Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

word count percentages in lead

Currently 208 words.

9 words are self-description. 76 are simple facts.

123 are substantially negative.

Of the "not simple recitation of fact" material which comes to 132 words, the negative percentage is 93+%. If we remove the added cites, we still have 92% negative. I rather think this is a large percentage to devote to criticism and not to his own statements. If we use every word (including name and birth date) the negative percentage now is only 59%, and his own self-described position is at 4%. Collect (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any "negatives". I only see facts and opinions sourced to RS. Care to point out what in your view are the 123 negative words? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Leaving Collect's lead-maths aside and subjective "negative words" assessment, I'll repeat what I've already said to you (Collect) on another occasion: it does not matter one bit that you think the lead is "too negative" or "too critic". We reflect what WP:RS say. If they comment 99% negatively on a person, so does the WP article. Everything else is immaterial. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but I read the lede and I don't find anything specifically to be "negative". We are reporting on hos view, his work, and descriptions of his work as reported in RS, that is why I am puzzled. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify Cwobeel, when I say "you" in my cmmt above I am referring to Collect, not you. Perhaps my indentation was misleading, I'll correct that now, sorry. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am still puzzled by Collect's arguments. Maybe he can explain. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That you fail to see the stuff about conspiracy theories as negative is not my problem - it is how the Wikipedia readers will view the material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers will learn that Alan Jones is notable for being controversial and for advancing conspiracy theories, he has a YouTube channel with 400 million views, and so on, all of which is factually accurate. I see no problems at all. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Collect: I agree. But I think it is fruitless to argue between the four of us. Perhaps an RfC should be opened? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"That you fail to see the stuff about conspiracy theories as negative", it is utterly irrelevant how I or you or any other WP editor sees that "stuff". We report what WP:RS say adhering to WP:WEIGHT, we do not make personal assessments on how "negative" or "positive" it may be since they are of no importance to the article itself. What part of that is so difficult to comprehend?

Dr.K.: Just in case you missed it, Collect already opened a section at WP:BLP where the broad consensus was pretty clear about this sources being correctly placed in the lead. Gaba ^(talk) 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange -- you must be reading different posts than I have seen. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently there are 9 participants including us in the WPBLP thread. Two of them are opposed to the current lead (you and Dr K), two have not taken a clear position (Mastcell and MONGO) and five have stated that the current lead is proper (Nomoskedasticity, A Quest For Knowledge, Cwobeel, Coretheapple and myself). I call that a clear broad consensus. Apparently we live in different realities Collect. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you miss my edits there? I don't think that BLPN is the final option since this matter is more of an editorial dispute rather than a BLP issue in the strict sense. I also think seeking the opinions of more editors through an RfC may be a viable alternative. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Never said it was "final", just pointing out the outcome over there. More WP editor input via RfCs is always welcomed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you go the RFC route (which I believe to be unnecessary, but you can go head with if you so wish), it will all depend on how well you word the RFC to be presented neutrally. I have seen many RFCs being derailed and misused enough times to raise a concern. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I always try to do my best regarding neutrally phrasing any RfC I open. On the other hand, let's see what Collect says about that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Je suis en vacances for a few more days - but I suggest that the Wikipedia process called for is an RfC and I am certain the others will find no problems with your wording. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

New York magazine and SPLC characterisations at the lead

I agree with Collect here that the New York magazine and SPLC characterisations at the lead are WP:UNDUE and should not be at the lead. By adding these characterisations at the lead, it looks as if we cherry-pick negative quotations to showcase them at the lead. This is not a good practice, especially for a BLP. Soon after my edit, I got reverted by the TheRedPenOfDoom with the rather presumptuous edit summary it is a violation of UNDUE to NOT represent the mainstream views, of the subject even if they are not flattering.. Let's keep this civil please. Insinuations in edit-summaries about the motives of editors to "flatter" Jones are neither proper not correct and defy AGF. If the characterisations of Jones by the New York magazine and SPLC are mainstream views there should be no problem to find more sources which describe him as the "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America." and a "leading conspiracy theorist". Just using these two sources alone at the lead is just chery-picking. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no cherry-picking here and there's absolutely no incivility by TheRedPenOfDoom in his summary if that's what you implied. This man is know precisely for being a major conspiracy theorist. The fact should be present in the lead because it is what makes him as a WP:NOTABLE individual. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

When someone writes in their edit-summary ...even if they are not flattering. they imply that the edit was reverted because it is not "flattering" to the subject. This insinuates that the motive of the revert was to "flatter" Jones. This is wrong. That was not the motive of the opposing reverts, AGF and all that. This type of insinuation in edit-summaries is just bad form and AGF-defying. You say: This man is know precisely for being a major conspiracy theorist. That's fine. But all I see is just two sources quoted at the lead. As I said just above, if your contention is correct you should be able to find many more sources that call him "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America." and a "leading conspiracy theorist". Just using these two sources alone at the lead is just cherry-picking. Sorry for the repetition but I don't find your reply convincing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jones is actually proud of these titles.... An Interview With Alex Jones, America’s Leading (and Proudest) Conspiracy Theorist [1]. He touts these "credentials" as that is the source of his relevance and the way he markets himself. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You may well be right, but our editorial decisions should not be be based on the way he views himself or on his marketing plans. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Our editorial decisions are based on notability, and he is notable for his conspiracy theories, so that is what we say. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not quite. We go further than that. We call him "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America." and a "leading conspiracy theorist" but we are just using two sources alone at the lead to support these specific quotes. That's cherry-picking specific quotes out of all the other things he's been called. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear : this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: * Neutral point of view (NPOV) and WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias,all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and WP:LEAD The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Pointing out what the subject is notable for is in no way and no possible rational interpretation of polices a violation of policy. Supressing what he is notable for from the lead, however, is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please see my reply to Cwobeel above, as well as my other replies. I don't think that I have to repeat my points all over again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

given the multitudinous evidence that he is known as a major conspiracy theorist, it is now up to you to provide something that shows he is know for something else. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Let me copy my reply from above: "We go further than that. We call him "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America." and a "leading conspiracy theorist" but we are just using two sources alone at the lead to support these specific quotes. That's cherry-picking specific quotes out of all the other things he's been called." I hope you realise, just calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is not the same as highlighting specific quotes such as: "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America." and a "leading conspiracy theorist" and backing these quotes with only two sources. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K. "We call him", let me stop you right there. We do not call him anything, WP:RS do and this is perfectly attributed in both cases. "That's cherry-picking specific quotes out of all the other things he's been called", very good. Present all those other things he's been called to prove there's "cherry picking" here and we can discuss it. And no, you don't have to repeat your points, consensus is clear both here and in WP:BLP and it is against your position. Gaba ^(talk) 00:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"We call him", let me stop you right there. No need to do that. When you add this information into the article without clear consensus, you make an editorial judgement that reflects on Wikipedia as a whole, hence the plural "we call him". consensus is clear both here and in WP:BLP and it is against your position. I don't think anyone raised the points I raise here so I don't agree with you. As far as the rest, let me ask you: What other sources, other than the SPLC, do you have that call Jones ""the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America."? If you can't find any, you just cherry-picked SPLC's quote for special status to showcase it at the lead. That's WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"When you add this information", let me stop you right there. I did no add anything into the article. The SLPC source was already there (i.e. standing consensus) and another editor added the NYM article. "I don't agree with you", that's fine because a lot more editors here don't agree with you. "If you can't find any, you just cherry-picked SPLC's quote for special status to showcase it at the lead. That's WP:UNDUE.", nope. If you can find other WP:RS calling him other stuff then you can say we "cherry picked" these ones out of the bunch. Until then, this issue is pretty much resolved. Gaba ^(talk) 01:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"When you add this information", let me stop you right there. Ok, let me rephrase: Your edit(s) was/were among those edits which moved the SPLC info at the lead. As far as the rest, again, Jones has been called "Conspiracy theorist" by various sources, no problem with that. But out of all of these characterisations of simply calling him plainly "conspiracy theorist", without other qualifiers, you picked for the lead the SPLC quote as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America.", which is just the opinion of an unnamed SPLC commentator and which no other source supports. That's cherry-picking and WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure those should be in the lead. That he is (not just is considered to be) a conspiracy theorist should be, but I think that should be summarized in the lead (and possibly moved higher), with the full text in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Arthur. That's what I was trying to say all along, regarding the quotes. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"you picked for the lead", let me stop you right there. I did not pick that source for the lead, that was the standing consensus. The statement is properly attributed, as is the statement by the NYM (BTW: "and which no other source supports" this is not true, the NYW article supports it). "That's cherry-picking and WP:UNDUE", no it is not. It would be if you could find other sources calling him other things but "conspiracy theorist", as I've already explained above. Both sources refer to him as such, the fact that they use the words "leading" and "most prolific" in regards to his "conspiracy theorist" status does not mean they offer a distinct characterization of him. So again, the burden is on you to find sources that depict him as anything else to then accuse us of "cherry picking".

Arthur Rubin That could be a good idea, comment on him being a leading/prolific "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence and then move those two sources to the body. I could support that. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not pick that source for the lead, that was the standing consensus. Per WP:CCC and WP:BRD, once the standing consensus was challenged there was no further need to edit-war about it. the fact that they use the words "leading" and "most prolific" in regards to his "conspiracy theorist" status does not mean they offer a distinct characterization of him. Yes, they do. Especially the SPLC characterisation "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America." is unique and showcases the opinion of an unnamed SPLC commentator. That is simply WP:UNDUE emphasis on the opinion of an unnamed editor of SPLC. At the risk of repeating myself, I call it cherry-picking. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Arthur suggested. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"once the standing consensus was challenged there was no further need to edit-war about it", the consensus was challenged and then reverted back. Read WP:BRD again. Indeed there was no reason to keep removing the consensus statement from the lead. "Yes, they do", no they don't. " is unique", no it isn't, it's right in line with NYM's "America’s leading conspiracy theorist" and as I've stated earlier, it's properly attributed. "I call it cherry-picking", you can call it "chocolate-banana" if you want, doesn't make any difference. Gaba ^(talk) 02:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD again. With your reverts today numbering at 3RR. at a minimum, perhaps you can follow your own advice and also consult WP:3RR while you're at it. As far as the rest, I am no longer going to repeat myself. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have only three reverts, this is a simple edit. In any case I'll concede that reverting 3 times in a day is not the best of ideas, next time I'll wait for other editors to undo Collect's mess. Agreed about not repeating one self again. The points have been made. Gaba ^(talk) 02:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What I had in mind was a shorter version (but more than just the "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence) in the lead, and the entire text "now" in the lead elsewhere in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, is there a reason you don't propose something more concrete? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anything specific in mind; it was just a general suggestion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why making this soooo complicated? He is a conspiracy theorist, Jones himself proud of it, he is notable because of it, reliable sources call him a conspiracy theorist. What is the problem exactly? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WEIGHT - 75%, roughly, of the lead is about conspiracy stuff. Ought we make it 85%? We already had him with "conspiracy theorist" - can you tell me how these two specific cites improve the lead? Collect (talk)

WP:WEIGHT indeed. If the sources give 90% weight to the fact that he is a conspiracy theorist (which they do), then we reflect that. He is not known for being a radio host, book author or documentary filmmaker. He is known for being a conspiracy theorist which is what the WP:RS reflect. And so do we. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the lede should be a summary of the article's contents and those quotes do not seem very important as his notability as a prominent conspiracy theorist is easily established with the first two paragraphs of the lede. Furthermore, I am not clear why we mention stuff about the moon landing since I do not think that is a major viewpoint of his that gets much attention. It isn't even mentioned elsewhere in the article. The stuff about the NWO could use some elaboration in the article since the lede actually has the most specific regarding his views, which should not be the case per WP:LEDE.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DA. I understand it the same way you do. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the "conspiracy theory" paragraph back to the body, but added "America's leading conspiracy theorist" to the lead. Perhaps it could be expanded slightly in the lead, in addition to moving other material from the lead to the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin I've modified it a bit to give it more relevance. We must not forget that being widely regarded as the conspiracy theorist in USA is what makes him notable, not being a radio host or a book author. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I note there is no consensus to use the SPLC quote in the lead at this point. Sorry, Arthur. Collect (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

On collect removing information from lead

Editor Collect is once again, and sadly at this point unsurprisingly, edit-warring to remove sourced references to Jones being referred to by WP:RS as a "leading" or "most prolific" conspiracy theorist from the lead. He begun on Sep 8 moving out of the lead a source that described Jones as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America". This edit was reverted by Cwobeel who also added a second source saying something very similar the the first one. Collect immediately removed both. I added them back and Collect again moved them out of the lead. Then I, Dr.K. and TheRedPenOfDoom restore, remove and restore the sources, leaving the lead in the stable state it was before Collect attempted to move the sources out of it.

After that, Dr K opens a thread in the TP and Collect opens section in WP:BLPN (see [2], look for the setcion named Alex Jones (radio host), the link will take you to a previous stored thread named similarly, incidentally also about Collect removing information from the article's lead) that ends with 6 editors agreeing the the lead as it is should stand and 2 (Collect and Dr K) opposing. Collect open's a new section in the TP that ends with Dr K saying he will open a RfC and Collect agreeing to it.

Things settle down (coinciding with Collect taking a vacation apparently) and a week later Arthur Rubin proposed the middle-ground edit of moving the sources out of the lead (as Collect initially wanted) adding a very small mention to what they basically state at the beginning of it. I agreed with this proposal. Two days later Collect comes in and removes the compromise edit by Arthur Rubin, without moving the sources back into the lead, thus effectively imposing the edit he couldn't get away with before. I revert him explaining this was the TP consensus to which he reverts saying there was no consensus, I revert a second time again explaining this was the compromise to remove the sources from the lead, he reverts again and finally I go back to the stable consensus version.

Collect: the broad consensus (6 to 2) in the WP:BLPN was that the sources were fine in the lead. Arthur proposed a compromise which I felt was a good middle-ground that should have taken care of your issue with the sources being there. You now are pushing not only for removing those sources, but also removing Arthur's proposal. Do not revert again without getting consensus. Gaba ^(talk) 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kindly note that attacking editors by name in section titles is not a great idea. Secnd, I removed ZERO information from the article, the SPLC quote is in the body of the article, but that the consensus you assert existed, has not existed. Cheers. Now remove the attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note Gaba has now been officially warned as reaching 3RR in under 24 hours here - the latest claim is that the full New York Magazine/ SPLC paragraph has "consensus" for being in the lead. It doesn't. Collect (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect: you have been warned. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

SPLC in lead dates

Not in lead from 2003 until added 15 July 2014. In short - a bit over 11 years. [3] shows an expansion of the "conspiracy" section using YouTube and non-RS sources, to the extent that the editor was admonished for using such sources. The NYM material did not exist in the BLP until 8 September [4] making its existence right at the two week mark. [5] shows the section at issue being removed within less than a day by another editor - and placed in the body of the BLP. Again on 17 September by yet another editor - moving it back into the body.[6]. And it was in the body and not in the lead for a week before an editor restored the quotes to the lead. Clear to everyone? The quotes were not in the BLP for 11 years, were in the body for several weeks, and in the lead for less than a week. Cheers - I trust this will end the accusations that I am a liar or bastard or the like. Collect (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

We could go even further and say it wasn't in the lead for 100000 years while we are at it.

Som notes on Collects recollection of these events:

• [7] shows an expansion of the "conspiracy" section using YouTube and non-RS sources. This has absolutely nothing to do with the SPLC and NYT sources in the lead. I note that Collect attempted to remove the "Moon landing hoax" mention and the broad consensus at WP:BLPN was that it should stay.
• [8] shows the section at issue being removed within less than a day by another editor - and placed in the body of the BLP. Not sure why Collect would point to this diff when there's a previous one by him removing it from the lead. The sources were immediately restored the same day.
• Again on 17 September by yet another editor - moving it back into the body.[9]. And it was in the body and not in the lead for a week before an editor restored the quotes to the lead. Not it was not. It was back up on the lead in less than two days, as the discussions both here and in WP:BLPN indicated.
• The quotes were (...) in the body for several weeks... No they were not. The longer they lasted in the body was the (less than) two days mentioned above.
• ..and in the lead for less than a week. No they were not. The quote by SPLC was in the lead from the moment it was added more than two months ago and the NYT was in the lead for almost two weeks until it was moved into the body along with the SPLC quote by Arthur Rubin who attempted to reach a compromise middle ground that I accepted but Collect did not so he removed this edit too.

Collect: I hope this correct recollection of the facts makes you think twice before removing content from the lead against consensus again. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Alas -- the use of non-RS sources in a BLP is, in fact,important, and the sources were disallowed. And since it is clear the quotes were NOT in the lead continuously, but were placed into the body of the article UNTIL an editor just added them back into the lead [10] at 13:31 24 September - it is clear that my accurate listing of events is likely actually correct. Cheers -- now where is your apology for calling me a liar etc.? I would like to point out that I was on vacation when you tried this - and I suspect you knew I would not approve (that is what "en vacances" means). Collect (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• "but were placed into the body of the article UNTIL an editor just added them back into the lead". No they were not. The quotes were placed, as I've explained three times now, in the lead until five days ago Arthur Rubin moved them while adding " one of America's leading" to the lead as a compromise middle ground proposal. Then you came along and removed this middle ground proposal without restoring the sources back into the lead.
• "it is clear that my accurate listing of events is likely actually correct". No it is not. At all. At all.
• "where is your apology for calling me a liar etc.?" If you can find any instance of me calling you a "liar" I will certainly apologize. I won't hold my breath though (and remember what we talked about putting words in other editors' mouths).
• "I would like to point out that I was on vacation when you tried this", when I tried what? Since Sep 8 to Sep 21 when you removed the proposal by Arthur, the lead was modified to remove those sources from the lead (as you wanted) and instead add the small mention "often described as America's leading conspiracy theorist" as part of Arthur's middle ground proposal. What part of this is difficult for you to comprehend? I "tried" absolutely nothing. Furthermore I don't think I need to remind you that WP cares very very very little about your vacations.

Collect: time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and move on. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you guys drop it for a while and let the RFC run its course? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC

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 New York Magazine described Jones as “America’s leading conspiracy theorist”,[14] and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes him as "the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America."[15] About being labeled a "conspiracy theorist", Jones has stated that he finds himself "proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother."[14] belong in the lead of this BLP as opposed to its prior position in the body of the BLP? 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note on RfC: Collect's RfC above is not factual to say the least. The Southern Poverty Law Center source has been in the lead since it was added more than two months ago. The "New York Magazine" source was also added directly to the lead two weeks ago. Neither was never in the body of the article except for those brief times when Collect himself moved them out of the lead, against TP and WP:BLPN consensus (see above thread for details). Saying "as opposed to its original position in the body" is a completely untrue statement. Gaba ^(talk) 17:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh. Anyone looking at the diffs will see the prior status of the BLP. Your insistence on having your note be part of the main RfC section is outré. I fear you have ignored my emendation from "original" to "prior" in light of your cavil. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've ignored nothing, saying "prior" is just as deceiving as saying "original" since the sources were originally in the lead (not in the body) and can only be said to have had a "prior" position in the body if one counts those periods where you acted against consensus and moved them. There is no interpretation here, the only thing one has to do is check the diffs presented. Your insistence on having the note be detached from the RfC, as opposed to properly amend the RfC text, makes your intention to hide these simple facts very clear. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This purports to be the "consensus version" per [11] (Very well, back to consensus version then.) and [12] (There is noting contentious about this, per WP:BLP/N and other discussions).

I note that the material was originally in the body of the BLP (and "conspiracy theorist" as a phrase in the lead proper) and this edit moved it entirely into the lead, and that the prior discussions including those on this page did not reach any such conclusion as to "not being a BLP violation" nor as to being "consensus" to be given in the lead.

I further note that the vast majority of this BLP may give excessive weight to the "conspiracy theorist" opinions

"Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his controversial statements about gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[8] He has accused the U.S. government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing,[9] the September 11 attacks[10] and the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology.[11][12] He believes that government and big business have colluded to create a New World Order through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and—above all—inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria".

currently makes this series be well over 60% of the entire lead. Note further that such NPOV terms as "idiot", "paranoia", etc. are liberally quoted about Jones in this BLP.

I thoroughly disagree with Jones, but this type of sledgehammer BLP is not how civilized folks deal with people per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support we are reporting what he does according to secondary sources, and also as per self-definition. His notability derives directly from being a conspiracy theorist; no BLP issues and no WEIGHT issues either, no reason to remove from the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• support coverage in lead per Cwobeel. reporting the subject as the vast majority of mainstream observers report the subject is absolutely in line with our NPOV policy (see WP:UNDUE) and in line with BLP -which states that we must follow the NPOV policy- and with WP:LEAD which says that the lead should, per NPOV, include information about any controversial aspects of the subject. And per Collect who rightly notes that the "vast majority" of this article follows the sources who all concentrate on the "conspiracy theorist" for which he is known, and the lead follows the body. Being that the subjects entire notability is due to his controversial nature, one cannot avoid it in the lead without being in violation of NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I fear you misapprehend the issue - the term "conspiracy theorist" belongs in the lead. The query is whether this extended material is better placed in the body of the BLP, or whether the whole mass belongs in the lead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • i fear you may not have read my whole comment "and with WP:LEAD which says that the lead should, per NPOV, include information about any controversial aspects of the subject. And per Collect who rightly notes that the "vast majority" of this article follows the sources who all concentrate on the "conspiracy theorist" for which he is known, and the lead follows the body."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support and comment: Since Collect saw fit to open a severely skewed RfC, I'll ask him politely to correct the factual errors before requesting other editors invest their time here. See the section above for a rundown of the situation that led to this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Attacking a neutrally worded RfC is not exactly what one should do here. Your use of ad hom argumentation is not exactly "policy-based" as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"a neutrally worded RfC"? Did you missed the part where I presented diffs of you unmistakably misrepresenting facts? You believe it is "ad-hom argumentation" to prove with diffs an editor is willfully misrepresenting facts? I suggest one more time you remove the mistakes on your RfC about the "original position" of the sources. Gaba ^(talk) 19:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of lying here? If so, then I urge you to read WP:NPA. At this point, the RfC is worded in absolutely dispassionate terms, and I find your combative attitude disturbing here. Collect (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect: WP:NPA does not mean we shouldn't point out an obvious distortion of facts when it can be demonstrated with diffs beyond any doubt, as it is the case here. Are you disputing the note I added below the RfC? If so comment on how I am wrong and you are right. I'll await for your explanation and diffs. Gaba ^(talk) 21:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaba - asserting that I "misrepresent" and "distort" the facts is a personal attack. An iterated one at that. Say what you damn well wish to, I have at this point no belief or confidence that you can operate in a collegial manner on Wikipedia or on any project which I can imagine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect: proving with diffs you have distorted the written record, and refused to make proper corrections when requested, is not a WP:NPA. Being collegial shouldn't prevent us from pointing out indisputable facts. You are more than welcome to take the issue to WP:ANI if you feel my representation of your behaviour has been inappropriate. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG though. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am not sure of what we are supposed to support or reject, but Alex Jones is described mainly as a tinfoil-hat conspiracist by the MSNBC[13]. And due to his participation in a BBC program he is also described as such by The Telegraph[14], Salon.com[15], Daily Mail[16], Business Insider[17] and the BBC[18]. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The bit about "conspiracy theorist" would remain in the lead. This RfC is not about removing that, but to ask whether placing the sledgehammer in the lead is proper per WP:BLP. The issue is one of WEIGHT where a vast majority of the entire BLP is a teensy bit negative, and the lead even more so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I question whether it should be included as [19]. Should he be called a conspiracy theorist in wikipedia voice or should it be attributed to the sources is what comes to mind for me.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Meh. Support the minimal inclusion of "leading" conspiracy theorist over the <delstatus quo ante prior state. Collect's "prior" version was to have the SPLC and New York Magazine sources in the body, with two different sources for "conspiracy theorist", not used in the body. The new, modified lead ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28radio_host%29&oldid=626894250 )consists of adding "leading" to "conspiracy theorist" with those two sources in the the lead, and the two other sources removed. It's not even "piling on" (using multiple sources to implicitly emphasize a point.) Since then, Collect was edit warring for the prior version, and Gaba p (after the false claim that there was consensus against the modified version) for his preferred version. Between the two, Gaba p has a better case for consensus, but there is no valid objection to the modified version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose I would support this - "New York Magazine has described Jones as “America’s leading conspiracy theorist” - being in the lede (even moved up to the first paragraph, perhaps). The rest of it is just editorially clunky and difficult to read. While I don't mind keeping the SPLC statement, and Jones' own statement, I'd prefer they be moved into Reception and Impact purely for reasons of readability. DocumentError (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with DocumentError.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The lede should be as succinct as possible. The brief summary of Alex Jones' statements/beliefs already provides enough information for the reader to realize who the article is about and then some. The quotes from New York Magazine, etc. are thus superfluous and should be moved back into the main body of the article where they belong. Iaritmioawp (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Something - not sure if it's support or oppose - I certainly disagree with Iaritmioawp - I agree with Arthur Rubin, DocumentError and Espirt15d - the lead needs to include something about him being a leading conspiracy theorist and the New York magazine description seems very suitable for the lead. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support If he is best known for this, it would be best in his lead. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:41, 21 October 2014 (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.

what has affirmative consensus?

Of the three parts, the citation from the New York magazine was supported for inclusion in the lede by seven editors - a very solid majority.

The rest did not have affirmative consensus for inclusion, per the RfC close. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your intentional misrepresentation of the RfC closing is noted. As I stated in the last summary, one more revert from you and it's WP:AN3 where you'll be able to explain your actions.

1- The closing stated clearly:

clear consensus against wholesale removal of the three-part text segment, but there is no consensus on whether one part or all of it should be retained

No consensus means we keep the stable version in place.

2- The first "conspiracy theorist" mention was never up for removal (even you said as much in the RfC more than once), you removed it based on nothing.

Pinging Samsara so they are aware of what's going on. Gaba ^(talk) 14:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You know I already posted to the closer asking for elucidation. In general, claims require a positive consensus for inclusion - and the claim which had that consensus was the NYM cite. The close specifically did not find any consensus for other than the one cite. You ad hom that I am "intentionally misrepresenting" the wording of the close is reprehensible on any page, and is improper onany Wikipedia page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"No consensus" means there is no indication either way. I noted that four editors wanted everything to be kept in the lede, and four editors wanted *something* to be kept there. It is clear that the New York magazine quote has broad support, so should be kept as per the RfC. It is not clear what should be done about the rest - the replies to the RfC did not paint a clear picture either way. Gaba is correct in pointing out that "no consensus" is a classic stalemate that does not support any action being taken. In that sense, it is an outcome that favours the status quo, but it is also a result that becomes completely inconsequential as soon as any subsequent consensus is found, i.e. the status quo concerning those other two quotes is merely a placeholder for whatever other solution subsequently gains broad support. HTH, Samsara 16:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The "stable consensus" was to only have one quote - thus removal of the "other stuff" is proper under WP:BLP. Where material is questioned, it is up to the person adding the material to gain a positive consensus. There was never a positive consensus for the other material being in the lead (which is the primary issue here). Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Any guesses on what's likely to happen if you continue to remove it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2015

The following is a closed 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: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

---

{{requested move/dated}}

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

– The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones seems far more notable than the other Alex Jones on Wikipedia. The conspiracy theorist is the Primary topic of "Alex Jones". Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, has been mentioned by the BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Ottawa Citizen, The International Business Times, The Conspiracy Theory book published in the UK, and The Independent. He is the primary topic worldwide, not just America - Alex Jones the conspiracy theorist should be the primary topic on Wikipedia, and the other Alex Jones' can be listed at Alex Jones (disambiguation). CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Opposed Just don't agree with that statement at all. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you for your input Zero Serenity :-) CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Alex and Jones are both extremely popular names. I had never heard of the nom's Alex Jones and am only familiar with this one. The current disambiguation is well populated. My guess is that the nom is a fan which I can understand. GregKaye 07:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – I'm really starting to wonder if this is a troll, considering 1) how quickly it's coming after the last RM, the result of which was the opposite of what this RM seeks to achieve, and 2) the overuse of "conspiracy theorist" in the rationale, which shows some pretty flagrant disregard for NPOV. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This feels unfounded since it doesn't seem to be the same guy and this fellow's been around a bit. Please try to stay on topic. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - RadioKAOS & Zero Serenity - I am not a troll at all! I did not know there was a previous move request, I had no idea. I don't know how I use "conspiracy theorist" to much, but that is your personal opinion. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The article was moved to the primary topic in 2013 and back to its present title in 2014 (see here and here). As for the other concern, it appears that I'm not alone. 107.3.42.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) stated "Jones is an investigative reporter and talk show host. He is not a 'conspiracy theorist' and Wiki is discrediting itself by stating this.", but made the mistake of editing the article and not the talk page. That edit was reverted, with an edit summary stating "Misplaced talk page comment.", yet not transferred to this discussion, even though it was acknowledged as having belonged here. This further confirms in my mind that there are editors willing or even determined to push such a POV. Now, I've been around this sort of radio for a very long time, so that in my experience, Long John Nebel = Art Bell, Marlin Maddoux = George Noory and Cleon Skousen = Alex Jones. Apart from recognizing the impact of his ability to attract a younger, hipper audience than many who came before him, I don't get this obsession many have with marginalizing/discrediting Alex Jones. Maybe some of you who are making such a big deal are revealing yourselves to be neophytes here, but it would be too easy for someone to bludgeon me with AGF were I to state such outright. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose again. No evidence of an absolute majority topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think you'll find almost nobody has heard of the radio host in the UK and almost everybody has heard of the TV presenter. He might be the primary topic in America, but she is in Britain. And that doesn't even factor in all the other Alex Joneses. There is therefore no primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• support the american conspiracy theorist has recieved major media coverage from US, Canada, England and Australia. none of the other Alex Jones has had anything like that coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to demonstrate this major media coverage outside of the US? I doubt anybody in Britain would think of the conspiracy theorist when presented with the name Alex Jones considering the very popular presenter of the same name in Britain. Ebonelm (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

did you look at the article? the BBC [20] The Telegraph [21] The Guardian [22] [23] the Ottawa Citizen [24] The International Business Times [25] the Conspiracy Theory book published in the UK [26] The independent [27] [28] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did. The links you have provided as a summary either date from 2006/07, which isn't necessarily that relevant to the use of the name 8/9 years later, or are links to one singular incident in 2013 which is hardly evidence of an overtly higher level of recognition over other individuals named Alex Jones. Ebonelm (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So in other words, not only is he the Alex Jones that has been receiving coverage internationally , he is the one who has been receiving coverage internationally for over a decade. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. A decade ago he got some international coverage and then apparently (as far as the links we have on Wikipedia at the moment are concerned) he got none apart from one moment in 2013. While this in no way reduces his notability it doesn't establish that everybody who is searching for 'Alex Jones' is intending to find the conspiracy theorist/radio host. The current method of disambiguation is more than satisfactory. Ebonelm (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - never heard of the conspiracy theorist but very familiar with the British presenter. The proposed move would be highly Americentric. Ebonelm (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Highly Americaentric, how so my British friend? :-P He is the primary topic worldwide. TheRedPenOfDoom provided references to back up my statement. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Heard of and know of him here in Australia. Should let it be known that looking at the wikidata (29 different language wiki's for the radio host and 1 for the presenter) that the other language wiki's have him as the primary Alex Jones, so he has the worldwide primary usage (maybe other then Britain arguably with the presenter but one country doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things). Looking at the page views http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Alex_Jones_%28radio_host%29 he gets 81k views in the last 90 days which http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Alex_Jones_%28British_presenter%29 the presenter only gets 26k in the same 90-day period (which he gets 24k in a 30-day period). Disdain for the conspiracy theorist aside, i think the evidence shows that he is the primary Alex Jones worldwide other then Britain (which in of itself is arguable) and to claim the move would be ameri-centric is downright laughable as shown by the wikidata, especially when you compare not moving him because of the highly regional tv presenter.GuzzyG (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2015 (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.

Alex Jones anti-Mason

http://www.masonicinfo.com/people.htm This source lists Alex Jones as anti-Mason. Christopher Hodapp Deciphering the Lost Symbol:Freemasons, Myths, and Mysteries of Washington, DC 2010 Ulysses Press Page 7 "And this is just the mild, Ivy League stuff. I haven't even mentioned the outrageous contentions about Freemasonry of Jim Marrs, David Icke, Alex Jones...." Also Alex Jones frequently attacks Freemasonry on his radio program, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWLGVjNpuuE. He states here Freemasonry has 360 degrees, and that it worships Lucifer. Even though I oppose Freemasonry those statements are obviously false. So I think adding him to the list was reasonable. PaulBustion88 (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, what does this bring to the article? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:PaulBustion88 is a WP:Sockpuppet of User:RJR3333. See here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)