Talk:Alex Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Alex Jones (radio host))
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added?[edit]

There is a clear consensus that the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook should be added.

The specific wording of the addition is being discussed in the open RfC at #Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Cunard (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added? Jim1138 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The suits seems quite notable and is on many major news sources.There appear to be numerous lawsuits and plaintiffs involved Google search: "infowars lawsuit" Google search: "alex jones lawsuit I will add this to the talk:InfoWars article as well.
What should be added? One suggestion:

  • A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation.[1][2][3][4]

Pinging most recent editors. Many more, should all be pinged? @Niteshift36, StuHarris, Underneaththesun, Khiam40, Bueller 007, Wumbolo, Ian.thomson, Lionelt, Anticitizen 98, DrFleischman, Rhian2040, Cagliost, Volunteer Marek, Clester07, LivinRealGüd, and Doug Weller: Jim1138 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Why would you not ping the editor who first opposed it: @Slatersteven: 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A few sentences are warranted. The New York Times. However, I don't think this RfC has a good construction. RfC's should be specific, and What should be added? doesn't look like a good RfC question to me. I would suggest withdrawing this RfC. wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Wumbolo. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm in favour of adding these, briefly. Stu (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support including as it seems relevant, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What you're proposing is much different than what was added, but still not ideal. And why was there a RfC started before almost no discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: For those supporting inclusion; have any of the lawsuits moved beyond merely being filed? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this is more of a case of weight rather than inclusion. I see no issue with adding a sentence under the section that talks about the shooting, but going into any depth about it would be too much. Would be nice to have an RfC that proposes wording as that would make it easier for people to decide what should/shouldn't be added. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The exact content can be tinkered with, but no one has given any content basis to keep this material out altogether, so I think we can go ahead and add a few sentences now. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more sensible to determine the wording here before adding it? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
As no one has suggested anything else, I would presume the "suggestion" above would be added. Jim1138 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
At least 3 editors have expressed issues with how the RfC (which includes that suggestion) is worded. And the RfC is only 5 days old. Typically a RfC runs much longer unless there is a clear consensus. I'm not necessarily opposing the sentence, but I wish you hadn't jumped straight to a RfC with no discussion and now want to short circuit the process. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a brief mention (1-2 sentence max) at this point, until there is further coverage in sources, for example when the lawsuit is settled or decided at trial. Due weight has been established by the number of sources currently available and the fact that it has been reported internationally.- MrX 🖋 22:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as listed in the RfC (2 sentence) + more could be added. My impression is that this is, in part, what Jones is known for, so more than two sentences would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. He's notable for this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support His comments on Sandy Hook are one of his more notable controversies.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support some mention of the lawsuits. Covered by numerous secondary sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With due weight and proper sources. Dryfee (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support brief coverage (Summoned by bot) cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - as an uninvolved editor summoned by the bot, I can't see how they would not be notable. Since there dors seem to be some disagreement, additional RfCs may be needed to work out weight and wording, but there is no question in my mind that multiple lawsuits=notable.Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Observation: I'm still not opposing the addition, but can't we do better on this wording? "A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation" A number? Some associates? We say "Sandy Hook families" as if it were all of them. I doubt we'd be ok with this weasle wording if this wasn't a guy that we have distaste for. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would rather wait until we see where (and how far) they go. But will not oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and suggest simple wording sourced to USA Today story cited above and parallel to other discussion of lawsuits: "In May, 2018, "six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack" filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors." (Ref USATodaySH) (uninvolved editor summoned by Legobot) HouseOfChange (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support summoned by bot. His talk show career is built on a bombastic style and limited adherance to facts, and the lawsuit is a direct result of that. It adds necessary context. Plus it is notable - I’m aware of it, and it will continue to be notable because it will be held up as a free-speech challenge. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: at least a line, given its notability: see, for instance, a New York Times article in April of this year, and another in May. The wording use some work, though, but I can't think of a good alternative quite yet. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 19:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support here, not at Infowars - this seems to have coverage weight, but use a different line than that shown and not much as it's just a suit at the moment. Not at Infowars article mentioned above as RS stories are about suing him, but think it would be good to mention all those sued here in passing, e.g. 'Alex Jones, Infowars.com,...' for the affiliates named if that can be found. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. Notable per sources. Chris vLS (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. The lawsuits have significant media coverage. AlanStalk 07:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo[edit]

Consensus is to use phrasing C. Fish+Karate 10:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First one may not have been closed or anything, but it's clear enough that something is going to be included. This RfC is based on the results of both Talk:Alex_Jones#Should_the_lawsuits_regarding_Sandy_Hook_be_added? and Talk:InfoWars#Should_the_lawsuits_regarding_Sandy_Hook_be_added?, in case you see something referenced here that's not on this page.

  • Which phrasing should be used?
A) A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation.
B) In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors.
C) In March 2018, six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting.
D) A number of defamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.
E) In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.
F) Something you should have suggested during the previous RfC... >:/
Reasoning behind this RfC

Initial suggestion was: A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation. However, there were issues raised with phrasing as well as to what extent WP:NOTNEWS applies.

With regard to phrasing: The particular points raised were regarding "number of" and the unqualified "Sandy Hook families." The alternate phrasing brought up was: In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors. The last part ("claim that the 2012 slaying... paid actors") should probably be a link to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories if it's not already linked in the article before that point. I kinda feel (per WP:GEVAL and WP:PROFRINGE) like we should emphasize that the 'paid actors' claim is utter bullshit, so I'd suggest In March 2018, six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. A number of dafamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax. was also suggested. Combining that with the other suggestion that's not mine, we get In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.

With regards to NOTNEWS: Filling in the gaps in the implied reasons given on both sides, I'm vaguely seeing the suggestion that the "routine news reporting" and "breaking news" parts of NOTNEWS applies if this is is presented as yet another lawsuit against Jones, but that it qualifies as the "recent developments" part of NOTNEWS (i.e. not NOTNEWS) if presented as a continuation of his claims regarding Sandy Hook. The consensus of the last RfC almost unanimously to include it, which would mean that it'd have to go in the School Shootings section (the only place to include it in the InfoWars article anyway).

Refs involved: [1][2][3][4]

Additionally, this New York Times piece has been suggested as a possible source. At the very least, it'd be useful to bludgeon any InfoWars fans who want to argue that the lawsuit is fake news or something. There was additionally a single suggestion for a Times of Israel piece to try to frame this as part of Jones going after people, but this would seem to fall under WP:SYNTH with the sources given and no one responded to this suggestion.

Pinging everyone who participated in the last RfC on either page: @Atlantic306, Bennv3771, BullRangifer, CNMall41, DrFleischman, Dryfee, Elinruby, EllenCT, Grayfell, HouseOfChange, Jim1138, Jojalozzo, K.e.coffman, L3X1, LivinRealGüd, LM2000, Meatsgains, MrX, Niteshift36, PeterTheFourth, Pythoncoder, Slatersteven, StuHarris, and Wumbolo:

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Weak C or E - I'm not caffeinated enough to care but I think C probably the most complete phrasing, followed by E. Mostly !voting to just get this started. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • C, but I would not Wikilink the Sandy Hook shooting. I hate feeling like I'm leading anyone to read that trash. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Both C and E combined including wikilink and all details of both, and include long-term pattern and practice of targeted harassment elsewhere in article. EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Close RfC. I don't see any reason why this RfC is necessary as there's been no significant dispute over what should be added. It would only seem to delay implementation of the previous RfC. I suggest Ian.thomson withdraw the RfC, be bold, and add something to the article. There already appears to be consensus for Option A so that could be a good starting point. If other editors think it can be improved, then they can improve it through the normal editing practices. Requiring 2 RfCs before adding some pretty straightforward content to the article seems like gross overkill and inhibits article development. Just add something goddammit. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • More work - liking the list of who is sued in A/D, but those are a bit vague. Think this may be better as 3 lines - a line of overview 'Defamation lawsuits have been brought'; then a separate line 'In date-who-what' detail. And think needs mention of placement and text for the February lawsuits in Texas from two families needs to be added. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • C (Summoned by bot) Seems to be the best as includes the "march 2018" part. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • C is the best wording, and I favor wikilinking to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • B As I understand it, there is no controversy as to the facts of what the exact allegations were, so I don't see any principled reason to avoid the most specifically worded option. But as C has garnered quite a lot of support, I will note (just in case there ends up being a close call) that it seems also within the span of reasonable options. Snow let's rap 07:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Close RfC. What Dr. Fleischman said. Dryfee (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A or B or C or D or E - As above. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • C Let's close this and move on. 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talkcontribs)
  • C, or B as a second choice. - MrX 🖋 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • C, and I agree we should close this and move on per DrF. Neutralitytalk 00:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A This is a developing situation so we should not get into specifics as to the reason for the suit or the number of families. e.g. July 2 development:
  ... Trial lawyers from Bridgeport, Connecticut-based Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder filed another lawsuit Monday against media personality Alex Jones, this one on behalf of William Sherlach, whose wife Mary Sherlach was a school psychologist killed in the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “This is a civil action for damages ... https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2018/07/02/new-suit-filed-against-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theorist-infowars-host-alex-jones/?slreturn=20180603130201

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • C as I'm highly supportive of the inclusion of the specific number of families and the explanatory wikilink. Nanophosis (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • C looks best to me, and per Cullen328 I would definitely wikilink the Sandy Hook article. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • How about adding about the Time magazine fake cover which was correctly singled out as fake by Jones? [1] This looks incomplete to me otherwise. wumbolo ^^^ 16:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: This is the wrong discussion for that proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

I'm going to try to stay out of these discussions in the future where possible, so as to avoid feeding the troll(s). It's fine to take me off the ping list. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Will do so if this doesn't settle the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018[edit]

Change "Charlottesville, North Carolina" to "Charlottesville, Virginia." Charlottesville, Virginia is where the Unite the Right rally was held, not Charlotte, North Carolina. Learner4life18 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Face-smile.svg Thank you- MrX 🖋 01:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones/Bill Hicks[edit]

Since Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, just like Albert Einstein was a Gravity Theorist. Someone who knows how to wiki should add a conspiracy tab about him really being the comedian Bill Hicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.12.154 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Not done WP:BLP violation against Einstein. (He's still alive -- just not in this dimension.) O3000 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

antisemitic book[edit]

@Gamaliel: I'm pretty ambivalent about this edit's content changes, but I'd really like to see a better source than an LA Times opinion piece to characterize the book as antisemitic (calling Allen a conspiracy theorist is well-sourced enough at Allen's article). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, so went a loooking [2] was the best I found, and still not sure about this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The JTA has been found to be an RS at RSN before, so I think that's good enough. This isn't a BLP issue; we're referring to a book. The BLP issue involved (calling Allen a CSist) is, as I mentioned, resolved via the sourcing at Gary Allan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Never been sure with the "I am not calling him an Nerk I am calling what he said a Nerk" style of argument. But as I said I am not sure, either way over this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I can understand that, but I think these descriptors help characterize and explain the subject (Jones' early life). Besides, good people can say or do bad things. So while that sort of statement is a red flag, it's not necessarily a problem. Lord knows I've said a few racist things, but I'd hardly consider myself a racist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I also do not think this is enough to put it in Wikipedia voice, this is the opinion of (what) 2 people (which given the accusation means it is a pretty fringe viewpoint). This (even if included, and my last point about undue makes me even less happy with it) means it needs attibutation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm okay with attribution. Do you have a proposed wording? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Not having much luck it all boils down to ""which according to...is antisemitic" (it does not help that as far as I can tell the JTA sources seems to be "by a staff writer".).Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, JTA didn't attribute text written in the 70's. It's odd, but their various appearances at RSN are pretty conclusive.
That wording is about the only possible way to attribute, I think. I was thinking we break off the Jones quote into a separate sentence and add something like that. So the proposed wording would be:
As a teenager, he read conservative journalist and conspiracy theorist Gary Allen's anti-Semitic book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which had a profound influence on him and which "revives the anti-Jewish propaganda campaigns of the 1920s" according to Harvey B. Schecter, the Anti-Defamation League’s Western states former fact-finding director. Jones called the book "the easiest-to-read primer on The New World Order".
Look good to you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
NO we still say it is antisemitic based upon a fringe theory. We cannot say that based on the sourcing we have.
As a teenager, he read conservative journalist and conspiracy theorist Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which had a profound influence on him and which has been said "revives the anti-Jewish propaganda campaigns of the 1920s" by the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Jones called the book "the easiest-to-read primer on The New World Order".
I think fits the situation better.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The quote there is actually from Schecter, who was being quoted by the JTA, so we need to attribute it to him. Other than that, I'm not seeing a difference between your proposal and mine.
What fringe theory are you referring to? It sounds like you're saying that the notion that the book is antisemitic is a fringe theory, but I don't think that's true. At the least, you would need to show me a trustworthy reference defending the book as not antisemitic for me to accept that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)