anyone doing research on Jones will find the videos easy enough. I have researched most of the videos subjects claims and find they are verifiable and worthy of further study and wariness. Wikipedia is culturally biased as a web community against reform efforts of folks like jones and there are plenty of troll like editors to censor your best efforts to NPOV and source your postings. They selectively enforce the "rules" from my experience. Efforts for most are best spent elsewhere at somepoint you have to conclude. Waste all the time you want.

Criticism

Newcomer here...so don't bite. This article has no opposing view points or criticisms of Alex Jones. This is the first I've read of him but I doubt that a controversial figure such as this is without criticism.

We need to put together a consensus of the kind of criticisms he is subject to. The problem is, we can't seem to arrive at one, and a lot of the harsher criticisms leveled at Jones come from sources who are 'crazier' than he is often accused of being. I will say that the most significant criticisms of Jones that seem to emerge repeatedly are that:
a) He takes some of his information from dubious sources [publications and websites on the fringe right and fringe left, as well as books written from a conspiratorial perspective similar to his own on subjects that lack a great deal of mainstream/reliable scholarship].
b) When the facts he cites are solid, the conclusions he draws do not necessarily follow from those facts.
Jones seems to have critics and enemies on all corners of the spectrum. In the 2 months or so that I've been following and reading about him, I've seen him referred to as a 'conspiracy nut', 'government disinfo agent', 'anti-semite', 'crypto-zionist', 'hatemonger', 'pacifist', 'gullible idiot', 'clever snake oil salesman', 'left wing lunatic', 'right wing lunatic', 'friend of David Icke', 'critic of David Icke', 'Bullhorning jackass' and 'Rush Limbaugh wannabe'... So yah, he must be doing something right. --baltech22 18:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
hahahaha, thanks for this compilation of "criticisms"! Very amusing (as well as tragic, ofcourse) — Xiutwel (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding some of his criticism from people considered 'crazier' than him, I have found a website called I am the witness[7] featuring a page talking about Alex Jones spreading disinformation about the 'real' perpetrators of 9/11, Zionists(this according to them). Antisemitism is a phrase thrown around by all kinds of people to discredit this or that, to muddy up a conversation about someone or their ideas. It doesn't debunk anything. Stranger still, this website says he's protecting the 'real' puppet masters. Does anyone have any input on the subjects the link raises? I might be interested to call Alex (whom I support and enjoy listening to) and see what he says in defense of himself to these claims.--Shink X 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Disregard. At least Alex Jones has documents and sources to back his claims.--Shink X 22:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Um.. You have to be kidding right? --117.102.157.128 07:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I just added a "Criticism" section, and somebody deleted it before I could even finish editing the section. This kind of Censorship is ridiculous, and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's pretty rich to think that Alex Jones "fans" decry censorship in all its forms, except when it applies to Jones. He is an interesting and charismatic figure, but a wiki on him imho is incomplete without some of the fairly prominent criticism of him that exists in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.157.38 (talk) 07:43, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This just happened again. I included a criticism section, and referenced a specific radio interview between Alex Jones and one of his detractors. --117.102.159.179 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately most of the people who refuse to have a criticism section have more prominence in Wikipedia so literally have all the power in the world to do what they want by their divine authority. The fact is though, it is extremely hard to find criticism on Alex Jones simply because most prominent media sources and people simply don't pay attention to him. He has temper tantrums on his radio stations and frequently scares his listeners by going on a tangent against the people that "repress" him. (i don't think he has been kidnapped and thrown into a river yet) - IamMcLovin 09:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not right. In anticipation that somebody might attempt to censor the criticism section I added, I actually referred to an interview that Alex Jones himself actually conducted. Alex Jones' followers seem to go on and on about mainstream media censorship, yet when you post a -slightly- negative comment on one of their forums, rather than engage in intelligent conversation they jump on you and accuse you of working for "The NWO" or the government. I've watched the PrisonPlanet website move from Haloscan forums (where generally everyone can participate) to a private forum, where you basically get banned the second you post a remotely contrary point of view. Jones' shitstirring started out as something that could have potentially been a source of good, but he's been co-opted by those two British nutbags who have soured the "movement" and mobilised it into an intolerant, unquestioning mob. Alex Jones' followers frequently use the words "Sheeple", apparently without even a tiny bit of irony. Sheeple indeed. Let the record show, I posted a "Criticism" section, in which was (briefly) described an encounter between Alex Jones and David De Mayer Rothschild, wherein Rothschild criticised Jones for being selective in his use of facts, poorly sourced, and giving people a "false sense of hope" over global warming and climate change. Given that Rothschild is a fairly prominent public figure (I don't care if he's a lizard or a monster, I could care less about the man, but there is this thing called BALANCE), I don't quite see how his PUBLIC criticism of Jones on his own radio station is not worthy of inclusion in an article about Alex Jones. --117.102.158.179 10:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I listened to that show. On it Mr. Rothschild (wrongly) claimed that Jupiter was closer to the sun than the earth is in order to discount the fact that "global warming" is happening on Jupiter. Were you going to include the fact that David Rothschild apparently doesn't know elementary school science facts in his "criticism" about Jones on global warming? Just because Rothschild is a "prominent public figure" doesn't mean that what he says has any validity to it. Nakedtruth 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this right, Alex Jones, who routinely dismisses the vast majority of scientific consensus on Global Warming and focuses on fringe science espoused by non-peer reviewed sources, often connected to big oil and big energy, is exempt from criticism from someone who appears to represent that consensus? Just because Rothschild is a "Prominent Public Figure" has nothing to do with it. The fact is that he is a Prominent public figure, criticising Jones on his own radio show. Are you suggesting Jones' own radio show not be considered a reliable source? In that case I uphold your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.84.168 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You want to talk about "fringe science"? Michael Rothchild's STUPID claim that Jupiter is closer to the sun than the earth is FRINGE SCIENCE! Go get a elementary school science book and look it up if you don't believe me. If you want to quote someone who actually is a SCIENTIST in their criticism of Alex Jones that's one thing. But Michael Rothchild has shown himself to be a complete moron on the subject of global warming. Furthermore Alex's position that global warming is primarily caused by the sun has is backed up by Dr Sami Solanki of the Max Plank institute. Hardly a "fringe scientist". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html Nakedtruth 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL You obviously didn't read the article then, because right after it quotes the eminent Sami Solanki, it quotes other notable climate change scientists, who while welcoming his research, point out that his results are inconclusive, because they don't take into account other factors affecting climate change. They also point out that he fails to mention that the sun's heat has remained constant for the past 20 years, while global temperatures have continued to rise. I'll grant you, Rothschild is not a climate scientist, but Alex Jones is a charlatan.Your point that Rothschild claimed Jupiter is closer to the sun keeps getting repeated - and while I acknowledge he made that claim, when you listen to the context of the interview, it was clearly an oversight / misspeak. But that's kind of irrelevant anyway, seeing that Alex Jones also repeatedly claims that Carbon Dioxide is a "Safe" gas, and that more and more of it should be emitted, and that the world will be better thanks to all this carbon dioxide. Perhaps you should buy a canister of CO2, and inhale it through a mask and see just how "Safe" it is (kids : don't try this at home, the results are fatal). No, the point is you, a die-hard Alex Jones zealot, won't even accept a wiki about him listing criticism of Alex Jones that was made ON HIS OWN RADIO SHOW. So I say again, if that means he and his radio show is not considered a credible source, then let's delete this entire wiki, because as far as I'm concerned, it's an ego-page. What you believe about Rothschild or global warming is really irrelevant. The fact is you clearly can't deal with any criticism of Alex Jones. Back in the day we called that "cult-like status". I think I'll add that to his wiki. --117.102.156.15 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh I read it. And just because he didn't come up with a conclusion that you don't like doesn't mean he isn't a noted scientist. And now you are contradicting your own stupid self. The initial point was that no notable scientists agreed with Jones' view. I gave you solid proof that this isn't true. I never claimed that there weren't any scientists that agreed with the global warming claptrap. Clearly there are. Just like in Galileo's day many "scientists" thought the world was flat. But being outnumbered didn't make Galileo any less notable. Also I didn't bring up Rothchild. I'm only pointing out that he's an idiot. And he didn't just "misspeak". He REALLY thought that the only reason global warming was happening on Jupiter was because it was "closer to the sun". That shows he hasn't investigated the other side of the argument just like you haven't. Nakedtruth 19:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Long time Wiki user here and I am trying to include some information on Alex Jones in a neutral manner. I am not attempting to vandalize this Wiki page. Every time I try to make an edit someone else is makes an edit at the same time nullifying any changes that I make. I will list some of the changes by number and briefly touch upon them. I wasnt going to include them all, but I want to bring up other criticisms as well for in here.

1. Alex's current wife, Violet Nichols, also was part of the infiltrating of the Bohemian Grove. 2. Alex claims in the documentary he was stopped repeatedly by "secret service personnel, sheriffs, deputies, you name it", but unfortunately none of these encounters were caught on tape because of the limited recording capabilities of their cameras. 3. Alex dubs the owl statue to be Molech, however Molech is represented as a bull. The Roman Goddess Minerva is a much more likely candidate. 4. Alex also fails to see, or fails to mention, the Bohemian Groves Patron Saint, Saint John of Nepomuk. (Alex has much criticism that he leaves out Catholicism from his scopes, particularly the Jesuits) 5. In Endgame he fails to mention the true architect behind the Bilderberg Group, Joseph Retinger who wanted to be a Jesuit, but could not adhere to the strict vows on things such as celibacy, so he instead became a Knight of Malta. (which is another example of him possibly omitting Catholic influences) 6. The John Joseph Gray incident where he reportedly sold out Mr. Gray for a mere 700 dollars to ABC's 20/20 by selling a taped interview, which Mr. Gray expressed not to do so and that the interview was only to be used for a documentary Alex claimed to be working on, and that the material was not to be used until after Mr. Grays standoff with authorities had concluded. 7. Never does Alex ever mention that the creator of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt was a Jesuit professor of Canon Law, that disavowed his Jesuit oaths a few short years into the Jesuits Great Suppression of 1773. 8. Or that the Illuminatis number 2 man Frederich Von Knigge, ended up quitting in disgust claiming that Weishaupt never stopped being a Jesuit and that Weishaupts whole intention for the Illuminati was a clever ruse for the Jesuits to carry out their operations in secret under the guise of a New Age secret society which was to be used to infiltrate Freemasonry, particularly American Freemasonry, which was created 2 short months after the illuminati was founded. 9. Alex Jones was in LA and away from his show, when John Conner, aka Mark Dice, aka Mark Shouldice, had his run-in encounter with Danny Bonaduce. The cameraman, Mark claims, was Codename: Kyle, which is the anonymous source that provided Alex his footage for Alex's 2nd Bohemian Grove documentary. Alex then has John on his show the following Monday and John got his show on GCN shortly thereafter. Even though Alex claims he never heard of Danny Bonaduce before during the interview with Conner, he thought it was important enough to discuss first thing of the week. 10. Danny Bonaduces sister-in-law is the very special assistant to the Archdiocese of LA, Cardinal Roger Mahony and I believe her maiden name is CArlucci, as in Frank Carlucci from the Carlyle Group as well as the former deputy director of the CIA. Dannys brother John also is a special assistant to Mahony. And Alex buddies the Sheen family have been going to Mahonys church for I believe well over a decade.

John Conner in his latest re-encounter video with Danny Bonaduce he calls him his Brother in the Lord, which is somewhat similar to how Charlie Sheen introduced Alex Jones at the LA Truth Convention when he called him his Brother in Arms, which is terminology used by Jesuits or Jesuit Coadjutors when referring to one another. Brother meaning a fellow follow of Jesus and arms meaning that they are also soldiers of Christ.

Which just so happens to have been on the swords of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators, who also were Jesuits Coadjutors taking orders from Jesuit Priests like Henry Garnett.

I could go on all day with Alex Jones criticisms, yet not a single one appears on his Wiki profile, and when you try to include one you get censored. 74.138.106.33 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Orwells Ghost Dec 14, 2007

so funny that criticism is muted on someone who is supposedly an avid defender of freedom of speech. how tragically ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotpandazombie (talkcontribs) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a wide variety of people editing this page, from 'true believers' through to 'haters'. The problem I've seen with those people trying to get criticism in, is they tend to rely on terrible sources that are just not acceptable to wikipedia. Most of the more specific criticism seems to come from others in the conspiracy theory world who have a grudge because Jones does not subscribe to their pet theory, usually something like 'Zionists did it', 'Jews did it', 'Catholics did it', 'Jesuits did it', 'Masons did it', and so on. When you read mainstream articles on Jones they don't bother with any of that stuff, they usually just call him a conspiracy theorist, or maybe crackpot or paranoid if they are being strong in their critique, and that is enough for them. If you can find a mainstream source that, for example, says he is a 'Jesuit CIA COINTELPRO', then it would be welcomed in the article, and the people with a bias towards Jones would not be able to get rid of it, however, it appears no-one has found a WP:RS that does this. It is even more important to have a reliable source for something like that, due to the WP:BLP rules, as he is a living person. Type1warlord (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Proposal
Some articles on productions by Jones have been deleted in September 2006. Perhaps these could be included sort of as an appendix in this article? This could perhaps satisfy the "unnotability"-camp, by not having too many articles about a single "Idiot", while at the same time providing the info for those who need it. — Xiutwel (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We already list his videos. What were you thinking of adding? Tom Harrison Talk 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The entire deleted articles TerrorStorm and 9-11: The Road to Tyranny (don't know whether more Alex Jones related articles were deleted). — Xiutwel (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed this. It seems very odd, given TerrorStorm's success and high visibility on Google. It occurs to me that whoever pulled the articles is, ironically, helping lend credence to the belief of Alex Jones and his adherents that he is being conspired against. --- Buddy-Rey

Somebody put those back in. This whole article is rediculous. Looks like it was just meant to make this guy look bad. I just saw "Terrorstorm", and although this guy sadly goes over the top a few times, it was teeming with very interesting information, which seems accurate. This article does nothing to clarify matters though. I was looking for real info, and this article is pretty much a disgrace. I think there should be a tag about the neutrality of this article being disputed on this page. 84.210.30.185 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which "SEEMS" accurate? Are you serious? How exactly is "interesting information" that "seems" accurate deemed "factual"? This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.200.152.182 (talkcontribs) 15:25, August 10, 2007 (UTC)

Xenophobia

I would like to encourage editors to address Alex Jones' disturbing xenophobia if they have sources available. There were a couple of articles I came across sometime ago that did analyse xenophobic and potentially racist comments made by Jones, but I have to sort through my bookmarks to find them again. I'll do my best. VivaRiva 02:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I predict that these will all be with regard to Latin American illegal aliens...--Baltech22 01:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Why do you say that? VivaRiva 21:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll hold off explaining until you make your case.--Baltech22 23:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Viva, if you provide the citations, and the sources are reliable (i.e. mainstream media), I will work the material into the article. Morton devonshire 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Morton. I've been kind of busy lately but hopefully soon I'll have enough time to spare to find the articles in question. VivaRiva 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Surprise, Surprise.
Don't be too hasty about this. Context is extremely important when you're talking about labeling someone with a potentially pejorative tag. Talking negatively about someone and referring to him as a 'dual citizen' in the context of questioning his allegiances to the United States is different from simply stating that someone being a dual citizen is empirically negative.--Baltech22 00:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are incorrect. Jones has constantly referred to Arnold and other naturalized citizens as "foreigners." He intentionally misquotes U.S. law - instead of accurately saying that the law prevents "foreign-born" citizens from becoming President, he simply lumps all naturalized citizens with "foreigners" which obviously refers to non-citizens (and non-residents) and on top of that, refers to them as "foreign usurpers." That is really pathetic and it's a flagrantly cheap shot, to attack someone, a citizen of the United States of America, because they weren't born here. Simply put, he is a classic xenophobe. I'd like to know if he also considers "hyphenated" Americans (Italian-American, Polish-American, etc.) as "foreigners" and potential "foreign usurpers." VivaRiva 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, hold up there. Jones' whole agenda is in resisting the creation of a one-world government, and part and parcel with that is the resistance against the United States losing its sovereignty and voiding its constitution (i.e. as part of a Pan-American Union that's in the works). The law against foreign-born individuals becoming President is on the books specifically to prevent foreign agents from compromising U.S. sovereignty.
And furthermore, the term 'foreigner' might be semi-colloquial [or at least, not P.C.], but it's not intrinsically pejorative, I suggest you check out [[8]] before suggesting someone is xenophobic simply for using the term.
I should mention that I, myself, am a naturalized citizen and don't find the word at all offensive. --Baltech22 13:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not find Alex Jones to be racist. You speak about his apparent xenophobia as if it is a bad thing. It is perfectly natural for one to be protective of one's culture, identity and nation and to resist all attempts to usurp them by outsiders. His concern with Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to become US president is, in my opinion, entirely justified. If I were, heaven forbid, to move to the US and become a naturalised citizen, I would not find the term "foreigner" offensive whatsoever, because that's EXACTLY WHAT I AM TO THE AMERICANS AND VICE-VERSA! Coconuteire 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Coconuteire, for not bowing to the parroted rhetoric of the PC zealots. Took the words right out of my mouth. --Ιουστινιανός 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones is not racist. Anyone who listens to his show will tell you as much. Why would he speak out about tuskegee or myrid other topics if he was racist?? - SeriousCat 10:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
He is not racist but dislikes illegal immigrants. Enough "talk" more action! Someone source a Alex Jones immigration quote. Chendy 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and neither do I. Neither do a large portion of Americans. They're here illegally making demands. Not a good way to endear yourself to the host population. Anyway, his anti-illegal immigration activism is directly connected to his opposition of the government or "New World Order", if you will. --Ιουστινιανός 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Coconuteire - how is somebody who is a US citizen, regardless of their ethnicity, a "foreigner"? If you were an American citizen, and someone called you a "Foreigner" because your grandmother was German, would you not be offended? While it's obvious that Jones' anti-Mexican sentiment has its roots in (perceived) geopolitical threats, he rarely masks his fear of Latinos and foreign "takeovers" very well, I don't think it would be inaccurate to describe him as xenophobic, going by the dictionary definition of the term.

"One World Order"

I believe this to be a mistake. I checked the cited source and at no point does he refer to a "One World Order". I suggest someone changes it back to "New World Order". 80.171.52.53 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

Information icon.svg

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex Jones said he put his videos on video.google.com himself to allow people to watch it. He even for noncomercial (educational) reasons encourages people to share the movies. Even if he does not, section 107 of copyright act should allow this. Its not violation of his copyright. (anon user)

Alex Jones' policy is that anyone can freely redistribute his videos as long as they are redistributed unedited and in their entirety. Coconuteire 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm this, Alex Jones has said as much on his show numerous times. - SeriousCat 10:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the first point that youtube shouldn't be linked. It might seem like a good idea to some but in my opinion linking to youtube is about as useful as citing wikipedia in a wikipedia article. Dividebyzero

"Still doesn't change the first point that youtube shouldn't be linked."... There is nothing that says youtube (now also google video) should not be linked. It should not be used as a source, and Must Not violate copyright. As far as I know there is no policy against linking to an outside video released by the person or company in question, or else we would have to remove every link on movie pages that go to official trailers.. From External links "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright." "Due care" is not a black list. Alex's company, AEJ Productions, has released 7 feature length films and several smaller pieces through google video for world wide distribution. Linking them isn't saying his views are correct or wrong (God knows he's out there quite a bit), simply saying that "This is where these exist at." -Electrostatic1 12:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

German-Jewish-American deletion

I deleted the part where it claims that Alex Jones is of German-Jewish descent since he is not. He describes himself as a Christian and has never mentioned his descent.

Just to comment, one can be of German-Jewish descent and still be a Christian (conversion, took faith of one parent, etc). While any claim must be cited, there is no inherent contradiction that makes this prima facie false. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews are a distinct ethnic group, or race, according to some. Regardless of whether or not you believe that...he's never said such a thing. Again...we need a source. Sources are your friends. If I ever see that up on this page without a source, I'm going to edit the Magic Johnson article to say he was a Scotsman. A Scotsman...or a Martian. And it would make just as much sense because I wouldn't have a damn thing to back that up with either.--Ιουστινιανός 08:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard his wife is Jewish. What makes you think he can't be Jewish himself? He can still be a Christian, and Have Jewish blood! Manic Hispanic 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Alex claims an Anglo descent, which makes sense since his surname is Jones, common in the British Isles. Trooper96 21:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Investigative Journalist" tag should be removed.

I do not think he should be tagged as an investigative journalist. As someone who used to read and watch his stuff (I know better now), I have to say I have never come across any material of his that could be considered investigative journalism. Has he uncovered anything? Has he reported things that have gone unreported (and I mean anywhere, including some dude posting rants on the internet)? Has he ever broken any stories? If not, he is not an investigative journalist. Oh, and, no I am not a shill for the Bush administration. So, don't even go there. I'm a left-wing commie. I just don't like right-wingers on power trips ranting on the radio.Rlh 1984 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mate, I'm a far lefty and I still consider AJ to count as an investigative journalist even though I haven't listened to him in a long time and probably won't again. IJs travel a lot, conduct interviews, break stories, expose crimes and attempt to put pieces of the puzzle together. Alex Jones does all of these things. Coconuteire 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I have moved away from the way that Alex Jones communicates his opinions and information, I would still disagree with you and say simply that a few of the things Alex has independently researched and looked into and reported were recognized as something he essentially "broke", according to lots of folks in the "alternative media". I'll leave it to others to list some specific examples, but to be honest, I disagree with your premise that someone needs to have their own "I'm the only one who discovered this" credit to deserve the I.J. label :)

The lead para states that he "questions the standard accounts of the September 11th terrorist attacks" and reading further on, it emerges that he promotes the notion that the US government was knowingly involved in this and other atrocities. That makes him a conspiracy theorist. --Pete 00:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Labelling anyone a "conspiracy theorist" is not very helpful, since some conspiracies actually exist, and others do not exist but are mere products of imagination. I believe wikipedia would be wise not to issue this label (also: WP:OR).
It is my honest opinion that Jones' work involves research and investigation in a manner very similar to that of a journalist. If his conclusions would be wrong, that would not alter that fact, therefore I think this label investigative journalist is helpful to the reader. — Xiutwel (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
He's a conspiracy theorist. If and when it is widely accepted that the US Government conspired in the S11 attacks, then maybe we can remove the "theorist" label. Until then, it's a good description. As for original research, just google "Alex Jones" and "conspiracy theorist" and you'll find any number of sources. --Pete 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Something should not be referred to as a theory simply because it has minority support. The official 9/11 story is a conspiracy theory. Please do not subjectively use the term to refer to critics of governments while supporting equally dubious claims by the same governments. Coconuteire 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Using your logic, nothing should be labeled conspiracy theory and that is just absurd. Perhaps we shouldn't label evolution as "theory" because other, mainly religious, theories have a minority support. Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorists, plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.67.115.80 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Video of the Creamation Of Care, and numerous other stories don't count? What about when he was live outside the Bilderburg group meetings? Or the evidence of the use of thermite to demolish the twin towers? I could go on forever... - SeriousCat 10:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember, the question is of calling him an "investigative journalist," not of calling him a conspiracy theorist. That being said: in reference to Xiutwel's comment, I believe it not helpful to label people conspiracy theorists simply because the phrase carries inherent, negative connotations toward that person's credibility-- and doesn't Wikipedia strive to avoid just such bias in the content?

Anyway, as far as the label "IJ" is concerned, I'd say that just one fulfillment of the evidences given by Coconuteire would be enough to qualify many a less controversial IJ as such, so how, then, can we deprive the journalist in question of this same description, if we are being neutral? --Jacob Kline, Funkitronian 08:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no way AJ can be labelled a "journalist" of any kind, as he editorialises on -everything-. The guy who said he should still be labelled a journalist even if his conclusions are wrong has eloquently proved this point - journalists do not reach 'conclusions' - they simply document the evidence and let the readers decide where it points.

Lets go through Wikipedia and remove labels like dictator, traitor, spy, thief, robber, murderer, rapist, etc. When Alex Jones shows concrete evidence then he can lose the Conspiracy Theorist tag. I wrote to him regarding my theory around the negroes actually planning their own kidnapping and enslavery in America so that one day they could control the country. He did not reply. How rude.

First off the definition given here for being an "investigative journalist" leaves a lot to be desired. Almost all investigative journalism starts off with someone getting a tip from somewhere. So if someone got a tip from someone "ranting on the internet" and then followed up on it that's investigative journalism. But even by the definition given Alex still qualifies as an investigative journalist. Just look at the footage that he got out of the Bohemian Grove. That was original footage and something that NOBODY had done before. He's also done a lot of original interviews with people like former Reagan Treasury secretary Paul Craig Roberts and physics professor Steven Jones among others. If Amy Goodman qualifies as an investigative journalist than certainly Alex Jones does. Love him or hate him, he has done more original research than she has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedtruth (talkcontribs) 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No reliable source referes to him as an investigative journalist. --DHeyward 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No reliable source refers to Amy Goodman as an investigative journalist. Nakedtruth 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
{{sofixit}}, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well he is reporting of the DC Madam who allegedly committed suicide. Is this not a classic case of investigative journalism ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he should be labelled an investigative journalist, whilst I could accept that in some cases, such as the hidden camera at the grove, he may qualify, the vast majority of his work is providing his analysis on news reports, and public government documents. Type1warlord (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Move this page to Alex Jones?

It seems as if the other two Alex Joneses have less than 10 other articles that link to them and this accounting for 90% of all linked pages that has to do with an Alex Jones. I think that there shouldn't be the need for the (radio) disambiguation at all. --Zimbabweed 11:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree Chendy 11:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I change it so that "alex jones" now redirects to this page instead of the disambiguation page. --Timberlax 10:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Alex Jones did not retract his own prediction of more terror attacks before the end of 2006

"However, it should be noted that Alex Jones later retracted those same statements on his radio show, claiming increased public awareness." There is no reference to this sentence. To my knowledge, Mr. Jones, still believes it is possible, that from his work and that of others in the 9/11 truth community, more government-sponsored terror attacks were called off or at least postponed. Lakeshorebaby 20:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 3:30 PM Feb 10, 2007


I find it very interesting that he seems to have predicted the first 911 and even knew who was going to be blamed for it ( Osama ). This clarvoiyance seems to be unreported - maybe the government assumes he was just lucky or a great analyst. 159.105.80.141 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How was a vague, rambling 'prediction' that was being made in intelligent mainstream press sources as early as 1997 "clairvoyance". I've seen the clip in question, and while it was indeed prescient, I think Alex Jones using it as some kind of badge of honour with regards to his prescience is really quite detrimental to his credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.200.152.182 (talkcontribs) 15:30, August 10, 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Alex Jones ethnicity and his wife.

I have heard he is German-Jewish. I have also heard his wife is Jewish. This would make for an interesting twist and as he does bash Israel alot on his radio show. Any information one way or the other? Manic Hispanic 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean Israel as a political system, not a group of people. In that sense, why would it matter if his wife is Jewish? (Pwnage8 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

There are actually a number of Jews that love their religion and people but wish the nation of Isreal would not do the things they do. There are some that outright hate the nation. Being Isreali is not the same as being Jewish and vise versa. Hell there are a growing number of Isrealis that don't support the Isreali government. Governments, nations, ethnicities and religions are all seperate entities and should always be viewed as such. Dividebyzero

Changed Conspiracy Theorist to Realist

It's not a theory if you have evidence. Alex Jones only makes allegations when he has evidence. He has always cited his sources which are always credible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

You're joking, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.37.140 (talkcontribs) 03:40, May 2, 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, it's extremely rare that Jones has "hard" evidence. Usually it consists of a vastly unrelated piece of information used to justify the point of view that he is trying to espouse. For example, the constant use of "Operation Northwoods" as evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I am an 9/11 Truther, but I see no reason why the Northwoods document can in any way be meaningfully connected to an event that happened some forty years later. If he had uncovered a memo such as the one where Bush and Blair discussed using a Spy plane painted in UN colours flown over Iraq to be shot down to justify war - that would be a different story. Simply put, if somebody can point to a single piece of HARD documentary evidence on a single one of Jones' claims, I will eat my hat, but until then it appears to me that most of his evidence is (while often disturbing) only indicative of patterns, rather than damning, "smoking gun" type information.

The point about "Operation Northwoods" is to answer the question that always gets asked of 9/11 truthers "But why would the government do that". It's all about establishing motive, something that's paramount in any criminal investigation. Likewise in any real criminal investigation it's important to "follow the money". But the 9/11 commission claimed "that's not important". When the money of the "put options" was followed it ended up at the feet of former CIA official Buzzy Krongard. Also money for funding the attacks was traced to the head of Pakistani intelligence. ($100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta in April 2001. Confirmed by the FBI.) This same ISI head was meeting with Congressmen Porter Goss and Bob Graham on 9/11. They would later become members of the 9/11 commission. Sure, this is all circumstantial evidence. But people have been convicted of murder with less. If you look at every bit of evidence from establishing motive to the speed with which the buildings fell as "unrelated" than you will never get to the truth. And look at the memos you cited about Iraq. Have they led to impeachment? Have they even led to an investigation even AFTER the democrats took control of congress? No. Most people look at these "smoking guns" as "unrelated pieces of evidence" and the myth that we "believed Saddam had WMDs" is allowed to propagate. Nakedtruth 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because Alex Jones says so doesn't make it true, hate to break it to you.IamMcLovin 21:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


The point with Operation Northwood is that of likelihood. Science is based on the repeating of phenomens. If a phenomen repeats itsself many times it can become a law. This is of course not the case with historical events, bacause they are singularities. But they say something about what to think under our paradigm. Operation Northwood is just one of them. ...we had operation gladio for justifing the cold war, we had gulf of tonkin for justifing the Vietnam war, this Hearst company thing for the spanish war etc. It looks like a false flag event og other lies is the rule, not the exception for starting wars. -if that is the case, one should look at 911 the same way. If wars normally starts with false-flag events, we should apriori require of the bush administration to prove the osama bin-theory, before even considering otherwise. (the osama theory has not jet been proven by any court!). Since the Osama conspiracy-theory has not been proven, well, based on past historical event the world should apriori assume it was a false flag operation, bacause that is what usually leads to wars. Those defending it should be labeled conspiracy nuts, bacouse they are the exception from the rule -from the "normal" Has there in modern history been any justified starting of wars?

Since the starting point of an investigation, our apriori prejustices are fatal for the outcome. One must know the history for having the right starting spot. Operation Northwood is an essensial piece of startingspot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubu81 (talkcontribs) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when did Raw Story become the authority on who is a conspiracy theorist

How dare you use that article to label Alex Jones an conspiracy theorist.

I will continue to remove this article so you might as well give up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webucation (talkcontribs) 02:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh, "Raw Story" is what you meant on my talk page? I didn't know what you were talking about when you typed "Roaw Story." I'm not concerned with that, I'm concerned with your insistence on changing "theorist" to "realist" and moving this article into a non-existant category as a result. If you do "continue to remove this article" then you will be violating WP:3RR (as I've already noted on your talk page), and you could be blocked as a result. Please keep this in mind. janejellyroll 02:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
May a neutral observer point out that it is not worth fighting about words. It is better to have the article just explain his theories, and the readers will be able to decide which of the two categories he belongs in. WP does not make judgements of which ones are likely or not. DGG 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle that it is not worth fighting about words. However the (now-deleted) "conspiracy realist" article and category was an attempt by this editor to create a POV fork and group together those who s/he felt based their ideas on "facts," not "baseless theories." It was a violation of WP:NPOV. I would have no problem with the words "conspiracy theorist" being removed from the article altogether, I just opposed replacing it with "conspiracy realist." janejellyroll 00:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

COI

Its time the obvious POV of the article and COI got fixed. I have no particular interest in the subject of the article , but I do have an interest about maintaining & increasing the quality of WP articles. A proportionate article is the basis concept of NPOV. The first step will be to remove the video covers, which is straight out advertising. The second will be to get some third party comments in, including critical ones. DGG 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you remove his films, then all disocgraphies should be taken down from music pages. This article is being treated unfairly. - SeriousCat 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

People have been removing the word "documentary" from the intro. I placed it there for clarity, and I believe removing it effectvely "pushes" an Anti-Jones point of view. This page is being treated unfairly and it needs to stop. - SeriousCat 23:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, we need a WP:RS calling them "documentary"(ies). If you can do that, I'll defend the inclusion of the term. (Also under the circumstances, may I suggest that you place the source here on the talk page, so that I can re-insert "documentary", rather than your risking WP:3RR.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well now, we wouldn't want things to get too heated up -- they might go "Nuclear".  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to make more than three reverts. - SeriousCat 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, are other documentary filmakers requaired have mainstream scources calling them "documentary"(ies) in order to have the term included in the articles about them? I may be new here, but this seems highly irregular. - SeriousCat 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
When a person says he gets his information by reading the secret web sites of the immortal Moloch-worshipping Illuminati, then it would be advisable to get pretty solid external verification that he is indeed attempting to document reality. As opposed to, say, making up stories for a quick buck. Google for some more of the things Mr. Jones has "documented" for our education. Weregerbil 12:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Perry Logan isn't a great source hes been know to take things way out of context. anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.176.25.1 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Hear and see Alex Jones himself describe the secret policy documents of the immortal UN globalist Illuminati, detailing the currently ongoing program to exterminate 80% of world population. "Documentary?" Please... Weregerbil 09:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
So I guess you think there isn't flouride in the water either? I give up. Jones isn't going to get a fair article. - SeriousCat 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course there's flouride in the water. The fact that it might somehow be used for mind control, or whatever it is Jones-ites believe is more or less irrelevant. Nobody can get a "fair" article if you're being 100% accurate. Are you suggesting the article should be completely positive, rather than truthful? Jones always goes on about the truth.. my my...

For his '80%' claim, he tends to use a few sources, first is the Georgia Guidestones, which IMO is not a good source at all, as no-one can prove who made them. Another is the statements by Forrest_Mims, which you can read about here http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html The other one he tends to rely on is a UN document which I don't have handy, however what I found when I researched the claim, was the UN solicited policy documents from a number of organisations/think tanks, but I could find no proof that this particular document was chosen to be used as official policy. Type1warlord (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Alex Jones (radio)Alex Jones — The radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (radio) is clearly the most recognizable Alex Jones on Wikipedia. The other two Alex Joneses have a total of TWO articles that link to them. The Alex Jones article in question has a significant larger amount of articles that link to it. Alex Jones should then be moved to Alex Jones (disambiguation) to be used as a disambiguation page. Zimbabweed 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support. No question, today more people are interested in this Alex Jones than the others. I find the suggestion that he's "non notable" to be off the wall- if he's not an example of a notable conspiracy theorist, who is? I can sympathize with those who take umbrage that he could overshadow a Pulitzer winner; for instance, I find it maddening that at Talk:Paul O'Neill they could decide that someone who swatted balls was equal to a cabinet secretary. But though one might wish that the general public was more familiar with Pulitzer winners, at this point he is a Trivial Pursuit question. Still, in fifty or a hundred years, this Jones might be as obscure as the others, so I'm not going to sweat it. --WacoKid 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose Not notable, largely unsourced conspiracy theorist. I presume the paragraphs about bodily functions are vandalism. Whether this article should be kept is open to question; but its subject is not any more notable than a Pulitser prize-winner, much less overwhelmingly more notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per Septentrionalis. - Cyrus XIII 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Daily Vandalism

This article needs protection. I am concerned as much of the vandalism seems to go unattended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.23.174 (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

You should have reverted, rather than trying to undo each individual vandalism edit. It was difficult to determine whether you had realy been reverting vandalism or adding new vandalism while reverting some of the other vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist"?

Why "Conspiracy Theorist"? Is George w. Bush called a "Conspiracy Theorist" because of his absolutely unproven, undocumented and unrealistic 9/11 conspiracy theory? No. Is the Northwoods Document "conspiracy Theory"? No, it is proven Conspiracy Fact.

BJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjornyvan (talkcontribs) 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Why "Conspiracy Theorist"? I agree. this should be changed to "political theorist" or similar. Chendy 11:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones's theory is that 9/11 is a huge conspiracy. Therefore, he is a Conspiracy Theorist. Robbh66 18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all as I understand it that is just one of his theories and he's entitled to present his research on the subject. As wacky as you may think he is, he's not the only person making this claim. Right or wrong it's not a de facto nut job rant. I know that *technically* conspiracy theorist is a legitimate term but in common usage (and a large amount of it's usage in this discussion from what I can tell) is equivilant to calling someone crazy. Conspiracy realist is just as bad because as good willed as it is, it's just an attempt to counter the folks that are calling your man a nut. Personally I do not support the use of either term either here or any where else for that matter. I know everyone has an opinion on the subject but this is supposed to be a collection of facts as they can best be laid out. I feel it is in the best interest of all parties that this and every other contraversial article to remain neutral. No one is going to be persuaded by childish banter in a free encyclopedia plus it just lowers the reputation of the project and those involved in it. Go complain and argue on blogs because that's what they are for. Here we make reference articles and last time I checked reference still had some integrity. Dividebyzero

Is there any reference, other than by other conspiracy theorists, which does not call him a conspiracy theorist? I agree we need references, but deletion is more appropriate than removing all information which you do not like. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist" is a POV label, and while it may be used to describe him if properly sourced I strongly disagree with it being listed as one of his official "occupations" in his biography box. Is "Right Wing Luny" one of Rush Limbaugh's listed occupations? Is "Left Wing Nutcase" one of Michael Moore's listed occupations? I mean please, I realize this guy's a bit out there, but to have that in his occupation line and not "Author" or "Web Publisher" is a bit off. Electrostatic1 13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, I think that by truly technical definition of the term he is a consipiracy theorist, but as that term carries weight implying that his theories are inherently wrong/loony it should not be used. It kind of sucks when the english language gets implied connotations so heavily tacked onto them that it loses its technical meaning. -Hellkyte
He's a conspiracy theorist because he's known for supporting conspiracy theories. The validity of the theories is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now, the article says "He has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by mainstream media outlets." This is an awkward sentence. If anyone is a conspiracy theorist, he is. Why can't we just call him one? Bennie Noakes (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It was a compromise. Please refer to the last few sections at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A better term would be 'Nutburger' -- how 'bout we use that?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Is there such a term as an aritmetic conspiracy theorist - whether arithmetic is valid or not seems to be irrelevant. If you can add "conspiacy" to a word how far along are you in "winning" your argument. It seems to be able to reduce the effort needed by quite a lot. Being able to tack it on means we can source it and reduce any discussion even more - neat trick. Sort of like using a proof you don't understand to prove something new ( just hope the previous guy knew his stuff).159.105.80.141 11:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Why does Wikipedia not like Alex Jones? Every time his name comes up in relation to New world order,911,Oklahoma city bomb,ect ect His reasearch is shown all the respect of a compleat Looney Tunes nut case....

For many of us, his research seems slightly less reliable than a Looney Toons show. That said, I'm not sure wikipedia doesn't like him - and, more important, his article seems fair (generous, I'd say), listing a whole range of the guy's 'achievements'. Jon m 12:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes section needs work.

Needs citations. Or better yet, outright deletion. Manic Hispanic 03:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?????

I heard on his show a few weeks ago that He almost lost his index finger. He almost cut all the way off. I cant recall though if it was the left or right although I think it was the right. So anyway Im thinking maybe we could put that in the article as trivia or as a fact.216.211.51.150 11:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How Unbelievably irrelevant. Lets also list his favorite color and belt-shirt combo while we're at it. Robbh66 04:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I'm dying to find out his color and belt/shirt preferences. The Slowphase 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Robbh, its called a trivia section for a reason, he wouldnt of suggested adding ioit if it wasnt trivial, in fact its one of the less trivial thing Ive seen in trivia sections in wikipedia, saying Alex Jones is reported thave had an accident where he lost a substantial part of one of his right hand digits would be fine , but i think we can go without adding it. However theres no need to be rude, it is a 'trivia' section after all.172.207.221.188 01:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Views

Is this really a good introduction for a biography? I think there should be something about what his recent activities are, his claims to fame, what he is praised for and what he is shunned for etc.. At present, this article presents some of his seemingly most extreme theories (if they are actually his theories, I don't know) as a guide to the man, which is very misleading if you are trying to find out what people in most cases mean when referring to him. The section on his views should mention his emphasis on examples of historic falsifications of data, which are not controversial anymore (eg. the pretext for the Vietnam War), and his scepticism towards the nature of present day administrated mass media. Although I agree that some mention should also be made about his more "far out" claims, the specific examples given are not very informative. 84.210.30.185 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements further down the page (in the comments about his movies) says that he believes "that all major 20th and 21st century terrorist attacks were orchestrated by governments". That sounds pretty far out, is that accurate? It sounds very strange to me that he would dismiss the IRA, ETA, Hezbollah and so on like that, even if he doesn't attribute all, or even most, terrorist attacks to such organisations. In any case, this should be moved to the "Views" section, or rewritten, as it is a poor movie description. 84.210.30.185 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me also urge you all to remember that this page will, conspiracy or not (I believe not), be targeted not only by people with mental problems and Bush haters or lovers, but also by professional PR companies, as this guy does attack political campaigns and big businesses. PR companies are big business (I even have a friend that works for one), and to try and sway public opinion is what they do. Wikipedia is an obvious target for PR. 84.210.30.185 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How? I don't understand your point about PR. Wikipedia isn't a creditable source for most college classes so why would any professional organization even think of risking their creditability on this source. Love it or hate it but that's the way it is and it's mostly because of trolls and vandals. Dividebyzero

Likewise Alex Jones' Cult-like fans seem to be judiciously deleting information that might portray him in a negative light. Today I added to the "Views" Section the fact that Jones' websites regularly post articles championing would-be 2008 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul, which appears to have been undone. I also mentioned that Jones is Anti-Abortion (deleted), and mentioned a number of the advertisers that are using Jones' websites (deleted). Could somebody please explain to me how these things are not relevant to a section called "views" ? Is this just a personal PR page for Alex Jones? 220.157.71.165 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your mentions weren't sourced. (Neither were the advertisers, but I believe they are sourcable from the websites themselves, so I restored anyway.) And anyone who thinks I'm a "Cult-like fan" hasn't been paying attention. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair call.. The advertisers were sourced from the websites themselves. The mention about abortion was from a statement he made condemning abortion on one of his radio shows. The one about Ron Paul? Have a look at this www.prisonplanetcom/archives/ronpaul/index.htm [Unreliable fringe source?] The comments about cult-like fans was generalised, I wasn't necessarily directing it specifically at you. 220.157.71.165 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

rewrite, re-arranging and removals

I re-arrange the article and removed a lot of redundant info. I removed the quotes section because none of it was sourced. If you can find sourced quotes, and you think it can add to the article, please add to appropriate places in the article.

As I was re-arranging, I had an edit-conflict with another editor, but it appears their fixes were minor. If not, please do not revert but instead add whatever material you were adding. El hombre de haha 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the bumper music info, as I don't think anyone will be coming to Wikipedia to read about Alex Jones' bumper music. Sort of trivial. El hombre de haha 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited one of the links, propganda matrix is not Alex Jones' site, it belongs to a writer on his staff, Paul Joseph Watson. Please whoever posts the links, do your homework. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.176.50.122 (talkcontribs) 16:26, April 28, 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Section

I am removing the section about the Virginia Tech Massacre because the article cited as a source was not written by Alex Jones. In addition, If seperate sub headings are given to his more outrageous views, and not to any of his more widely held views it is extremely POV. If you add a seperate subsection for one, you pretty much have to add one for all of his views. The article in question was written by Paul Joseph Watson, and is located here. www.prisonplanetcom/articles/april2007/190407mindcontrolled.htm [Unreliable fringe source?] Attemping to directly credit him with every article on all of his websites would be like trying to directly credit the CEO of Viacom for every word in every one of their shows.

I would also suggest moving the part under the Communism sub section to his filmography where it belongs, as that paragraph is talking about a specific film and not his beliefs as a whole. (Unless you feel like listing ALL of his beliefs, which would take quite a while.) --Electrostatic1 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. However, Paul Joseph Watson seems to be a writer that reflects Jones' views. No one that reads Jones' website(s) is particularly concerned with what Paul Joseph Watson says, he simply reflects and (in some cases further researches) Alex's views. For instance, I don't think that Watson uses Jones' website(s) to push his own opinions or "go against" Jones' views. My analogy would be not taking a test written by a professor's aide because the professor didn't write it. Watson is simply an agent acting on behalf of Jones.
I'll go along with your sentiment that separate subsections on his more extreme views is probably unnecessary. A counter argument would be his extreme views is what makes him interesting and "notable". I don't know if there is a queasy balance and if there is, it will be hard writing.
While we're at it though, the information on his "9/11 prediction" is often removed. It is usually linked to the video of the broadcast when he made that statement.
  1. Is the addition of the 911 prediction considered a negative view or trying to push a particular POV?
  2. Is it not sourced well enough? I guess the link to the video where he made the prediction may be a primary source.
I agree on moving the communism section to the more appropriate videos section. daveh4h 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree with what you are saying.
  1. I would consider any video of him saying something as being a source that he believes it provided that as primary source it not may not be taken out of context, simply stated WP:OR. Please note that there is no copyright issue here as he has specifically said on many occasions that his views may be reproduced for any reason.
  2. Any given belief in and of itself in the views section would not be out of place provided it was framed correctly. One thing about conspiracy theorists is that they often take verifiable facts and add them together to make unverifiable claims. It might be good to point some of these out in their entirety in the views section. This would, however, require finding secondary sources that link the facts he presents to the conclusions he makes, or else it too would violate original research. (IMO)
  3. That said, I'm not sure predicting 9/11 is a view. Seems more like an incident. --Electrostatic1 04:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones' contacts with the NWO

Ever since Aaron Russo claimed that a descendent of Rockefeller promised him money, nightclubs, and a privliged biometric chip that would help him evade legal trouble, Jones has stated on his radio show several different situations where listless NWO members invited him to join. The following is an unreferenced list, but I recall hearing these claims while listening to his show:

  • A "gray-haired old governor" of Texas approached Alex and politely asked Alex to join the NWO so that he may look after his own family and attempt change within the system. Jones indicated that this occurred around the year 2000 and that the governor was male. Because this governor was gray haired and likely male, this rules out recent governors Rick Perry, George W. Bush, and Ann Richards. Between the 70s and 80s there were four different governors (Bill Clements, Mark White, Dolph Briscoe, and Preston Smith.) Smith, Briscoe, Clements, and White are still alive/were alive during the time of which the purported event occurred. Thus, one of these men, according to Jones, is a heavily connected NWO member.
  • Jones once attended a meeting in a "smoke filled room" in the late 90s or early 00s where he was offered membership in the NWO.
  • On May 15, 2007, Jones claimed that he had members of the NWO threaten his life (how literal the threats were is not known, Jones purports that he would get calls from people telling him what his dog is doing or following him in automobiles), but also was once offered "a million dollars." Whether the million dollar offer is a 3rd situation or somehow connected to Jones' meeting in the smoke-filled room is not known.

Gray-haired? Male? NWO? Kevin Nash, brother. I'd be scared if I were intimidated by Nash, Scott Hall and that gang of pro wrestlers. nWo Wolfpac, not so much. The Slowphase 08:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No no no friend...you got it all wrong. Nash is just a dog lover and he likes to observe them from afar. If he really likes one, he'll stalk the owner, break into their home and get their telephone number, and then leave without anyone knowing he was ever there. Then whenever the next time he observes the dog doing something he deems "interesting"...he phones the owner speaking in a rasp voice with an Italian accent. But it's no threat...it's just to hide who he really is. Because if Alex knew he was talking to the Kev doggy, he would mark out and say "2 sweeeet".

...because when you're NWO, you're NWO...4...LIFE.

--Ιουστινιανός 07:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PS - I really appreciate the "back room" intellectual conversations that go on here. I'm learning lots!--Ιουστινιανός 07:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All of this information seems difficult to verify.Harpakhrad11 03:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because he said so doesn't make it so. It is as simple as that, this isn't a place for conspiracy theorists and their gullible followers. IamMcLovin 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones' and His Past

Alex Jones is not very specific about his past. He has visited many parts of the world, including Latin America, because of his father's career (a dentist.) Alex Jones' sometimes implires he has a strained relationship with his father (even though, according to a show broadcast, he watched the first half of Super Bowl this year with his father.) In earlier Jones documentaries, Alex claims he began his public access career in 1994. Jones would have been 19 at the time. Jones claims he is addicted to smoking and an alcoholic, but has not taken any drugs (he has only tried marijuana) since high school. After high school, Jones went to college. It is not known which one he went to, nor whether he finished. What is clear is that he saw the school's globalist agenda and he "woke up." It is likely this occurred his freshman year of college and that he shortly after left and began his radio career.

Yeah, theres alot of things we DON'T know about Alex Jones Manic Hispanic 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Martiallawdvd.png

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Martiallawdvd.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

I don't know why User:Arthur Rubin continues to add on "conspiracy theorist" as an occupation. According to our own site an occupation is the principal activity (job, employment, or calling) that earns money (regular wage or salary) for a person (see employment, profession, business, List of occupations). Hence "conspiracy theorist" is not an occupation. I have removed it as such.--Jersey Devil 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that our infobox uses our definitions, in spite of WP:NOT a dictionary. Even so, being a conspiracy theorist is part of his job as a radio talk show host, so it's still his occupation. If he wasn't a conspiracy theorist, he wouldn't be a radio talk show host. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone's definition of "occupation" is "a salaried position". What else would it be? And with regards to that being related to his actual occupation as a radio host, that is completely irrelevant. We wouldn't put "conservative" in the infobox of Rush Limbaugh as his occupation because "conservative" isn't an occupation.--Jersey Devil 22:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You also shouldn't use rollback with regards to content disputes like as if it is vandalism. That is completely wrong that you did that.--Jersey Devil 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A number of editors have inserted or reinserted "conspiracy theorist" as an occupation, so I was looking your edit as an edit against clear consensus, upon which rollback can be used. But it was a mistake.
And he wouldn't be a radio host or a (successful) filmmaker if he hadn't been a conspiracy theorist. Rush could have been a radio host if he hadn't been conservative; in fact, he's argued the liberal side of some issues. No source has been presented to suggest that Alex hasn't supported any conspiracy theory which he became aware of. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, around a month or two months ago I was listening to his show and a man called in saying he read a recent article from BBC describing a zombie outbreak. Alex was immediately skeptical, assuming it likely to be a prank, but that he'd have people look into it. I found the article, and it was not very recent, from 2005[9]. It would be time consuming to find a source showing Alex Jones' reaction to a specific call, I suppose, but as it's not even the issue at hand, it doesn't matter. See above defining of "occupation."--Shink X 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that an occupation has a definition. It is a salaried position, that is the end of the discussion. Jones is paid to be a radio host for a show in which he promotes conspiracy theories. Therefore his occupation is "radio host", that is what he is paid to do. With regards to your comment regarding Limbaugh, it makes no sense. The two situations are exactly the same and I am not concerned with what political positions he has supported. What is relevant is what he is paid to do, which is being a host of a radio program as is the subject of this article. And yes, you were wrong in using rollback. I am an established user here, an administrator who has had his fair share of dealings with 9/11 truth POV pushers and I would at least ask for the respect of not having my edits treated as simple vandalism. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if a "known for" field were added to {{Infobox Celebrity}}, we could agree to put "conspiracy theorist" there, instead of in "occupation". You may be right that not everything a person does and is best known for is an occupation, but "conspiracy theorist" has as much right to appear in the infobox as what he's specifically paid for. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that might be a better alternate solution. Only problem is that it would effect all celebrity infoboxes and some people might disagree with the existence of such a field.--Jersey Devil 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In Alex's case, I don't think there's any question that what he's known for is supporting conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I just removed it again. As it is not an occupation. Feel free to add it on to any other relevant parts of the article.--Jersey Devil 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I gree with Jersey Devil here.. Yes he is known for "Conspiracy Theories", but that is not what he would be putting on his W2... --Electrostatic1 06:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why *this* is the thing that bothers me here, but Jersey Devil is completely wrong to say that an "occupation is a salaried position, that is the end of the discussion." The most germane definition of occupation in the OED (i.e. not related to e.g. the "occupation" of Iraq),is "A particular action or course of action in which a person is engaged, esp. habitually; a particular job or profession; a particular pursuit or activity." This is not to say that I think "Conspiracy Theorist" is an occupation, although it could be, just that there are plenty of people in occupations that are not salaried positions -- "salaries" exist mostly only in Capitalist systems too -- where people exchange their time for money as opposed to simply doing a job, making something, overseeing something, running their own business, working within a co-op, etc. Thanks Saudade7 19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Occupation Investigative Journalist (Radio); You can then add "Know For" in the pretty box for those who graze in there daze online. By giving both views the article is neutral, by giving one view it remains biased and indespute. Evadinggrid (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Communism

I think the sections supporting Alex's statements on corporate support of communism should be in another article, and referenced here. If it's relevent to Alex (at least marginally), it's relevant to a number of different Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

could just clone it Chendy 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

"Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is a American radio host and filmmaker who is best known for his work in exposing conspiracies."

Exposing what conspiracies? No sources for any conspiracy he's 'exposed' that has been accepted by peer-review, the best I've seen is conjucture that is dismissed. Surely "Best known for his support of conspiracy theorys" is more accurate?

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. (temporarily off Wikibreak). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Link to scans of Hustler article

Under the "Views" section there is an external link to a Hustler article about Jones & 911. The link, however, is to a blog that has high-res jpg scans of the Hustler article. Are such scans allowable under copyright, and should we be linking to them? Perhaps a direct link to the article on Huster.com (if available) would be more appropriate. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Huslter.com would be blocked by most library and school filters. Besides I doubt that's even up on their web page. What "sells" Hustler is not the political articles so this should be covered under fair use. In fact Hustler would likely be thankful for the free advertising. Nakedtruth 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the link might be censored doesn't justify linking to copyright-violating material, thus putting Wikipedia at risk. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Misspelled name

I was listening to the Alex Jones show and he complained that his middle name is spelled wrong, can anyone rectify that?

Removing Views section

Jones' views (nor anyone else's, for that matter) aren't inherently notable for encyclopedic mention - only if some other reliable sources remarks as to their notability. I feel this entire section should be cut, since this encyclopedia is not a soapbox merely for repeating a handful of his personal opinions. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We're coming up to a week with no comment on this, which leads me to think my removing this section will be noncontroversial... --ZimZalaBim talk 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Removing this section now. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think your standard is correct. His views are not notable, but if he is notable enough for his own article, his views are fair game for summarization within that article. After all, its about the man, so his views are central to this.Giovanni33 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If I were to accept your reasoning, then I would assume the views summarized in the article would relate directly to the topics for which he is notable: 9/11, conspiracy theories, and the like. As it is, the views I removed [10] were seemingly random samples of his viewpoints: communism & international banking, John Birch Society, and the US Liberty. While the latter 2 seem related to conspiracy theories, why highlight these particular minor instances? --ZimZalaBim talk 19:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
True. The assumption is logical. His views should be regarding the views which are relevant to his notability. However, these views for which he is notable for, are part of a world view, which is good to understand--and to understand his world view, his other opinions may indeed faciliate such an understanding. This can be tricky as just not any opinion that he says randomly would warrant mentioning, but beliefs regarding the same category (conspiratorial, political, etc), seem to fit, i.e. they are relevant views to his conspiratorial ideology.Giovanni33 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This slope becomes slippery - how do you/we decide which of his views do/do not contribute to his "world view"? That said, I don't quite agree that the purpose of an encyclopedia article on a person is to explore and make known all of the subject's personal beliefs that might contribute to the personality/psychology of that subject (or for which the subject is notable). We're supposed to describe who he is, not what makes him think the way he does. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't enterain what makes him think the way he does, we describe who he is. What better way to describe who he is thant to state what his main claims are in regard to relevant areas that he is notable for, i.e. his politics and conspiracy theories? My point about his world view is a question of relevance for this stated beliefs, not an attempt to critique his psychology or figure out what makes him think the way he does. Its descriptive, only; theres no analysis (that would be OR, anyway, and there are BLP concerns also, even with using others to do so). No, I am talking about relvevant beliefs related to his notablity, i.e. his political and conspiratorial views, provided he doesnt mention it only once in passing but forms a consistent part of his message, logically connected to the genre of thought he is known for. There is no slippery slop if we use that common sense criteria.Giovanni33 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think its right for the previous two editors to have a debate and then come to a conclusion where they remove a reasonible amount of sourced information. His views are extremely important. I am angry as i personally contributed alot to the views section. I can understand debate on wikipedia for the relevence of certain information in the context of certain articles, but removing sourced relevinformation seems unjusified. I feel a appropriate sub page could be a good compromise in most of these like situations.Chendy 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I had suggested it on July 26, waited a week, got no objections, so removed it on August 2nd. Feel free to enter the debate with reasoned arguments based on policy, but just because the info was true and sourced doesn't make it necessarily appropriate for inclusion. His views need to be deemed relevant by a cited source, not just your opinion of its relevance. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This is getting very silly. Unless your are employed to this, surely this is a waste of everybodies lives. I had suggested it on July 26, waited a week, got no objections, so removed it on August 2nd - I haven't got 24 hours a day to patrol edits like some people....anyway: "His views need to be deemed relevant by a cited source, not just your opinion of its relevance." Alex jones is known as a commentator on various socio-political, whatevery one may think of him/his views. It therefore follows that inteligent analysis of his views are added, not because his views are important generally, but because his views are important to people interested in alex jones. I not actually a fan of his, but i cant see how removing analysis of his views helps anything. What is wrong with a subpage? This may seem silly to you but if there are many examples of biographies on wikpedia where there are chunky view sections interegrated within main articles. If you are then saying that some peoples views maybe notable, but Jones's are not then I feel you are wrong, evidence being from the nature of this debate on the talk page, the size of the talk page, the amount of fans and web hits he gets etc. I understand there are issues in wikipedia to prevent it getting bloated but pointlessly limiting helpful information seems wrong. We don't want wikipedia turning into a bureaucracy - killing off the spirit that gives it life. Chendy 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to include "inteligent analysis of his views" then find reliable sources providing such analysis, otherwise you'll be adding original research. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Naturally. I feel this is now resolved :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chendy (talkcontribs)
(edit conflict x2)A week seems enough time to establish consensus. Of course, consensus can be reviewed. (The subarticle idea is just wrong, though.) However, his views, even if notable, can only be included if a third party comments on them, or he specifically said "my view is ...." We can't extract his views from his statements; that would be original research, as we define it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

section in question

I have some problems with the claims on this section:

"Communism In Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State, Jones claims that Communism was a plot by international banks in the early 1900s to oppress the Russian serfs. He further claims that Communists in the West today are funded by corporations.[15]"

That part above is ok. However, below, it pushes this fringe POV as "plausable" by use of the "however," and then saying it was was "researched and documented extensively... and has been acknowelged by academic figures such as...":

"Although the claim about international banks is considered implausible by most historians, this corporate funding was researched and documented extensively by the late Professor Antony Sutton, and has been acknowledged by academic figures such as Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Professor Richard Pipes.[16][17]"

However, the source do not support that, that I can see. In particular, I refer to the dubious claim that "communists in the West today are funded by corporations." Even if that particular claim is repeated by Sutton, Brzezinsky, and Pipes (this is doubtful and needs to be shown), the language presents this fringe view as one that has some widespread respectiblity to it, and that, I don't think is true. I've heard this kind of claim before but usually only with extreme fringe groups that are often times extreme right wing, i.e. neo fasicsts. For example, fringe conspiracy groups like this [11], noted for their conspiracies involving satan, or more notably some of the conspriacies propagated by Lyndon LaRouche. In anycase, these claims must be properly framed.Giovanni33 21:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jones attacks a Wikipedian

Does this merti mention in the article? [12]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless this story is picked up by a credible, third-party source. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


LACKING CRITICISM SECTION!

What the heck is this? Another completely one-sided Wiki self-love piece!?
Why are tin foil hatters like Jones permitted to hijack Wiki with these one-sided love pieces?
This piece should be deleted immediately --it is completely non-objective, lacking any critique nor merits any Encyclopedic-style virtue.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let the record show that I added a "Criticism" section, and it was removed. I added it again, and it was removed. I have yet to see an explanation from anyone as to why this has happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.158.179 (talk) 11:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I think the above comment refers to this edit.[13] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Why can't there be a criticism section, there is a source but it was deleted along with the rest of the section because it had someone else who had a biography on wikipedia (David de Rothschild) as the person (Arthur Rubin) said in his Revert summary. - IamMcLovin 01:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. If I may, I'd like to add a bit more for the sake of completeness. The source that was cited was derogatory to de Rothschild and did not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please see WP:BLP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I respect that rationale. - IamMcLovin 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture Removed

On August 6th, I edited this articles and added a image of Alex, but for some reason it was removed. Just wondering why?? Noahcs 21:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edit summary for the removal by Wsiegmund (talk · contribs) states "Revert to last edit by ZimZalaBim per ZimZalaBim's edit summary". Which seems to be referring to this edit with the edit summary of "rv - that is likely a copy vio, or at least a questionable fair use". So, presumably that was Wsiegmund's logic, but perhaps you should ask him directly. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the image as a copy violation. No justification is given for the PD tag and it is not easily found at the source cited. I found it at another URL with no indication that it is in the public domain. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The image was deleted as a copywrite violation by Quadell (talk · contribs · count) on 20 August..[14] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

question

I would like to know why the link to prison planet was taken off seeing as it was on the article first before the New York daily news link

Because Prisonplanet is an extremist wacko website, while new york is not. IamMcLovin 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all, personally I think since the www.prisonplanetcom/articles/september2007/090907_alex_arrested.htm [Unreliable fringe source?] Prison Planet link] was on the article first it should stay there, and don't you think there should be a better reason for it being taken off besides it being A Quote extremist wacko website Unquote. 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.216.168 (talk)

yeah...that...primarily, and it shouldn't be biased like prisonplanet is. get a non-biased link, and we need RELIABLE sources. IamMcLovin 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Not only do sources need to be verifiable and reliable, they should be independent. Prison Planet isn't an independent source when it comes to talking about Alex Jones, considering he runs the site. --clpo13(talk) 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


I think for the most part one uses a sites own words to describe themselves. A person knows best what himself stand for.

Theres of course always a possibility of lying, but if one is suggesting lies are the case, one should refere to previous lying, as justification for the attack. The same with "bad journalism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubu81 (talkcontribs) 11:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The [current http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio%29&oldid=160796087] version of the lead reads:

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11 1974) is an American radio host and documentary filmmaker who is best known for his work in promotion of awareness of government, banking and corporate activities that are admitted and verifiable, and which therefore cannot be classed as existing within the domain of conspiracy theories.

I feel the last accurate version of the lead reads:

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11 1974) is an American radio host and filmmaker who is best known for his work in promotion of conspiracy theories.

I'd accept "documentary" filmmaker, but he's known for conspiracy theories, not for promoting lies awareness of government, banking and corporate activities which are totally bogus and unverified, even if theoretically verifiable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Arthur Rubin, and it should be kept the way it was. Basically, the most news he gets is when he is arrested, and the rest is usually on one of his web pages. None of his claims have ever been "admitted" by any government officials, and in my opinion most of his claims are just paranoia. The thing is, all he is IS a conspiracy theorist, and I agree that he could at least be a documentary film maker, if you could call his films that. IamMcLovin 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm at WP:3RR, and the edits aren't pure vandalism, so I can't handle it myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

9/11

{{dubious}} 2.

I can't find any source other than himself saying that he "predicted 9/11", even based on the transcripts and audio files of the shows. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the statement currently in the article is correct:
On his July 25, 2001 TV show Jones urged his audience to call the White House because he suspected the government was going to stage false flag terrorist attacks. He also referred to Osama bin laden as ‘the boogeyman they need’. Jones dubbed this action ‘Operation Expose The Government Terrorists’.
This is as close to predicting 9/11 that he came, which is quite far. The above statement is not provided with a reference, other than the date of the show. It might help to stabilize the article if someone could post a link to a transcript or an audio file, at least here on the Talk page. Someone put in the YouTube video as a reference (which I watched) but the YouTube reference has since been taken out. Also, a limitation of the probative value of the YouTube video is that it wasn't clear if it omitted anything relevant from the original, since there seemed to be gaps. EdJohnston 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Look here. http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/august2004/082604alexwarned.htm
--RucasHost (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones July 25 2001 broadcast.

Information should be added concerning the July 25 2001 broadcast, at the very least the fact that Alex often claims he predicted 9/11 would happen. Joehoe665 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but, for anything more than "(Jones) claims to have predicted 9/11", we need a WP:RS as to the content of the broadcast. Citing the broadcast, itself, is not adequate. Citing a (Jones-hosted) transcript might be adequate, except for the possibility that he re-edited the site after 9/11. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

what was Alex protesting in New York? I know but many other do not. It needs to be on the page. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracula2012 (talkcontribs) 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to a .wmv video clip of the 25 07 2001 broadcast. Gwen Gale 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


So since this has been verified should the prediction now be put back into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.88.137 (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Verified by whom? We know it's a video clip which Alex claims is of the 25 07 2001 broadcast. It's his web site, he could put anything he wanted there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What about a Wayback Machine entry? Or some kind of search engine cache-dive? I realize that nobody gives a damn if it's true or not, but at the very least some sort of documentation would be nice. Sweetfreek (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin - does he ever have anything constructive to say ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That reedited (but presumably not altered, other than by extracting the relevant sound bites) clip above doesn't "predict" 9/11. It doesn't even name which "bin Laden" is to be blamed; there are dozens of them. Be real. It does appear to predict a fake terrorist attack on New York. But it would be WP:OR to do the required analysis to determine how many predictions he's made which have been disconfirmed, and it's still the case that we don't have a reliable source calling it a prediction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears that someone said that very thing on this talk page. About 16 months ago. Well, I never said I was performing WP:Original research. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Are but which Arthur Rubin are you ? There are many Arthur Rubins on the planet . . . Evadinggrid (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pages for his documentaries?

Should Alex Jones' documentaries have a seperate page for each of them, or at least his most popular, like Terrorstorm or, soon to be released, Endgame. Does wikipedia have an policy about this type of thing? Please discuss. Noahcs 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they should each have their own page. I tried to create one for TerrorStorm several times. Unfortunately, it was deleted each time by those claiming it 'was not notable'. Shall I have another go? Dala0 1:50, 7/11/2007 (GMT)
No, Alex Jones is not well known as it is. Mostly he is known by his antics and his arrests outside of his protective bubble of personal websites and the occasional Austin Journal or whatever it is. His "documentaries" would be even more obscure, if you could call them that. IamMcLovin 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did this rumor come from saying Bill Hicks faked his own death and is actually Alex Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.209.107 (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course he should have a page for Terrorstorm and EndGame, the fact that these pages do not exist is in itself a critism of wikipedia. The lack of pages is taken as "proof" of bias. Eliminate the Bias please. Evadinggrid (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid

Screenshots?

I'm thinking about adding a screenshot for each of his documentaries on this page, similar to how all the Family Guy episodes are. If they're low-resolution, I'm sure it will be okay. What do you guys think? If no one responds soon, I'll go ahead and do it. Noahcs 03:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally opposed, but I won't revert if you do it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you aren't completely against, I'll go ahead and add the images. If you later feel that the screenshots are unnecessary or unencyclopedic you can remove them. Noahcs 22:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. I also think the documentary list should be made into a table -- which is easier to read -- like it used to be. --RucasHost (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

History Channel documentary

About the recent edit regarding the history channel documentary "attempting to debunk the 911 conspiracy theories" or "successfully doing it". With WP:NPOV in mind, since this is a disputed point, unless reliable references are provided to support either case, the statement should be removed to just show that he was on the documentary. I can find numurous items in favor of each case but all are biased opinions. Farqis 09:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

All it is is describing the purpose of the documentary. Kevin 12:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Biographical error

So the first paragraph of this page reads:

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American radio host and filmmaker who is best known for his work in promotion of conspiracy theories.

What if it read:

Alexander Emerick Jones, the once and future asshole.

What then? Wouldn't that be more information rich AND of greater brevity? I mean, I was just looking up some information about the VT massacre, and came across his website accidentally. The guy's an abomination. The article cheapened humanity. It cheapened video gamers, christians, media agents, pro-gun activitsts, anti-gun activits, etc. Not to mention that it utterly lacked a cohesive, or even coherent, argument.

I presume that wikipedia as a whole desires to make the world a better place. It might, then, be profitable to regard a guy like this as viral, and quarantine him. What if people searched for Alex Jones and recieved a single line describing what he is, and a brief list of the "works" that have come out of him. What if that line was this:

Alexander Emerick Jones, the once and future asshole.

Liquid entropy 07:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with you, we'd need a reliable source for that assessment, and "future" falls under WP:CRYSTAL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Should cites from his own websites be on here?

A number of citations on this article come from Jones' own websites, which could have POV concerns. Should they be removed? Kevin 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes they should be removed, unless perhaps they're qualified by "According to Jones" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Depends what the claims are. Using his website for benign information like his birthday, family history, and where he grew up seems fine. If it's something hard to believe or unusual there should be another source. --RucasHost (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

5 million listeners?

The section about his radio show claims it has an average of 5 million listeners. This is A LOT of listeners and I find it very hard to believe. There is no source for this claim. I am removing it until someone can provide a source. Byates5637 (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Although he is quite popular in the area he works in, it does sound a bit over the top, i've heard him make that claim on the radio, but i assumed it was massaging of numbers, total potential listeners if everyone who can receive can tune in or something. Bibblybobbbob (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Jones has stated that he had about 2 Million Listeners in 2007, current audiance figures are not known, but since last year he has expanded his syndication. On the other hand his show is over 4 hours in length and I would suspect he has lost listeners ( my opinion ). Evadinggrid (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid

Difficult problem. Even if there isn't a credibility problem, we can never use a person as a source for their own readership/listenership. Whichever agency estimates radio listenership would be credible for his broadcast radio shows, and his ISP might be credible for his web sites, but it's obvious we can't trust him for a statement of his audience size. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well my point is how can some one claim he has 5 million, when he only claims 2 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Filmography"

There's a long filmography. Are these dreck-to-video, or what? If they've had theatrical release, where? If they're videos, have they been sold by companies such as Amazon, or are they only available within rightwing political circles? -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they have been given a theatrical release, but only in local theatres and some conference halls (I think?), (such as the Alamo Drafthouse which I think is in Texas) but this may change in the future, as jones work gains more exposure and recognition. Although I can't be bothered to find a link to confirm this, I have seen this on his website several times with the pre-release of Terrorstorm and Endgame. If you do a site search at either infowars.com or prisonplanet.com I'm sure you'll find out as much.

Yes his dvds are available from amazon.com here is the link; [15] - which is just the search results for alex jones. --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He has stated on air that with his more recent movies (terrorstorm and endgame i guess, they are far slicker than earlier works), he has got them in limited numbers into blockbuster/other rental stores. Bibblybobbbob (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

criticism section

People have repeatedly tried to add a criticism section.. and it keeps getting deleted.. If anyone warrents a criticism secion it is alex jones with his nutty theories of black helicopters,secret government detention facilities at amtrak stations retrofitted with gas chambers for american citizens, and so on and so on.. nevermind the self proclaimed crusader for truth admits on his website that you can buy advertisements "disguised as news headlines" in the the police state section. real thruthfull.. I mean seriously.. an admin needs to add this, ban people who keep censoring the article the protect the page if necessary... this is rediculous. -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The standards are pretty high for including info which is critical of a living person. You need to have at least one very reliable source (such as The New York Times, or a police report, or something) and preferably several. Furthermore, the sources have to demonstrate that the criticisms are serious and relate to the person's overall notability. Finally, the criticisms have to be summarized fairly and neutrally, and not allowed to overwhelm the rest of the article.
If a critical section could be added which passes these tests (in their more detailed form set out in WP:BLP policy), I'd support keeping it, and so I think would most contributors here. Given my impression of Jones' reputation, I suspect that the sources exist, too. Just be careful about how you present it, and maybe post your ideas (with proper sources) on the talk page first. <eleland/talkedits> 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem, I think, is that quite a few pundits (and politicians) string together easily cited, factual, information that would meet our own standard for WP:V and WP:RS, but do so in such a way as the human mind, in constructing an overall narrative, means that simple facts can be re-told in a provocative way. "black helicopters,secret government detention facilities at amtrak stations retrofitted with gas chambers for american citizens".... I can get WP:RS for black helicopters, "secret" detention facilities at train stations and airports, "gas management chambers" at highly sensitive facilities, and all of this being done for the benefit of American citizens. For more benign explanations, stealth helicopters are a known part of the US arsenal, putting a pickpocket into a non-public cell at a train station beats leaving him out on the platform, and for sensitive sites, gas management areas make a heck of a lot of sense for isolating somebody trying to aerosol bomb the capitol mall, or otherwise washing down somebody coated with U-235 dust. Lest you think I'm just calling Jones out, Michael Moore has a whole team of folks that makes sure every factoid he says is true..... but they don't make sure the *stream*, the narrative, is viewed as cohesively true by all viewers. Watch the flamefests at that MM article for giggles, there was a massive debate over a 2-mile distance of where he grew up (I'm not kidding). Finally, let's take a republican phrase, and parse it: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". All true.... and yet, patently false. Broken out:"The British Government"-source of the information, TRUE. "has learned"-they received such information, TRUE "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"-that's what the source said, TRUE. Of course, now we know that the source was reporting a forgery, but everything that bush said could be backed up by reliable, if forged, sources. Getting back to this article, we have to be careful about managing not only on *sources* but *narrative* of those sources. A recent edit, for example, was all about the "guests" he has had on his show, without going into which guests spent 20 seconds, and left, which ones spent an hour, or which guests has made many multi-hour appearances. While they may have all been on the show, we don't always know context, or intended narrative. Ronabop (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree alot with Ronabop, he does work like a politician, my view is he often is taking some actual fact, and then makes a big cake with his political views and some speculation of possible future scenarios based on the small fact. What I tend to find when I follow back the trails to the original sources he is using, is that there is a mildly scary story there, but that he has pumped up the volume to 11 in his analysis. A place where a source can be found for someone notable talking about the way he works is the CSPAN interview with Jon Ronson (a fairly well known England based journalist).

"But Alex, of course, had his own spin on it, which was that -- it was human sacrifice! Maybe that's a real person that -- that the -- so I went off with my spin, which was, you know, a kind of moderate spin, that it's not that crazy, it's understandable. And Alex went back to his people with his own incredibly crazy spin."

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1668

Another interesting quote from Ronson is this

"And I remember at the time -- because I'm -- you know, Alex is an intelligent man, and I remember at the time saying to him, "Alex," you know, "you know that what you're saying about Bohemian Grove isn't true. Now, you're playing with fire here." And Alex said, "Yeah, I'm not going to tell my listeners that." And it's kind of come back to haunt him now."

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1668

Anyway, with regard to a criticism section, what I've seen on Wikipedia lately, is that things like trivia/criticism sections are going out of fashion, and it seems preferred to pepper the information around the article in appropriate places. Bibblybobbbob (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I think the picture should be removed, it's of low-quality and looks incredibly disparaging. You can hardly see his face, he has a drink in his hand, the angle is really bizarre; not having picture would be better than having this one. --RucasHost (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i agree, do you know if there are any better onesin the public domain???? Smith Jones (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theories

Alex Jones does not believe in conspiracy theoris, he simply points own the eites own documents and plans that match up with only the known facts of news items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.220.105 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory -theorist"

"conspiracy" have gotten two meaning. One meaning that has an rigid defenition is: 1. act of two or more persons, conspirators, working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations. 2. an agreement among conspirators. 3. a group of persons, conspirators, working in secret to obtain some goal. 4.(law) an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy

and one defenition that is based on a predjustise. it means aproxmatly. -crackpot theory

this article says it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

a conspiracy theory is nothing more than a theory about a conspiracy. This is a judical word, with a judical defenition.

This defenition based on predjustise is useless, because the defenition does not include the the Necessary and sufficient conditions to refer to what is usually ment by the talker. -Those who uses the label does normally not mean that the theory of Saddams WMD was a conspiracy theory, his allegation in 911, nor any of the operation that is now reconsided to be false-flag historical events. the condition that select the definiendum depends on the prejustise of the sender. -it is a useless word.

Since it it impossible to say which meaning is ment in this article, and the term no longer has a neutral defeinition it should be removed. Predjustis-labels of this kind, not fullfilling the condition for defenition should not be used, because of the political impact.

-Maybe the term: "false-flag spekulator" is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.224.70 (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that one persons insane consipiracy theorist is another mans investigative journalist, and that both. Evadinggrid (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid

AP

I'm not sure how a source from an AP article can be dismissed, even if the information is included in background. If I'm missing a wikipedia policy that designates background as not a reliable source, please let me know. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a tertiary source, rather than a secondary source. We'd do as well to quote a (reputable) encyclopedia's article about Jones. I'll try to construct a compromise position, but he is known as a conspiracy theorist, with the {{verify credibility}} tag. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree he's known as a conspiracy theorist, that's not in doubt. It's establishing that conspiracies are all he's known for is where the problem lies. By the way, you're at the edge of WP3RR, please discuss things on the talk page before making changes. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Are clearly unreliable sources better than no sources at all? If Wikipedia policies were to be followed to the letter, he wouldn't be here at all, as no WP:RS really talk about about him. Just because a clearly bad-faith deletion nomination occured, doesn't mean that deletion may not be the appropriate action. As for 3RR, it's possible. Next time, though, I would have to blank the intro, as claiming he is best known for anti-globalism gives reputable anti-globalists a bad name, violating WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to be polite and productive here. Please don't threaten with disrupting wikipedia to make a point by deleting the entire intro on your personal opinion.
Summing up, you still haven't explained how an AP article is not a reliable source. If you feel he's not noteworthy, nominate the article for deletion, but don't remove sources because you disagree with them.
As for WP:3RR, there['s no "possible" about it, you clearly violated it. I informed you, just so you would know. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP is an exception to WP:3RR; if you are considered a meat-puppet of Hereward77, as suggested by your restoration of his edits, you've violated it first (even if I have violated it); and I've been attempting to find comprimise positions, even if you aren't willing to consider it, and removing a tag without discussion is generally considered vandalism.
Even in the case of peer-reviewed journals, it's been established that biographical information about the author or a person not the subject of the article is not reliable. In this case, Nelson is the subject of the article; Jones is not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Give it a rest Rubin, now you are just projecting your own guilt and forming your own conspiracy theories. Unlike you we didn't create a sock puppet while being blocked.[16] It is not up to you to determine who are "legitimate" people and who are not. Please start acting like an adult and stop imposing your political beliefs here. AP is a reliable source. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:RSN#Background items in news reports. I think AP is less reliable in this instance, especially since quoted in a fair and balanced manner. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, I didn't create a sock puppet while blocked. I asked whether I could edit, using the additional account, to insert a note stateing that it is my account. I was told, no, and didn't continue. I created it long before I was blocked. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is clear that your blocked "additional account" Data image, among others, has been adding defamatory material to the Barry Chamish article,[17] as your "main" account just did.[18] --Hereward77 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Data image is not me, and, although the material he added may be defamatory, although sourced, you've added unsourced material which defames his detractors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't defamed anyone. None of this single-purpose account's smears were sourced, and you restored them. You are not a good person. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I disagree with Arthur Rubin around the statement of "no WP:RS really talk about about him". I'll concede that I haven't seen any large news corps do a story particularly on him, but he is often mentioned, or has a section in articles about conspiracy theories, 9/11, and so on.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208364,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328726,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273343,00.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/23/sbt.01.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6354679.stm http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1668 http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

that's only a couple of minutes of google searches, I have seen many more articles, and much more on TV too that either makes mention of him, or has an interview with him, or a small part of the article/piece about his views. Alex Jones seems to be one of the few people in the conspiracy circles that the media does know about, and covers at times. Bibblybobbbob (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I noticed it's been changed back under the "known for" category, and "conspiracy theories" has been removed. I inadvertantly removed that once, trying to revert another edit. I'd like to clarify, I support listing "conspiracy theories" here, as it is (although not solely) what he's known for. Snowfire51 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant sources substantiating Jones's reputation as a conspiracy theorist might include "Them : Adventures With Extremists", by Jon Ronson, Simon & Schuster, 2002; also "The Secret Rulers of the World", a documentary film also by Jon Ronson.Verklempt (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The terms "conspiracy theorist" and "conspiracy theory" can be used pejoratively. AP is certainly more reliable and more neutral a source than professional sceptics/cynics such as Jon Ronson. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Someone said that he wasn't an investigative journalist, or that they can't find any examples of it. I just watched Inside Bohemian Grove, and that's a definite example. Ismokeherbs (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course he is a Investigative Journalist and a Conspiracy Theorist. Evadinggrid (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Evadinggrid

Nope. No evidence of investigative journalism there. Tabloid journalism, perhaps. (I hesitate to use someone's user name as an indication of his/her character, but Ismokeherbs is just too good an allusion to ignore.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You simply dislike investigative journalist as it is a more positive description. Choice of words is highly significant. Wikipedians should strive for a neutral balanced approach, not enforcing the "this guy is a nut job". The exposure oh Bohemian Grove could not provide a better argument. You speak of reliable sources; well if they are so relaible show me there coverage of this years Bildenburg Conference. Evadinggrid (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I know very little about Alex Jones, only what I read people saying about him on various forums. Anyway, lately I've often heard expressed the view that things that he was called crazy for suggesting some years back have actually turned out to be true. I have no idea whether this is true or not, but if it is, I think it would be nice to provide some examples of this.

As it is now, this article covers a few areas well but has enormous holes; not only is there no "criticism" section, there is no section at all about Jones' influence on broader American culture, if any (though judging by the amount of warring over this page, one would guess that he's a big celebrity down in the States). Esn (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One might guess that he's a big celebrity down in the States. but he's really only a celebrity among the conspiracy theory crowd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
He's notable, but certainly not what you'd consider a "big celebrity." He has a following, but it's more of a dedicated minority. Redrocket (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He tends to claim every major event is some conspiracy, so in the few cases where some government impropriety later came out (waco is the only one that springs to mind with Alex, but i'm sure there are at least a few others), he states he knew it all along, of course the rest seem to be deemed by him 'unproven as yet' Bibblybobbbob (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actor?

The article mentions him as an actor, but I would have to dispute this in a way. In waking life he played a man in a car ranting over a megaphone. In scanner darkly he plays a man on a street corner ranting over a megaphone. In real life he is a man ranting (often with a megaphone). It seems a stretch to call him an actor, he basically just plays himself (or his persona) Bibblybobbbob (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Jones does not describe himself as an actor. Evadinggrid (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid

Radio Show Guest List

Do we really need this huge line-by-line list of guests? I suggest it be compressed into one paragraph - "Noteable guests have included..." followed by a shortened comma-separated list. Maybe create a separate wiki page for the show and put the full info there. 88.212.144.188 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there doesn't seem to be a reason for a list of this length. He's notable enough to have his own article, so it stands to reason he would have had some notable guests. I don't think there's any precedent for a talk show host having a guest list. Redrocket (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
At the very least it needs to be whittled down to a few people who would suffer little harm from being associated with Jones, with individual references. As it is this section is a magnet for slanderous rubbish from trolls. John Nevard (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would concur. Four to six noteworthy guests would be sufficient. The current list is not only unencyclopedic, but borders on spam; see: “Jones' website includes audio (and some video) interviews with guests who have appeared on his show, including:” Brimba (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The list is out of date, it keeps growing. Should it expire entries after a period of time or should it just include the most important guests ( some of which are missing ) Evadinggrid (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Evadinggrid

Threat

Jones started by mentioning this on his tuesday show. This edit coinsided with a death threat Jones recived regaring his coveraged of a possible Israeli aided Palestininan "suicide".--Striver - talk 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have we (if we can) found out who posted that? Ismokeherbs (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation probably can, and perhaps OTRS, and possibly a CheckUser could trace the actual IP used (if done soon), but Admins cannot. If Jones would contact the Foundation, I'm sure they'd check it out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting link.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Alex-Jones-summary.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xixixixixixixixixix (talkcontribs) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? One nut job fringe position talking about another nut job fringe "researcher". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The above article focuses on placing all blame on Zionists, others claim he is Jesuit . . The list is long, and it is often amusing to trace who these people really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DC Madam Palfrey - Murder versus Suicide

Should somebody make an entry for this or is it to early ?

Alex Jones on Geraldo Overwhelming Evidence Points To Murder Of DC Madam

Fox News' Geraldo has Alex Jones on to examine the evidence that shows that DC Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey was murdered-- despite the official claim that she committed suicide.

Evadinggrid (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid

Geraldo as reliable source????? I suppose it might be noted as one of Jones's conspiracy theory, whether or not he has any evidence, but it's certainly too early to judge the credibility of the evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actualy I based my opinions by consulting offline, a detective and a psychologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(I was going to make a sarcastic remark, but thought better of it.) You realize, of course, that personal discussions cannot be included in the article? I can see it included as an example of conspiracies he supports, provided that it's in Geraldo's transcript or reported in reputable news media, but I cannot see it as having any relevance toward "investigative journalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.590klbj.com/Bios/Alex_Jones.aspx listed as "seasoned investigative journalist".
Evadinggrid (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's an advertisement about Alex's program by 590, not news copy. No possible use as a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of balanced reporting leaving the reader to conclude as to Mr Jones title of conspiracy theorist and/or investigative journalist. Perhaps Mr Jones is a bad investigative reporter and good conspiracy theorist, for example. Should we not strive to provide balanced facts ?

Evadinggrid (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Evadinggrid

No objection from me. I can't find any evidence of there ever having been investigative journalism, other than the Bohemian Grove caper, but I haven't watched many of his broadcasts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I heard the interview with the DC madam when it aired, it was pretty interesting, she stated very clearly on the air that she was not suicidal, I think she felt that she would be 'suicided'. I'll see if I can find the interview on his sites, or some WP:RS that talks about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulahulahulahula (talkcontribs) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a clip from it prisonplanetcom/audio/010508palfrey.mp3 [Unreliable fringe source?] Although obviously it doesn't prove anything, if there is to be something written about this, I think it would make a good link. Hulahulahulahula (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading the comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey I've changed my mind about the usefulness of that interview. They make the very good point that she was prompted by Jones, and asked the question, she didn't offer that herself. I will listen to the full interview again, to see if she started that topic, but if you ask someone if they are going to commit suicide, it seems unlikely that many, if any would respond "yes", even if that was their intention! Hulahulahulahula (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a Fair Point to be critical of the statement made on air by DJ Palfrey, and I expect debate over the hand writting on the suicide note; point is to collect a balanced list of ref facts to give a fair and balanced write up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 16:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"a well known conspiracy theorist"

If he is indeed the above then it should be absolutely trivial to cite either:

1) One source stating such 2) Multiple sources noting him as a conspiracy theorist in order to justify the assertion

ATM the single cited source says nothing to satisfy the text that's been inserted into wiki. Until it does it should remain as stated by the cited source, ie what was actually said and not a POV assertion not backed up with sources. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Update - I think edit by User:Eleland is fair, markup needs some cleanup though - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Known for" redux

I think it clear that what he's known for is conspiracy theories, mostly involving the NWO. Why shouldn't it be in the "Known for" field of the infobox. Alternatively, we could delete the now-misleading infobox entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "misleading", he just has views that you don't agree with. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This was resolved back in September 2007. He's known for conspiracy theories. I was wrong to say that you're removing all the information about that, as you're haven't touched the lead with 7 references that he's known as a conspiracy theorist. But the infoxbox is still misleading if it includes his occupation and not why he's notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
He is dubbed by certain commentators as a "conspiracy theorist". You are clearly a student of Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." --Hereward77 (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Famous quotes make me look smart!! Dur hur hur! — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Think you need to discover Edward_Bernays . In fact the whole wiki page is one big in joke for anyone who has studied the subject in any depth. try his published 1928 work for a big clue as to what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep biased information or delete unbiased sourced information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for demonstrating my point Arthur. Evadinggrid (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
So, you agree that what Jones is known for (conspiracy theories) should be in the infobox? If not, please explain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The infobox should remain whatever the case, but it's accurate to say that Alex Jones is known for conspiracy theories. Would it be acceptable to compromise by saying that he's known for Advocacy of what are seen as conspiracy theories ? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I would agree and vote for that edit suggestion by AnotherSolipsist Evadinggrid (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Semantics. An advocate of conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist. --clpo13(talk) 04:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The critical difference in my compromise is that his ideas are not flatly called conspiracy theories. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"conspiracy theories" is a biased phrase used to discredit. These are hard to avoid, but can be dissarmed as suggested by User:AnotherSolipsist. While we all have our own point of view it is important to be fair, esp when dealing with a living person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 17:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Being "known for" conspiracy theories doesn't even imply he supports them; if he were debunking conspiracy theories it would still be accurate. I see no bias, considering the 7 references in the lead. But I consider AnotherSolipsist's modification acceptable in the infobox. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And furthermore, the term "conspiracy theory" is not necessarily a denigrating term. The article on conspiracy theory puts it best: "a conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that alleges a coordinated group are and/or were secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including hiding the existence of the group and its activities." That applies perfectly to what Jones talks about. The current wording is wishy-washy. Saying he's known for conspiracy theories is accurate and unbiased. The only complaints come from those who take offense at the word "theories". --clpo13(talk) 06:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
""conspiracy theories" is a biased phrase used to discredit."
Wrong. Conspiracy theory means exactly what it sounds like. In fact it's even a little generous, because the proper definition of a "theory" is an explanation which is well-supported by observation. "Conspiracy hypotheses" would be a more accurate term.
You know why people don't give much credit to conspiracy theorists? Because with their unsubstantiated claims, twisty-bendy logic, and ad-hominem attacks against just about anybody who doesn't agree with them, they don't have any credibility. — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He is known for his occupation as an outspoken talk show host in the same vein as Rush Limbaugh. I doubt you'll get very far by putting "Known for: Republican Party propaganda" in Limbaugh's infobox. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your first sentence is false, as Jones is known as much for his websites and videos as for his radio program, although they're all related to conspiracy theories. "knownfor: Propaganda" seems fair for Limbaugh. "Republican Party propaganda" is unclear, as the Party doesn't seem to want much to do with him, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suspect that Mr Jones is better known for his Videos because of the Hit Counter readings, and that is my opinion. In the modern multi media world its a triffle irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talkcontribs) 17:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In the end, he's known for promoting conspiracy theories in multiple medias. John Nevard (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we actually need the 'known for' item at all? I think the lead covers it in a neutral manner with "He is described by many as a conspiracy theorist". This seems to be a wider problem across wikipedia, although as a technical term "conspiracy theorist" is probably correct enough, many people see this as a pejorative term. However as long as wiki has the category 'conspiracy theorists' it appears that is the term that wiki has deemed correct, so I do not particularly oppose it's usage. I mulled over the idea of alternatives such as 'political theorist', but I don't think they are very useful either, while that would probably be correct to apply to him, that leaves out the fact that the majority of what he covers is in the conspiracy realm. Kresk (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Left-wing

An assertion has been made in the lead: "… and has been accused by left-wing groups of being a disinformation operative diverting the disaffected toward far right conspiracism." I'm not sure that we have reliable sources to that effect. I removed a letter (the last time) per WP:BLP, but left articles which may make that assertion and may or may not also be libelous. (I'm carefully not saying whether that assertion may be libelous.) Someone needs to watch this. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, was struck by the incongruity of that claim. Jones seems intent on helping the Left make political gains, by dividing the Right. He repeats enough conservative platitudes to appeal to some right-leaning listeners, but then he promotes absolutely ludicrous accusations against other conservatives: That Bush and the Republicans staged the 9-11 attacks and blew up the WTC Towers;[19] that McCain is a "mental case;"www.infowarscom/?p=1607 [Unreliable fringe source?] that Bush has secretly conspired to sell out his country's sovereignty and merge the USA with Mexico & Canada and replace the dollar with a new combined "Amero" currency;[20] that Bush and his administration are puppets of an evil global NWO/UN conspiracy;[21] etc., etc.. If Jones were a disinformation agent, it would have to be on behalf of the Left. NCdave (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just removed one of the sources from that as garbage (911cultwatch), however I left in the one for the Socialist Worker, as I am unsure on what policy would apply to them, although I don't consider them RS either, they are at least notable, so I leave that to others to decide what to do. Kresk (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On the general note of left/right, I've seen him called both left wing, and right wing by different sources, usually depending on their biases I guess, for example some who call him left wing, do so it appears on the basis of his opposition to globalisation and strong opposition to the current administration, those who call him right wing tend to focus on his opposition to immigration, and his attacks on socialism and communism. He seems to support both Dennis Kuchinich and Ron Paul. I've seen this type of behaviour described of other people as "Someone so right wing, they wrap around to the left wing". He tends to describe himself as having a mix of conservative and libertarian views, and calls the labelling of left/right "The fake left/right paradigm", in part I assume due to his beliefs that the two major parties are currently very similar, and of course, being Alex Jones, that they are all controlled by the same evil overlords. Kresk (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the whole statement, as I read the socialist worker article, and it doesn't call him a disinformation agent at all. You could probably argue for using that source as calling him anti-immigration, paranoid, and a bigot, but not for agent. Mrstooge (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's really no argument that he's a leftist. Left/right is about certain positions on the economy and the authoritarian/socially liberal axis as well. He has ridiculed environmentalists, championed capitalism(going so far as to say the U.S. isn't capitalist,) claimed that Christian conservatives are being conspired against, is a global warming skeptic, has had anti-gay posts on his website, and so on. You'll also notice he only attacks "false" conservatives, but bashes liberals outright in his tirades. There are articles on PrisonPlanet praising Reagan, and one article attacked Bush for not being opposed to abortion in cases of rape or incest. These positions place him squarely on the far right, our own politics aside, and I doubt many rightists would disagree. If you need m to find sources I'll do some footwork. In general, I'm very happy to finally seeing this page have a grain of balance to it! Keep up the good work. (how did you stop the reverting anyway?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MycroftHolmes (talkcontribs) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Left and Right is a false paridim, Hegalian Dialect to divide the masses..." - Alex Jones.Evadinggrid (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reagan death threat

Does anyone know if this site http://reagandeaththreat.com/ is an official Alex Jones site? It smells like it, with the Infowars, Paul Watson etc stuff, but I haven't been able to find any proof. Kresk (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would it not be announced on his radio show ? Evadinggrid (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq9vIXLDCV4 seems to be one of his videos, with that url branded, but as it's a fan has uploaded it can't be shown as official. Mrstooge (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

described as a conspiracy theorist

We had a consensus with the compromise of "some people" for a long time. If this fails due to weasel words violation then the whole sentence needs to be removed.

The bottom line is "Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist" and it's variations are not acceptable. It's blatant POV, not backed up by sources and unlike some are claiming is not the view held by everyone or indisputable. Further, there is no precedent on wiki for the inclusion of such an assertion on other people's pages not even amongst those listed on this page/in the see also section.

The term "conspiracy theorist" carries a negative connotation and is difficult to be used in a NPOV manner. Just as I can't (shouldn't) go onto some random page of a celebrity suffering from alcohol problem or in rehab and say "XXXX is a drunk" so the same amount of care needs to be used here. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "He is considered by some a conspiracy theorist" is fair, and more importantly, accurate. To say "by many" or "He is described as a conspiracy theorist" carries both negative tones but also sounds "weasly," especially coming from someone who is trying to stop weasel words.

It seems like there is a real effort by some involved with this project to label Mr. Jones all sorts of names for whatever reason. Just remember, people who used to say the world was round were conspiracy theorists.

It also seems that one user has some ownership issues with this page and this section in particular. Mr. Rubin has repeatedly ignored the 3RR and seems to very prone to edit waring. I have tried to address this with him on his talk page but no response, just reverts.

Agree with consensus "by some." WikiTony (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a consensus for "he is considered to be a conspiracy theorist", with some comments supporting "some". I believe "some" is one of the archetypical examples of a WP:WEASEL word. But I'll re-check the talk page before removing some, all though I may still tag it. The fact that no one describes him other than as a conspiracy theorist may also be relevant, although difficult to source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "some" in the context of the present article is actually perfect. You follow "some" with a few inline citations and it shows the reader who "some" are. This coupled with the fact that it is difficult to source the statement that "everybody believes he is a conspiracy theorist" makes the use of "some" even more compelling. In addition in my opinion the use of "some" is weasel if not followed by citations. "Some" transcends its weasel status if cited. Dr.K. (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
No, no consensus for "some" before this edit. Perhaps the lead sentence should be changed from "considered by some to be a conspiracy theorist" to "known for promoting conspiracy theories"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I support using "some" with some citations. It is very un-encyclopedic to say "Everyone feels a certain way." "Known for promoting conspiracy theories, but then the actual ideas he espouses (9/11 inside job, nwo, bildenberg etc). WikiTony (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dr.K's comments - the issue with weasel words is that they can be used to support hearsay, or to call into question a statement that is obviously true the archetypal example being "some people say the Beatles were a popular band". That doesn't really apply here as the statement of Alex Jones being a conspiracy theorist is an opinion and one certainly not shared by everyone. I think a cited "by some" accurately makes the point that he has attracted that label, without so blatantly drifting into POV language.
Precisely my point. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My main issue though is that "conspiracy theorist/theories" is clearly being used in a derogatory/dismissive fashion. Again I make the point that there's no precedent for this and really no reason for it to be there. I'm only happy with the "by some" compromise as the least-worst option and to stop the edit waring. 88.212.144.188 (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) We have (at least) two problems. The minor one is that he really is known as a conspiracy theorist. Whether he is a conspiracy theorist is not entirely relevant. That's what he's known for.

The major one is that we no sources for the rest of the lead; it's {{syn}} for us to note that he opposes globalist organizations, unless a WP:RS says it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And "some" wasn't discussed until this section of the talk page, so I don't see how you can call it consensus. A compromise, perhaps, but "described as a conspiracy theorist" is already a compromise with "known (only) for being a conspiracy theorist". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is derived from the editing process - the "by some" being the natural evolution of the page with your frequent reverts being the only disruption. I'm restoring the previous text and suggest it stays until edited by other users or more support is voiced for your take on things (incl. opinion on :weasel) in this section.
Regards your comment about the compromise - no, the compromise is with "conspiracy theorist" not being included at all which I again point out is the standard for every other page other than this one. On your point about the rest of the lead I agree - that is, ALL text in that section after "filmmaker." should be removed. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the current edit as it's still POV language and not specific. I can't go on the GW Bush page and expect to write on the opening paragraph "is known for supporting wars" can I? - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW the cited source from FOX News states he is "sometimes described as a conspiracy theorist" - a pretty good justification for "by some" don't you think. Also I now see that this article is the source for the rest of the lead-in so scratch my comment above thinking about them needing to be removed. This source settles the issue IMO. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources in the lead

I don't think we can use Alex's sites or programs as sources for what he's known for, or even for what he is, but only for what he says. We all know that he's known for conspiracy theories and for opposing internationalist organizations, but we can't just take his word (against it, for the first, and for it, for the second). We need external sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to eliminate the citation needed tag right at the intro. I know that you can consider his sources to be primary but they provide a good indication of what he stands for, although technically speaking not what he is known by others for, even though we all know he is. However I understand your point so if you think that the citation needed tag is better than the current setup please go ahead and revert. Dr.K. (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The known for [...] international organisations comes from the FOX source. I agree on the general point though that we can't extrapolate what he does/stands for into that section and BTW that includes the conspiracy theory comments. Basically we can't say he's known for something unless we have a RS that literally says "Alex Jones is known for...". Anything else is always going to be drifting into personal opinion and interpretation territory. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The FoxNews/AP background on Jones, probably from a Jones press release, may possibly be usable. However, the other 6 sources in the lead say he is a conspiracy theorist or supports conspiracy theories. "Known as" may be a little weaselly, but it seems a reasonable compimise, if we accept those sources as reliable. I presented evidence on WP:RSN archives that the Fox News source might be reliable as to Willie Nelson without being reliable as to Alex Jones, but there was no real consensus either way on that discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
None of the sources say that's what he's known for. It's a subtle difference. Go on the Bin Laden page for example and see that they don't say he's known for being a terrorist even though under the same standard applied here (multiple media sources calling him one) you could presumably insert that. I think the following is perfectly accurate:
1) SOME people label Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist"
2) Backed up by multiple sources where they call him that
3) Backed up by the FOX source which specifically says that he's SOMEtimes that way described
4) There is no source that says that's what he's known for, that backs up that ALL/Everyone give him that label, etc
I therefore think that some manner of the word Some/Sometimes OR a specific indication of who labels him that is a perfect summation of the situation. I'd wouldn't even be that unhappy with the word "often", except FOX describe it as being "some", negating issues with :Weasel. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not Fox News. It's AP background information, at best, and copied from a Jones press release, at worst. I don't think it should be used where we have better sources (i.e., the 6 sources referring to him as a conspiracy theorist), and it certainly shouldn't be used to weaken statements supported by better sources. It is the only source we have for his specific conspiracies, other than a couple of the articles mentioning 9/11 conspiracies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok here's the challenge - go on Bin Laden page and write the words "...is known for being a terrorist". IF that stays in without being edited then I'll concede the point. It's the exact same standard as you are applying here. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Also please explain specifically the problem with this edit "FOX News characterized him as being sometimes described as a "conspiracy theorist", media outlets have labeled him such in articles about Jones or his radio show." - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
(ie other than the FOX news part you mentioned above, change to AP) - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
If we accept the hypothesis that it really is AP, rather than background information possibly taken uncritically from a Jones press release, then that statement is adequately sourced by the reference. But the statement that he is a conspiracy theorist or supports conspiracy theories is supported by the other 6 references. That being potentially a WP:BLP violation, a little WP:WEASELing may be called for. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed POV language in the intro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements

To quote - "For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

A clear match for what we have here with the "Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist" and it's derivatives. Based on the above the equivalent would be "Alex Jones has been labeled a conspiracy theorist by media sources such as..." which actually is pretty close to some of my attempted edits to resolve this.

I'd be perfectly happy with this, the "by some" has only come into play as a compromise to the against-consensus insistance of a few users that he IS a conspiracy theorist, that everyone knows him as such, that everyone labels him that and other such non-NPOV statements. There are no sources that state or support this assertion, the closest being the AP/FOX-hosted one that specifically states Jones is sometimes described that way. Inclusions of that term in the intro are not attempts at using weasel words but rather an accurate and cited summary of how Jones is described. I agree that it looks weasely and would rather it wasn't there, as I say it's only been added as an attempt to bring neutrality to what is blatant POV and a completely inflexible attitude of some people to otherwise address it. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this. I think the statement "is considered a conspiracy theorist" or derivatives thereof are too forward and too presumptuous and therefore non-NPOV. A compromise is called for using "some" or just describing who exactly claims this. This point shouldn't be so contentious, especially in a WP:BLP situation where Wikipedia tends to bend over backwards to be fair. Dr.K. (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead revision

Current:

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11 1974) is an American paleoconservative radio host,[1] and filmmaker who is known for his outspoken opposition to globalism and internationalist organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank.[2]{{verify credibility}} He has been labelled{{weasel-inline}} a conspiracy theorist by many media outlets[3-8], though the validity of that label is heavily contested by his fans and supporters.{{cn}}

Proposed:

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11 1974) is an American paleoconservative radio host,[1] and filmmaker who is known for his outspoken opposition to globalism and internationalist organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank.[2]{{verify credibility}} He is called a conspiracy theorist by the mainstream media[3-8], though the validity of that label is heavily contested by his fans and supporters.{{cn}}

Reasoning:

  • "Labelled" is clearly WP:WEASELing. "Called", or "referred to ... as" seems more neutral.
  • "Many" is subjective, and leaving it off is clearly NPOV unless there is some mainstream media outlet which refers to him as something other than a conspiracy theoriest. (Fox/AP doesn't count, as it carefully avoids referring to him as anything.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning for remaining tags:

  • {{verify credibility}}: I still maintain that background information on AP articles may very well be unsubstantied, and possibly taken from press releases. All they really want is that no one can sue them for a misstatement.
  • {{cn}}. Probably true, but a source would be needed. Unfortunately, the fans themselves would not be WP:RS, so we'd need a separate source other than Jones or the fans.

I don't want to make additional changes not required by WP:BLP without a sort of consensus, as there have been enough reversions by all.

Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I just removed the "fans and supporters" sentence. In my opinion it smacks of WP:OR. Dr.K. (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: "He is called a conspiracy theorist by the mainstream media[3-8]," is an improvement. The problem still is that the phrase "the mainstream media" includes everyone i.e. CNN, BBC etc. and this is certainly not the case. I am not aware that the BBC or CNN called him anything. Dr.K. (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, we could just say he's "called a conspiracy theorist", letting the (mainstream media) references speak for themselves. But the anon objected to that when I proposed it last. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is this the subject of any argument at all? Jones is the very model of a conspiracy theorist. You could mount him in the Smithsonian as the perfect example. State the truth plainly, I say. Call a spade a spade. --Pete (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the Smithsonian exhibit? Dr.K. (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Proposal:

Mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post and Austin Chronicle have referred to Jones as a conspiracy theorist.

I think the way the media sentence stands now is ok, we don't need to describe every media outlet. The media outlets are in the citations. The reader, if interested, can refer to them. Dr.K. (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be changed to past tense though ie "has been referred to" rather than "is called", as the later implies all media outlets and also ongoing/future references (which while likely, is our POV not cited fact). Basically I'm trying to stick to the model on the NPOV page posted above, ie "X has been Y by A such as B". Substitute: (Jones) has been (called a conspiracy theorist) by (media outlets) such as (WP and AC) is roughly what we should aim for IMO - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with changing the tense. The problem with adding "such as WP and AC" is why not add BBC and a few others, then it's like guiding the reader by the hand a bit too much. The reader can always refer to the citations for the exact outlets and clutter is avoided in the intro IMO. I'll fix the tense for now. Dr.K. (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, agreed. The current "He has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by mainstream media outlets." is something I'm happy with. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. I'm actually happy with it too. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The disputed credibility of the other sentence is a separate issue. At this point I suggest deleting from "known for..." onwards and combining text from the The Alex Jones Show section. That fits the rough template for other radio hosts, also that whole section needs addressing anyway (tagged + see my comments in the higher up section regards the Guest List). - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Proposed (for full intro text):

Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American paleoconservative radio host,[1] and filmmaker. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM and FM radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large internet based audience. He has been referred to as a conspiracy theorist by mainstream media outlets.

- This follows the style of other radio hosts on wiki. The Media Productions/The Alex Jones Show sections will edited to compensate (it needs to be fixed anyway). - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anon for your contributions. Kudos to all involved. The new lead is great and more informative. I am happy with it. Dr.K. (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)