Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Alex Jones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
Obama the demon
It is hard to see how Obama making a joke about not being a demon is being "FORCED TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST ALLEGATIONS."Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Where did it say "forced"? It's reasonably notable (especially when New York Times cover it) when the 44th President of the U.S. defends himself in public and the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton specifically naming Jones. It's a logical expansion on what's already written (one line) about his "consistent" criticism of Obama and Clinton. What's the issue here? Mdmadden (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- No it is not, Obama mentions many attacks in his time, want a list? This was not and is not a serious defense against an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Fair point, let's change the text from "defending an allegation" etc., make it read less legalise; "came out and critized.. etc." I'll go find several other sources on top of New York Times now. After all, mainstream sources wouldn't cover it unless it was notable, would they? Mdmadden (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it is called a silly season story. This was not a serious comment by Obama, and treating it as if it was is just...well I think I will leave it at that. Is there any evidence that Obama has treated criticisms by Jones any more seriously then from any other pundit?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- At best we could say that Obama has responded to the claim he is a demon (do you really want to include that claim?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I know what the word "notable" means here, but it doesn't seem to mean what we mean by WP:NOTABILITY, it wouldn't qualify for an article of its own. Mainstream sources often mention trivia. That was just a funny story - why should we include it? Doug Weller talk 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Ping failed, try again. @Mdmadden:. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Fair point, let's change the text from "defending an allegation" etc., make it read less legalise; "came out and critized.. etc." I'll go find several other sources on top of New York Times now. After all, mainstream sources wouldn't cover it unless it was notable, would they? Mdmadden (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- No it is not, Obama mentions many attacks in his time, want a list? This was not and is not a serious defense against an allegation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Where did it say "forced"? It's reasonably notable (especially when New York Times cover it) when the 44th President of the U.S. defends himself in public and the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton specifically naming Jones. It's a logical expansion on what's already written (one line) about his "consistent" criticism of Obama and Clinton. What's the issue here? Mdmadden (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, perhaps not worth the addition. Cheers. Mdmadden (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2017
 | This edit request to Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe that it should be changed in the introduction that, "His website, Infowars.com, is a conspiracy and fake news website" as this website is supposed to be objective, I believe it should be change to, "Main stream media accuse it of being fake news." This would make it more objective and remove some bias from this page. Thanks for your consideration. Cchap88 (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- We are already discussing this above. Please can we at least only have this raised one at a time?Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I'm new here. :)Cchap88 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- As stated, this is already being discussed above. TheValeyard (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We need to update the "Television shows and interviews" tab.
Hi, the world wide web. I suggest that we should update this tab about his appearances on TV as it's incomplete. I've found two sources already of one new TV appearance, Megyn-Kelly-Alex-Jones-Cage-Match and Megyn Kelly's Alex Jones interview got lots of attention, but not many viewers. I'd like to hear everybody's thoughts on this. By the way I am new to Wikipedia. Cchap88 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- We do not list all his TV appearances only the ones that have attracted attention for being more then just an interview.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but how do you describe enough 'attracted attention,' the second source I linked says, "Kelly's sit down with Jones, a controversial, conspiracy theorist radio host and founder of the website Infowars, brought in an average of 3.5 million viewers Sunday night." Is that enough? Thanks.Cchap88 (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not to my mind, there has to be content that RS have commented on, rather then just a "Jones was interviewed" type comments.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Joe Barton
https://mobile.twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/933452214886191104?p=v
There's a controversy thats at play here Laura Loomer and Alex Jones were named in some political blogs for releasing the nude pictures of Congressman Joe Barton on November 22nd, 2017 note this controversy is still being verified by multiple sources and allegations that Alex Jones and Laura Loomer committing revenge porn is being speculated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:E10E:325:3306:D219 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F950Gr3oNL4
Here is an update Alex Jones has apparently watched the Joe Barton video and now a revenge porn issue is at play here for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:451D (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Update more outlets are reporting that Alex Jones may have violated the law over the Joe Barton video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- This was placed in a separate, unrelated section above, for some reason.
- These sources are pretty much useless. Sources need to be top-quality for something like this for many reasons. Sources for the Barton leak are easy to find, but so far I haven't much which specifically links this to Jones. The Wrap is pretty much it. From CNN it looks like this originated from an anonymous twitter account, not Loomer or Jones. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)