Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Proposed move

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

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that this is the apparent primary topic. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

• Alex Jones (radio host) → Alex Jones
• Alex Jones → Alex Jones (disambiguation)

– It is unusual it has taken this long for a formal move discussion to take place. The radio host is evidently the primary topic. The Wikipedia page views over the past 90 days are as follows: radio host (547K) TV presenter (60K) journalist (5.8K) actor (1.3K) There are others but these are the major ones. All of these have recently received a recent bump in traffic presumably because of misdirected hits from the radio producer. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Meh. The problem with acknowledging him as the primary topic is that we also need to acknowledge that he is totally bonkers, and some of his followers and detractors are willing to vandalize Wikipedia to make a point. If this move is done, we would need to permanently semi-protect the article and the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

An upgrade to primary topic doesn't usually mean an increase in traffic if that is what you're saying. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. If this article gets significantly more page views than any other Alex Jones article, then it should be primary. His fans can misbehave regardless of whether he is primary topic or not. Will they celebrate and burn sofas or something, like DC football fans? Kauffner (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the reasoning provided by Marcus and Kauffner. I also share Arthur Rubin's concerns, but a related article is New World Order (conspiracy theory), where mostly-permanent semi-protection has been in effect for some time without great issue. Cranks will crank and vandals will vandalize, but I think the requirement of a registered account deters a good chunk of them. After all, many of them don't want Wikipedia 'tracking' them for nefarious and unsavory purposes. I know Wikipedia is intended to be in the spirit of inviting contributions from unregistered editors, but some articles on controversial topics like Alex Jones can just suffer too much from it. John Shandy` • talk 15:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose with such a common name a person should have to overwhelming dominate its use to be a primary topic, and Jones does not meet that criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support there does indeed seem to be overwhelming use for Alex Jones the host, with almost 10x the traffic as the next guy, which means over 90% of the people are looking for "this" Alex. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Textbook WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

• I just want to say that I support this move, even though the move is done. I think when many search "Alex Jones", he would be the first in mind. I don't know how to see the amount of page views, but I support this move :) Marty2Hotty (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate See also and External links

To the anonymous editor that keeps reinserting these links, please read WP:BLP, WP:ELNO, and WP:SEEALSO (see also links should be avoided in favor of integration into the article with support from reliable sources, in any case). While I probably agree with at least several of those links as characterizations of Jones, it is inappropriate to include them per Wikipedia's policies - the links are very POV and thus violate WP:NPOV (which is a key reason they don't meet BLP). Your insertions of these links is analogous to an editor adding Muslim, Terrorist, and Antichrist to the Barack Obama article, or an editor adding Nazi, War criminal, and Theocrat to the George W. Bush article. So, please strive to meet Wikipedia's standards when editing. John Shandy` • talk 16:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"Your insertions of these links is analogous to an editor adding Muslim, Terrorist, and Antichrist to the Barack Obama article, or an editor adding Nazi, War criminal, and Theocrat to the George W. Bush article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.64 (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This is rich, considering the subject of this dispute is Alex Jones. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.30 (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are becoming disruptive - there is no such thing as "Critical" external links. To give special emphasis to them is not neutral. Despite what you or I may think about Alex Jones, the majority of this article's contributors are trying to create a thorough and accurate article on Jones. Think about what you're doing for a moment, but let's replace you with an Alex Jones supporter who buys into Jones hook, line, and sinker. If that editor were coming here and emphasizing InfoWars and PrisonPlanet as Critical external links, it would be just as inappropriate. The same goes for the See also internal links. If you can slant the article against Jones, his supporters will think they can slant it in favor of him. Neither of those scenarios is acceptable to Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, & WP:Neutral point of view. John Shandy` • talk 17:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think your arguments are complete and total rubbish. I am adding clarity to the links by classifying them. Other wiki pages also do so. You are using thin arguments to hide your agenda of white washing Alex Jones. Please stop disrupting the edits that is making the article fair and balanced on the Alex Jones page, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.32 (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think my arguments are rubbish, then I invite you to refute them. As a fervent critic of Jones, I have no incentive to white-wash the article to make him look more respectable. As Wikipedians however, we have a mandate to help sculpt a neutral article about Alex Jones so that readers can learn something substantive about him. I'm trying hard to assume good faith on your part, but I'm not sure you have read Wikipedia's policies. See WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. You have offered no justification for emphasizing those external links, and there is no such thing as "critical links" - that's probably something you made up. If you did see it in another article, it really doesn't belong there either. If all you want to do is fight the good fight against Alex Jones, then why not start a blog (like Leaving Alex Jonestown or Skeptic Project: Alex Jones)? John Shandy` • talk 17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that citing him being characterized by mainstream media as 'conservative' is misleading especially when most conservatives (really, any reputable conservative) considers Jones to be out on the fringes at least. Most often as a conspiracy theorist. Mainstream media would do well to consider Bill Kristol, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, George Will, Clint Eastwood, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, even David Frum as 'conservative' - Alex Jones isn't even on the same planet as them. NavyBlues16 (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is not correct to label Alex Jones as "right-wing" or "conservative". What Alex Jones really is; is ultra right-wing of the John Birch Society type. That is a more accurate label for Alex Jones. This article doesn't mention John Birch Society at all. That is where Alex Jones comes from.116.14.168.144 (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Loose Change

The article states: "Jones' 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change", repeating a claim from Alexander Zaitchik's Rolling Stone article "Meet Alex Jones" that "Loughner was reported to be a fan of Loose Change, a film Jones produced". This is inaccurate at best. On Loose Change (2006), Jones was one of two executive producers. The film was written and directed by Thomas Hefferon and produced by Jason Bermas, Thomas Hefferon and Korey Rowe. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0839892/fullcredits#cast . It's a stretch to say that Jones produced the film when he was neither the sole producer nor one of the main producers on the film.24.27.63.92 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

clarified. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be stricken altogether. To say someone saw a movie for which another person was a financier is to say there is nothing at all. Let's get real, here.Notanipokay (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Jones and Progressives

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.

---

Does anyone have any ideas how to complete this article with information about his positive reception within the Bush-era Left?

The evidence is plentiful but including it runs up against WP:OR issues, since mainstream sources seem to have had no use for him before he became a popular strawman for conservative thought sometime in mid-2011.

20:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.48.70 (talk)

I dont really know what you mean. If there are "progressive" sites that are reliable sources that said good things about him during the Bush years, their views can be quoted. if the "progressive" sites are not reliable sources, what they said about him is pretty irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything in the body of this article which identifies Jones with the right which follows the model of a "conservative" site saying good things about him. There is is self-identification and a bunch of mainstream news sources identifying him. This much I understand, as it would be really, really difficult to find any acknowledged conservative sites or publications that have good things to say about Jones or rely on him as a source. This, by the way could be cleaned up and rendered more informative by noting his self-identification and x-referencing it to the JBS article. As it stands, the article makes much of his putative conservatism in a way which contributes to his status as a strawman for mainline conservative thought. If that's going to be the tone of this article, it bears some mention that Jones (along with other crank JBSers) was a popular source with progressives during the Bush-era. This, however can't be shown by linkage to "progressive" sites saying "Alex Jones is swell!", but it can be readily demonstrated by showing the extensive use of his network of sites as sources on progressive sites. For instance, here is Taylor Marsh crediting Alex Jones: http://www.taylormarsh.com/blog/2006/02/the-dick-cheney-shooting-cover-up-deepens/ 22:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.48.70 (talk)

Alex Jones is a U.S. Southern John Birch Society ultra right-winger. Alex Jones is certainly no progressive. I don't remember the leftwing crediting Alex Jones with anything during the Bush era. For the left to be associated with an ultra right-wing crackpot like Jones would be odd in any case.119.74.170.112 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet this happened...http://www.dailykos.com/search?story_type=&search_type=search_stories&text_type=any&text_expand=contains&text=infowars&usernames=(usernames)&tags=(tags)&time_type=time_published&time_begin=01/01/2001&time_end=01/01/2009&submit=Search 05:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.48.70 (talk)

First, let me show you how to make a link: [URL title]; for example, [http://www.dailykos.com/ Daily Kos]. Secondly, whatever you want to say, please back it up with specific links, as opposed to a list of links of which some may be relevant, others not. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Guests interviewed on Alex Jones' radio show prior to the Obama administration: Greg Pallast, Brad Friedman, Gore Vidal, George Galloway, etc. 05:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.48.70 (talk)

First, let me show you how to sign a comment: ~~~~. Secondly, let's have a source for each interview. -- Hoary (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

...Ed Asner, KRS One, Christopher Hedges,... I'd google it for you, but the effort would be wasted due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT citing WP:OR. 06:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.48.70 (talk)

If you are so sure that such an effort would be wasted, you may wish to spare yourself the effort of writing any comment here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What are your arguments about Alex Jones and the progressives? I don't think that all of Alex Jones' guests during the Bush era were aware of the ultra right-wing views of Alex Jones or that Alex Jones is associated with the John Birch Society and neo-confederate movement. Some people portray Alex Jones as a harmless conspiracy crank. That's not true at all. Alex Jones belongs to an ultra right-wing reactionary southern political phenomenon that has very old roots. His conspiracy theories are old rehashed John Birch Society stuff from 50s and 60s updated for the online generation.119.74.171.248 (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a broad confluence through what progressives and JBSrs believed about Bush "NeoCons" and "Corporate Overlords". Progressives were attracted to his show precisely because he was a "truther" who believed that Bush was executing a master plan hatched at Bohemian Grove. Jones actively sought a broad-spectrum coalition of "truth-seekers". Ed Asner, who is a member of the Democratic Socialist Party, appeared as recently as 2011. Apart from that, what is, in your view, the harm effected or potential in Alex Jones' loony blather?15:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.48.70 (talk)

I think the worst harm that Alex Jones and people of his ilk did is to confuse, frighten and dumb down americans and distract people away from real life political issues and problems and instead misled people with make believe threats . Alex Jones did real harm there. And he made people like Bill O'Reilly look moderate and sane. Basically Alex Jones is a person with no substance, that is why he has to resort to making everything into a big conspiracy to attract attention and boost his ratings. He is a lowlife in this sense.219.74.47.241 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey dudes, I'm in partial agreement with the anon here (i'm glad he recognizes that what he'd like to do would be OR, but he should know that Talk isn't a messageboard, either). I noticed that the same text that (using about ten redundant sources too many) establishes Alex Jones as being on the right is repeated both in the body and in the lede. I'm going to go ahead and remove the one from the lede, as I think it's more appropriate for the body. Notanipokay (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Made the change. Perhaps a revision of the "Reception" section could go something like this:

Jones has been described as a conspiracy theorist. The SPLC has written that Jones's work draws from the John Birch Society, and Patriot Movement milieu. Jones describes himself as a Libertarian.

Though Jones has gained notoriety in recent years for his conspiratorial rhetoric about various initiatives of the Obama administration, Jones has been operating his network of websites and shortwave radio since prior to 9-11, when his theories about Neocons and 9-11 Truth attracted the attention of many progressive as well as paleoconservative critics of the Bush administration.

Guests on his show have come from a range of political perspectives spanning from the far-left to the far-right of the political spectrum and has included a number of figures from the entertainment industry, including Billy Corrigan, KRS One, Ed Asner and Charlie Sheen, who sparked controversy when he referenced his association with Jones in a letter to the media avowing the 9-11 Truth conspiracy theory.

Filmmaker Richard Linklater has featured Jones in two of his films, Through A Scanner Darkly and Waking Life.

I think this treatment acknowledges Jones' political identity and his status as a conspiracy nut, completes the profile of his influence without sounding hysterical or zealous to make him a rightwing tarbaby, as it were. Lemme know what you all think. Notanipokay (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

the reception can only go like that if you provide actual sources that make that commentary and analysis. you cannot create such a text based on the fact that someone was a guest on his show. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just spitballin'. Someone else can come up with the links. The current version reads as incoherent and agenda-driven, though. Notanipokay (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with most of the history of this article. However, I can guess that a reason why a claim that somebody is right wing has ten or more redundant sources is that there've been claims, however risible, that the person is not right wing. (I've seen such claims in the talk pages of articles about other right wing figures.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a falsification of Alex Jones' views. His views are not mainstream right wing views. No one from mainstream right-wing parrots Alex Jones' views. Alex Jones is ultra right-wing of the John Birch Society variety. It is incorrect and misleading to label Alex Jones as right-wing as this wiki does. This article needs correcting on the ultra right-wing views of Alex Jones. Alex Jones is not mainstream. Alex Jones is not right-wing. Alex Jones is U.S. southern John Birch Society ultra right-wing. 119.74.162.74 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2013 (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.

Sources and expansion

His impact in the cancelling of the Iowa national guard incident mentioned here should be included, but the online googlebook expression is not showing some of the details that would be needed.

• Bunch, Will (2011-09-13). The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama. HarperCollins. pp. 73–. ISBN 9780061991721. Retrieved 10 January 2013.

Mr. Jones merely piggy-backed on a movement already underway. But the more important question would be, "is this significant"? If it is, how much of an impact did Mr. Jones have? The book you have added is not a big seller nor does it have good reviews so it may not stand up to a RS challenge. -Daffydavid (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Best selling" is not a requirement for WP:RS. If you wish to challenge the quality of Harper Collins publishers, please go ahead. the notice board is thataway. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You're being facetious right? The publisher is irrelevant to the quality of the book itself and that was an aside anyway. Try addressing the actual question. Did Mr. Jones have a significant impact or did he hijack an issue for his own purposes. The point is - SIGNIFICANCE. Measurable significance. -Daffydavid (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When providing refs for books it is important to provide the actual page #. Provide it or delete the info. WP:Burden I will leave it for now since I'm not going to go down the 3RR route, the info is challenged. Further Wikipedia is not a list of every comment ever made. To suggest that a comment made by an author is significant merely because he managed to get published by HarperCollins is a non-sequitur. Quit beating a dead horse. Please make your comments here rather than in the edit summaries so they are easily viewable. Thank You.-Daffydavid (talk)

This section is about Jones potential impact vis a vis the National Guard incident. And of course what published authors decide to include in their books is what we build our articles on. This is precisely the type of content that should go into an encyclopedic article. The source is prima facia reliable published source by a major publishing house. It is your burden to show why there is any reason why we should doubt it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Daffydavid is talking about the noteworthiness of it. Having a reliable source in hand is a required first step, but there are other considerations per the rest of WP's policies. That said, I don't have any commentary on the national guard incident as I haven't yet read about it yet. I think Daffy is genuinely concerned with making sure that Alex Jones's impact on the national guard incident is given only due weight (not too little, and not too much) so that we don't overstate his impact. John Shandy` • talk 23:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

currently we dont have anything in the article about the National Guard incident, the content I saw in the source above appeared like it was an issue that deserved more investigation and possible inclusion, but the googlebooks preview snipped out important sections that would have been necessary to include it in the article, and so i put it here so as not to loose it.

Daffydavid is rather complaining in this section about the use of content from that same source (content which for these claims is fully visible in the googlebooks preview) and is currently in the article. In particular, he wants to remove a claim by someone who has written several mainstream published books about the conservative right and social media topics who has asserted that Jones has inspired Glenn Beck's approach/philosophy. In other words, Daffydavid is asserting that someone who has been repeatedly published by mainstream publishers must be authenticated in some additional manner before we can consider them as a reliable source. That's just nonsense. The being published by a major publisher establishes Reliability, unless specifically demonstrated otherwise, which Daffydavid has not done in any manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

RedPen, don't try to restate my position in your own words, creating a straw man argument. To be perfectly clear read WP:Burden and notice the burden is on you not me. Re-read the comment made by JohnShandy. Repeatedly stating the reliability of the publisher will not somehow relieve you of the burden to prove that is notable enough to include. Yes, I'm referring to BOTH the National Guard incident and the subjective opinion of the author quoted. Does he have data that proves Mr. Jones had a significant impact in the incident and does he have quotes from Glenn Beck crediting Mr. Jones as an inspiration or not? -Daffydavid (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are conflating two or three policies - WP:V via WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and perhaps WP:OR. Questions about content boil down to the questions 1) Can we verify the claim was made by an appropriate source? and 2) is the claim significant enough to include?

Your initial dispute and "Does he have data that proves Mr. Jones had a significant impact in the incident and does he have quotes from Glenn Beck crediting Mr. Jones " are covered under WP:V and WP:RS Having been published in major publisher gives the presumption of YES. You will need to provide specific counter factual reliable sources that question the factualness of claims that have been published in reliable sources - we do not conduct WP:OR to confirm what statements /claims / analysis about claims that have been reliably published. The fact that the claims are in a source published by HC fully satisfies all of your claims on this front until you verifiable claims to the otherwise.

Then there is the WP:UNDUE - does the verifiable content represent a significant aspect in the encyclopedic discussion of the subject? And that is a valid question that can be discussed about the content from this source, but each verifiable claim will need to be assessed individually, which we can do below.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

RedPen, I'll try one last time. Being published by HC does NOT satisfy the issues raised. Just because you manage to get published does not make you or everything you write a RS. An author may have several books published solely on the strength of a previous book that was a best seller. HC in no way verifies the content of a book unless it will expose them (the publisher) to legal complications. Please address the issues and drop the "he was published by a major publisher so therefore everything he says is valid" routine.I am growing tired of you repeatedly saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the actual issue. Please re-read the WP policies you have brought up as it's clear you do not understand them. -Daffydavid (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

quite to the contrary of your first comment, being published by HC DOES in fact create the presumption of satisfying the Wikipedia content requirements of being verifiably published in a reliable source. There are other factors that impact whether or not content should be included, but your continual personal claims that content from this source are not reliable is baseless without you providing actual evidence to the contrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Beats head against wall A direct quote from the policy - The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability. So, yes HC satisfies the last part, but you refuse to answer the other two parts and please address why the info is significant enough for inclusion as per wp:undue."Your continual personal claims that content from this source are not reliable is baseless without you providing actual evidence to the contrary." - Again as per wp:burden you have to back up your claim, not me. If this book is on the RS list I missed it, but if you would be so kind as to forward a link I would appreciate it. Thank You, -Daffydavid (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

one becomes an individual that is "reliable" by being published by sources that are reliable; such as the reliable Simon & Schuster, the reliable Wiley, The Huffington Post and several newspapers, including one for which your work is part of the Pulizer Prize [1] [2] [3]. Are we through with this nonsense now? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually TheRedPenOfDoom your examples don't make any sense since Huffington Post is not considered to always be a reliable source. Further to say that one becomes reliable by being published by sources that reliable is hogwash, at any point a "reliable" person could start believing in or start publishing about a completely loony topic and still be published by your "reliable source" because of good sales for past books as I see has been pointed out to you before. On the spot reporting is different than writing as an "opinionista"(your word). There are many examples I could quote but from your obvious unwillingness to see beyond your own holier than thou opinion I have probably wasted too much time already.216.81.5.98 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jones' impact and influence in the Iowa National Guard incident

The Will Bunch book appears to indicate that Jones may have had an impact on Iowa National Guard incident. Does anyone have full access to the book or to other sources which would be able to confirm or dispute such a claim? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Full access to the book?" You ever hear of the library or the bookstore? That's usually where I go to obtain "full access" to a book. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Jones' impact and influence on other people

The Will Bunch book makes a claim that Jones has influenced Beck. Such an influence and impact is the essential nature of what encyclopedia articles should be covering. Is there any reliably sourced content to the contrary? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, see wp:burden, if this claim is true then more than one and in fact several references should be available backing this up. Please address this issue. Is there another RS stating the same thing? If so, then you have proved your point and it is acceptable for inclusion as a quote representative of the body of evidence.-Daffydavid (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

the BURDEN has been satisfied. it is up to you to show that the claim is UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually NO the burden hasn't been satisfied and you refuse to address all three parts of the reliability issue and instead use faulty logic to argue that satisfying one part automatically satisfies all 3. Nor have you answered the undue weight issue, but I tire of arguing with a brick wall so when I have more time I will forward this to the appropriate notice boards. -Daffydavid (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

so do you want to be trouted from the RS notice board or the NPOv notice board? Whichever is fine with me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So what happened to Daffydavid's dispute? Did it get forwarded to the noticeboards?121.7.128.238 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Image Conspiracy Theory

On Alex Jones's syndicated talkshow, he commented multiple times in mid April, 2013 that in his Wikipedia photo he was extremely constipated, and his production schedule and team made it unable for him to go to a restroom - adding that this unflattering photo was used by Wikipedias' liberal user-base to further defame his image. 76.106.2.110 (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

good for him. if he wants to release a better photo under the free copyright policy, we will be glad to take it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought Alex Jones' followers whitewashed his image on wikipedia? If you want to talk about using images to defame people, you can try Alex Jones' website. Everything is defaming there. lol.121.6.182.25 (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Discuss: Alex Jones claims in the aftermath of the Boston bombings

Alex Jones' claims on Boston bombing being a false flag operation: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.172.28 (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"Alex Jones has a sick theory about the Boston Marathon bombings" http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-alex-jones-20130418,0,1322244.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.167.103 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is intended for proposals for the article on Alex Jones. If you have a proposal, what is it? -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going with the presumption that the original post, in addition to being an excuse to attack Jones, was meant to propose that his comments on the bombings be added to the article, using the linked LAT article as a source. Fine in concept, but I don't have a good feeling about how the content would be added unless it is worked out here first. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any attack here on Jones. The article linked to starts: Usually, it would be best to ignore conspiracy-mongers such as Alex Jones and not reward him and his angry gaggle of paranoiac followers with any sort of attention. Seems commonsensical to me, but Wikipedia gamely takes on the task of writing up such people. It seems to me that the meat in the article is in a pair of paragraphs, the first of them starting "Meanwhile, Jones was on the air". Well, it could be objected, one pundit is saying that another pundit (our article subject) is full of ordure, and this is humdrum stuff indeed. However, I think it's lifted well above the merely humdrum by the combination of three factors: (i) the cartoon goes beyond the bland US norm, (ii) it was drawn and written by a man who's won at least one Pulitzer for cartooning and has an article here, and (iii) it was published not merely by HuffPo or similar but by latimes.com. So how about something like David Horsey called Jones's conspiracy theory about the attack "total ping-pong-balls-for-brains nonsense" and depicted him as vermin emerging from an internet sewer? -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

off topic discussion about WP:BLP and WP:NPA

This Alex Jones wiki is basically a whitewash of Alex Jones by his followers. I think it's time for a more accurate write up on Alex Jones. It's shameful for this wiki to exist as it currently is. I don't want any naive fellow to be conned [redacted].116.14.168.144 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Your dedication to "saving" naive readers, while potentially commendable, has no place in editing Wikipedia articles. You need to also remember that WP:BLP and WP:NPA apply to content on the talk pages - and they and the talk page guidelines call for immediate removal of inappropriate material and blocks for those who continually violate them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Is calling Alex Jones a U.S. southern ultra right-wing nut acceptable? It is considered biased or factual? Just want to clarify that. Many credible sources have described Alex Jones as an ultra right-wing nut. For example, SPLC, ADL, and IREHR.116.14.168.144 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC) when all you are doing is calling him a wing nut, yes that is BLP violation and will lead to you being blocked. we are here to build an encyclopedia article not to vent views about a person.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC) But those are not my own private views. They are views of credible mainstream organisations. How can that be considered biased? There are no mainstream or credible media outlets or organisations that consider Alex Jones as rational or legitimate. The vast majority of them label Alex Jones as a conspiracy nut. It's not my private view. It's a majority view of the mainstream.116.14.168.144 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There have been multiple stories about his position salon, policymic as well passing mentions in huff post, daily beast, local cbs commentator and as widespread as the irish independent. Since his primary occupation is saying outrageous things and it is not unusual for some of those outrageous things to be picked up by the media as "Did you hear what outrageous things Alex Jones said today?" this particular comment seems to me to be a fairly standard AJ position; its real relevance to be may need to come from whether it becomes one of the signature stances that he becomes identified by. Does he stand by it as the evidence mounts for other more rational interpretations? are people still talking about Alex Jones Boston Marathon Conspiracy Theory in 6 months to a year from now. it boils down to whether or not covering it now is WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It could happen, RedPen. Those same idiots are still maintaining Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre theories six months later. -------User:DanTD (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead link

Citation no. 36 is labeled as "dead link", but the link seems to work fine. 149.4.115.15 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the citations on the line calling Jones a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" actually contain the word "right wing". Please fix this error or provide alternate citations. Furthermore, intro to the article should include Jones' political/philosophical affiliation, i.e, "Jones identifies as a libertarian and a conservative, and while critics have called him "right wing" Jones himself rejects the label." 24.90.230.216 (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC

Citations 25, 26, 27 do not work and should be removed. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Citations don't match what they're claiming

In the first paragraph of the biography, it is claimed that Alex Jones' father is a dentist, that he grew up in Rockwall, that he attended Anderson High School, and that he was a lineman on the football team. This is claimed to be cited in a Rolling Stone article (http://web.archive.org/web/20110408062434/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/talk-radios-alex-jones-the-most-paranoid-man-in-america-20110302?) but this article makes no references to any of the items being claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.183.82 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Further still, the first sentence says that citation for him being born in Texas in 1974 points to the Wiki entry for "Coast to Coast AM". What does this page about a radio show have to do with the birth of this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.183.82 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the Rolling Stones article, you need to click at the bottom to go the next pages. Yo probably looked at only the first page. Two of the three claims were sourced. Only the Anderson High wasn't, so I removed that and reworded. As for the birth date, I believe that's an attempt to source to a particular radio show (not a great source as it's laid out). The Rolling Stones article, though, says he was born in Dallas in 1974, so the only thing that would be missing would be precise day. I'm leaving it for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a credible source that shows Alex Jones' father was a member of far right John Birch Society?

I found a dubious source online that states that Alex Jones' father was a member of the far right John Birch Society. I was wondering whether anyone had more credible sources that I can use to add this piece of additional info to the Jones bio page. Here's the source on Jones' father:

Ron Paul is a supporter of the Society, as is Alex Jones, and Jones’ father was a member. http://makeiteighteh.com/2012/11/15/the-controlled-opposition-fronts-have-played-truthers-like-a-fiddle/

The rolling stones article states that Jones was influenced by the far right John Birch Society since he was two:

"My parents were careful not to give me political views almost as an experiment to see what I'd turn into," he says. "The closest thing to a childhood political training was some neighbors who were members of the John Birch Society. They'd come over for dinner and I'd be exposed to those ideas, starting at around age two." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/talk-radios-alex-jones-the-most-paranoid-man-in-america-20110302?print=true

Here is Alex Jones calling on everyone to join the far right John Birch Society:

Alex Jones: Everyone Should Join the John Birch Society http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJ_ngHcT7I

And for that matter anyone can confirm that Alex Jones is John Birch Society member? While it's obvious that Jones pushes the far right views and crackpot conspiracy theories of John Birch Society on his show, there is no clear confirmation that Jones is a member of JBS. 119.74.165.153 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Alex Jones Deception

Are random Youtube videos considered "films", or do they actually have to be published or at least noteworthy pieces to be listed as such? Because on the "film subject" section is listed the piece called "The Alex Jones Deception", which upon making a search just seems to be a random series of video clips by a Youtube user. Really not worth enlisting here, since there are literally thousands of people uploading clips in favor of or against Alex Jones. Plus, the clips are extremely horribly edited. 72.231.4.108 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Alex Jones Deception" is not a random bunch of youtube clips but a documentary film made by Troy P. Sexton debunking the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones. The films also points out the propaganda tactics used by Jones on his listeners. Here is the link to the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrWf977SjAY 116.15.197.39 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Who removed "The Alex Jones Deception" film from the Jones Film subject section? Why was it removed? It must be restored immediately.119.74.171.69 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the film "The Alex Jones Deception" to the films subject section

A user has removed the film "The Alex Jones Deception" from the films subject section using the pretext that the film is "hardly notable". I suspect this is another case of whitewashing of Alex Jones. The film must be restored immediately.119.74.171.69 (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a case of whitewashing - it's a case of notability. Troy P. Sexton is not notable and some clips he threw together do not deserve a mention on the Alex Jones page. We don't include every single YouTube video made about Alex Jones because of that - the film must be notable. You have failed to prove why it is notable. Beerest355 Talk 15:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a wiki rule on that? If there isn't, the film "The Alex Jones Deception" must be restored. That film is an important and notable film as it debunks and exposes the far right propaganda of Alex Jones, it must not be suppressed. If you watch the film, you will find that Alex Jones is completely and thoroughly debunked and exposed. It is indeed a notable film on Jones.119.74.167.128 (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Try WP:BLP Posit that the "film" makes "contentious claims about a living person." The film is self-published by " PaCmAn".

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject .

Is that sufficient for you? The "film" fails WP:RS in general as well, but the specific prohibition in WP:BLP is absolute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But I am not using The Alex Jones Deception as a source. I am just including it in the films subject section. That is completely justified in my view. I am not quoting the film at all. The Alex Jones Deception must be restored. It cannot be suppressed. I am not using it as source. There are no grounds whatsoever to exclude it from the film subject section. The film is a good film exposing and debunking Alex Jones as a shameless far right charlatan, it must not be suppressed.121.6.173.17 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a self-published polemic in itself - Wikipedia does not regard it as notable, and it is not allowed as a source for itself either. Cheers. Please read the policies and abide by them. Collect (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether it can be used as a source or not. That issue about source is completely irrelevant and does not apply here as I am not using The Alex Jones Deception as a source in the article. I am putting it under the "films subject section" which is completely correct and justified. The The Alex Jones Deception is indeed a film with Alex Jones as a subject. It must not be suppressed. It must be restored.116.14.147.129 (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing or absence of his topics

It seems like very little in terms of the topics he brings up on his shows is mentioned here. One topic is chemtrails for instance. He brings up all sorts of conspiracies and they should be listed here to show his true interests and beliefs. They also would reflect on his character should they include quotes in how he has presented them. I wonder if they have been edited out for some reason.As a public figure, his past interests and beliefs should be included. Some topics seem to be conveniently removed.101.51.132.106 (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I'd like to add that the labelling of Alex Jones, in this article, as a 'conspiracy theorist' is misleading, considering that he has evidence for his claims. BegumAttila (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alex Jones mostly rehashes old 1960s John Birch Society conspiracy theories. There is no evidence whatsoever backing Alex Jones' JBS conspiracies. See "The Alex Jones Deception" for a complete and thorough debunking of Alex Jones.119.74.165.122 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Jones’ opinion on the moon landings

According to the source for that claim he actually does believe that the moon landings did take place (“[A]nd yes, we did go to the moon [...]” @ 00:14) but that the footage of them was allegedly altered to hide the spacefaring technology used because it’s far more advanced than what could have actually been available at the time or something like that (“[B]ut they did fake a few things ’cause they didn’t want the general public to see the real technology” @ 00:16). However, the way I see it the current phrasing makes it sound like Alex Jones does not believe that there were moon landings at all and that they were just enacted on a sound stage or whatever when what he is actually saying is that they did happen and just the footage of them was partially altered. So, should the opening paragraph reflect that? It seems that I am not the only one who thinks that the way it is currently phrased is misleading (cf. the comments on the YouTube video that serves as the source for that claim). --137.248.146.24 (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So what are the exact views of Alex Jones regarding the moon landings? Is there a clear source to back up his views? Alex Jones has a habit of conning naive and gullible people and playing to the gallery, see: Esquire got duped by Alex Jones. We had better have proper sources when dealing with the likes of Jones. 119.74.165.122 (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Jones Debunked

Wikipedia really ought to have a page dedicated to dispelling some of this guy's dangerous ideas: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/alex-jones/ 72.74.251.159 (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct, but that is not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We can do the debunking of Alex Jones' right-wing conspiracy theories on the main Alex Jones wiki page.119.74.171.248 (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No can do. Wiki editors should not use the wiki page of a person to debunk or validate any of his ideas. This would compromise Wiki's integrity to it's bone. I'm not claiming wiki has integrity, in fact I would dispute that, but it doesn't mean one should accept (further) compromise of (what is left of) wiki's integrity. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Piers Morgan interview

I'm just wondering why no one has yet added the Alex Jones interview on Piers Morgan, as it has made significant national news. Are we waiting for the fall-out, or ignoring it? I'd like to add something if no one else will, but want to make sure I'm not late to the party in terms of edit warring or something else. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You do mean the one where Alex says "Wikipedia is like ten years old"? Just wondering. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 22:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought Alex said the information on his WP page (regarding his number of radio station syndicates) was ten years old, not WP itself. Anyway, it makes sense to me to have an AJ-Piers Morgan interview section on his main page. Egamirorrimeht (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not all that odd that the interview has taken a while to be mentioned in the article, if you consider how few editors pay this article any regular attention. You're fine to improve the article at will per WP:BOLD. John Shandy` • talk 23:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The interview made a significant splash in the UK media, e.g.[4] and was featured on BBC Radio 2's lunchtime "Jeremy Vine Show": [5]. The man was widely seen as some kind of "laughable Dixie red-neck raving lunatic" (personal opinion notwithstanding). I agree that we don't want "scandal sheet" type coverage here, but I think a direct quote such as his claim that "1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms" is quite appropriate and very telling. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Subjective language in this section undermines the credibility of the description of the events. "One-person shoutfest" is not a neutral and impartial phrase befitting an encyclopedia article. Landroo (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If presented in Wikipedia's voice, certainly not. But opinions and interpretations quoted and attributed as opinions and interpretations are certainly acceptable. When someone throws a tantrum the neutral point of view description is going to describe it as a tantrum and there is no WP:NPOV issues with doing so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree but the challenge is to present that remarkable interview in a true NPOV manner. It also should be clear why it is relevant to the name 'Alex Jones' as opposed to being a notable event of that show itself. Also, after his notable tantrum about the upcoming Bilderberg meeting, in England recently, his tantrums might be even more relevant. In short: WP:BOLD, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and make it relevant. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Red Pen of Doom, why do you say that Bob Cesca is not a political writer

I will be reverting the archive status of the "Alex Jone as a racist" thread if there is no evidence that shows that Bob Cesca is not a political writer. This seems like a pretext for suppression of negative material on Alex Jones. You also don't seem to be neutral to me on this issue of Alex Jones, Red Pen. I request a neutral mod on this issue.219.75.50.93 (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

as per Weekend Update, Steve Allen, Aziz Ansari, et al, just because a comedian is commenting on politics, does not make the comedian a "political commentator" of the stature to allow WP:BLP related commentary. What is your evidence that he is a credible political commentator? When BLP is involved, the burden is on the person claiming appropriate credentials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's poppycock talk Red Pen of Doom! You are the only one in this world that has problems with Bob Cesca as a politial writer. I have not seen anyone else that has isBob Cesca. Besides, Bob Cesca has not made any special or sues with Bob Cesca. You are the only one. You have not produced a single shred of evidence to back up your claims on controversial claims on Alex Jones. All he is saying about Alex Jones is that Alex Jones is a shameless far right fringe, self promoting charlatan. That is quite a mainstream view of Alex Jones. Anyone who is familiar with Alex Jones knows that to be completely accurate. Bob Cesca, no one has a problem, you have a problem. Alex Jones, everyone has a problem, you have no problem. Even a three year old can see that you are covering up for Alex Jones, Red Pen Of Doom. You have lost all of your credibility here in this bio page, Red Pen of Doom. You are not here to moderate this page. You are here to suppress critical material on Alex Jones. You have an agenda, and all of us here knows what it is. I am calling for neutral mod to oust you out from this bio page.116.14.146.77 (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually every editor here is responsible for moderating and removing inappropriate content about a living person: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. ... Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (I suggest you read the whole policy behind that link)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read that link yourself RedPen, you paraphrased again in support of your interpretation. See WP:BLPTALK. --Daffydavid (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)