Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Nomination for deletion of Template:Alex Jones (radio host)

Template:Alex Jones (radio host) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

A number of pieces on Jones have recently been published by Rolling Stone, that contain detailed information on his early life, incidents that helped shape his political and world views, as well as insights into his current standings that seem to be missing from the Wikipedia entry.

There should also be mention of the recent Charlie Sheen kerfuffle, having potentially originated on his radio show and his subsequent television appearances on The View and HLN as a result. --Dr. Laughton (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Add "Ted Anderson owns Genesis Communications Network (Jones' distributor) and Midas Resources (Jones' primary sponsor), specializing in gold and silver coins.

Add "Ted Anderson owns Genesis Communications Network (Jones' distributor) and Midas Resources (Jones' primary sponsor), specializing in gold and silver coins. Genesis Communications Network and Midas Resources share the same physical address in Minnesota." 99.181.137.169 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As it stands this article is pretty useless

It looks like an IMDB page, simple bio, movie credits, links, I get MUCH more from a very simple google search, there is no reason for me to look at this article as it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.216.138 (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So, why not help improve it? Careful, though. You have to back up information you add with sources. There are certain standards for sources - and the ones for articles about living people are higher than those for the rest of the site. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Any additions to this page are immediately removed by a couple of users who are, it seems, relatively hardline Jones minions. It has become impossible to discuss any of the many controversies around Jones (eg the parking lot incident, the john gray affair, Jones connection to the extreme right, Jones views on Mexicans and homosexuals etc etc etc) without one of his cultists immediately attacking it.

Frankly the CIA interfere with their wiki page less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.7.123 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Grumble. I've been removing unsourced anti-Jones nonsense and unsource pro-Jones nonsense. You cannot rationally assume that people removing the anti-Jones nonsense are necessarily pro-Jones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the CIA being responsbile for my edits, they'd have to pay me first. <hint, hint>. :) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The CIA might not be responsible for your edits, but your claims that he presents no evidence to back up his claims are absolute lies. Jones sources the SPP, ehich EXISTS. He sources articles in the Guardian and Bloomberg regarding Government involvement in drug trafficking. These too EXIST. I could go on and on. Aurthur Rubin could not possibly be this consistently wrong about Jones unless he were running active interference. It requires the active denial of evident facts. It does not matter because anyone who becomes an Alex listener understands that the Web is loaded with interference agents and dupes. The only question is which one Rubin is. Rubin might say that "reliable" (anything prominent he and the rest of the UTC punks call reliable) sources call him a conspiracy theorist, but people with brains and integrity understand that MAINSTREAM does not automatically imply honesty and reliability. More people now get their news from alternative sources and the mainstream is actually dying, giving the lie to this assumption. UTC Wikipedists are virtually the only people who pretend that there is a consensus on the accuracy of the Big Media. The reverse is closer to the truth.

Wikipedia and Mr. Rubin are just one of a long list of obstacles to bringing out real info. They are just one cog in a large propaganda machine when it comes to sensitive issues. The way they push the official lines and marginalize any dissent as conspiracism is disgusting. Thankfully, it is also transparent and nobody would trust Wikipedia in anything remotely controversial. Congratulations to dupes and/or hacks like Rubin for destroying Wikipedia's cred. We would have had a difficult time without him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, 68.197.236.146. Here in reality, we use evidence and reliable sources to support claims. When you present some that withstands tests and scrutiny, we'll talk. Good day. John Shandy` • talk 01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the sort of dishonest arrogance that makes people dismiss Wikipedia out of hand. Can you deny that CBS reported that Don Rumsfeld announced on Sept. 10th 2001(!) that the Pentagon was missing 2.3 trillion dollars? Can you deny that Rumsfeld testified before Congress that the number had ballooned to 4 trillion by 2004, responding to questioning by Cynthia Mckinney? Can you deny that Mike Hulme, who worked in the IPCC, admitted that the consensus of climate change was manufactured by 12 kept scientists? (National Post) Can you deny that Robert Capps of Salon reported that the whistleblowers who reported that Dyncorp was involed in child trafficking were vindicated in every way, despite being harassed by DynCorp? Can you deny that DynCorp remains one of the US Govs top contractors in spite of this? These are the issues that Jones covers and he presents copious documentation, both video documentation and press documentation. You imply that he is a conspiracy nut regardless. Just my afforementioned examples should be enough to make you think twice and reconsider the biased article on Jones, but it's your job to make sure the article stays biased and Wiki promotes the official gov. line. This isn't a theory either. It is the only way to account for Wikipedia's obstinate refusal to present credible evidence on anything that defies the official lies, while only reporting articles that ridicule dissenters. There are articles for Wiki's precious 'reliable' (read well-funded) sources that give credibility to dissenters, but Wiki selectively ignores these and only prints the hackwork, even if they come from editorials. Wiki prints op-eds published in major media as though they represent anything but the opinion of the writer, and presents that as evidence from a reliable source! So don't come to me with that nonsense about Wikipedia being fact and evidence based. On sensitive topics, I can ovrwhelm you with evidence that you will refuse to acknowledge because your job is really to push the gov. story. And it's flagrantly obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about John Shandy, but I can deny it simply because you haven't provided the references. I have no idea if any of the abve things you're claiming are true, because you aren't giving verifications. If you would kindly start a new section at the bottom of the page (the correct place for new points) that includes links, or at least publication info for these claims, along with exactly how you think this should cause us to change the article, then we can consider including them (of course, keeping in mind that we don't publish original research). Also, if you know of any cases where op-eds are being used to verify factual claims, please bring them up on that article's talk page, or on [{WP:RSN]], because our policy says that we're not supposed to do that (although there are exceptions for people who are widely recognized as experts; i.e., if Stephen Hawking wrote an op-ed about physics, well, we'd probably be willing to include that info). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I cited the sources to the point where it is easy to find them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU CBS report 2.3 trillion missing from Pentagon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RvLL--vSsA Dyncorp rewarded by Pentagon despite (really because of) trafficking in women and children. Also Dyncorp contracted for keeping the books of the Pentagon that loses trillions per year. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs Wells Fargo laundering billions in drug money.

All of these are topics that Jones discusses frequently. Jones cites such sources, and the same could be said for Jones' other topics of his show. UTC Rubin's assertions that Jones does not back up what he says and engages in pure speculation reflect nothing except his prejudice and ignorance. The tone of the article, which constantly insinuates that Jones is some paranoid nut, should reflect this. I might make some changes myself in a section titled "Vindications" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please state any place in the article which "insinuates that Jones is some paranoid nut". It seems pretty NPOV to me. You are correct that a WP article should not make such assertions (although it might quote someone who does). Similarly, I don't see anything in the article that states that Jones doesn't back up what he says. Maybe that was expressed here by some editor, but that's not what the article says. So, again, my point is that you need to state specifically what it is that you think needs to be changed in the article, because I'm not seeing what you see the problem is. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is my first time visiting the discussion page of Alex Jones wiki. Theres a lot of general info on the wiki page but little info about him growing up or his claims on what he believes in = 911 truth, bilderberg, criticism of the Bush and Obama administrations etc. Now all of us can agree that we want this page to be fair. I dont believe in everything Jones says, but we should make a nonbiased more detailed wiki page. So as long as stuff is from a REAL LEGITIMATE source and not some homemade angelfire page and as long as it pertains to the general info on Alex Jones it should be put up here without slamming Alex Jones, or promoting Alex Jones, just simply stating what he's done and what he promotes. - iscream22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid not. Per WP:BLP, any controversial statement about Alex must be taken from a reliable source, or, if not promotional, from Alex's own statements. It's not just "anglefire" (or the former geocities) pages which need to be looked at closely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying their necessarily needs to be controversial or negative comments about Alex or his program, i'm simply saying that there should be more info on the general topics he discusses on his program as to give readers more examples of what kind of things they can expect to find on his show. And yeah sure get some direct quotes from Alex himself too. Perhaps some info on his criticism of Obama, or the 9/11 truth movement, or the NWO. Because in a whole the wikipedia page for Alex just pretty much states he has a show, makes films, and people regard him as a <redacted> conspiracy theorist (which in a way he IS) but I think the page could certainly use some expansion, thats all. And a little more biographical info would be good too. Iscream22 (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I'm turning on auto-archiving for this talk page--it's quite excessive now, nearly impossible to find active discussions, and new users sometimes reply to outdated threads (instead of starting new ones that will actually be seen and responded to). I've set it to archive threads after 45 days of no comments. If anyone has an objection, please post here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones Wikiquote

I am not sure if it is appropriate to say this here, but I was hoping somebody could start a wikiquote page for Alex Jones. I think it would be a useful and appreciated addition. BakuninGoldmanKropotkin (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

NOWHERE IN THIS ARTICLE DID YOU MENTION THAT MR JONES IS A PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC. KTHNXBAI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.25.209 (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source to include that in the article, no matter how obvious it appears. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't know how to edit etc, so please don't ask me to do link stuff etc, cuz I don't know how. I was wondering why, when there is so much info out there on it, that there is nothing here on A.J's creation of public persona/involvement with/in Project Mockingbird? I was shocked to see NOTHING on that, as well as the rest of his info.(Other than IMDB type stuff.) Can this be fixed, because A LOT of stuff about him isn't on here, specially the controversial/poor("bad") light stuff that isn't kissing his butt or proclaiming him God's gift to the Earth. Thanks for any help on this matter. :) 207.6.51.246 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you point us to sources on the internet for some of this "missed stuff"? We need news articles, reliable magazines, etc.--note that we cannot take information from blogs or other self-published websites. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that under "External links" that the blog site Leaving Alex Jonestown be added. http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.com Take a look at the Intro page here: http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.com/2009/02/intro.html BlueMesa171 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Jones' delusions

Somewhere there was an online list of Alex Jones' whacked out beliefs about America and the world, ranging from the notion that feminism is a communist plot, to the idea that interchanges on toll roads are deliberatley set 50 miles apart. I know it violates WP:NPOV, but could anyone send me a link to it anyhow? ----DanTD (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a link and am unfamiliar with it. However, I'd comment that if it were by chance a reliable source, by a notable party, it would be appropriate to channel the source's point of view, which in and of itself wouldn't violate WP:NPOV or its Undue Weight clause. However, I'm almost certain that someone would zealously resist adding it to the article on WP:BLP grounds. From my perspective, having read this talk page over time, WP:BLP seems to have trumped WP:V time and time again, much on the backs of flaky arguments. The next best thing to a bulleted list of Jones' beliefs is probably his very own www.infowars.com ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} InfoWars.com] or www.prisonplanet.com ^{prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} PrisonPlanet.com]. Further, I found that the blog linked to in the above discussion on this talk page is very interesting, and contains a debunker's account of Alex Jones' numerous beliefs and counterknowledge: http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.com/2009/02/intro.html John Shandy` • talk 15:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic & Family Background

In the opening blurb, this line: "Jones has also insisted that his radio show is non-partisan.[16]" is not encyclopaedic. This plainly implies that Jones is in a defensive position regarding his non-partisan position. If the non-partisan position is going to be mentioned here, there should be sources that question this to back up this leading statement.

On his family. His father is David Ross Jones, a dentist. He attests that he has ancestors who fought in the Civil War. He is married to Kelly Nichols, who is of Jewish heritage. He is attacked by people who believe Jews control / have an overwhelming influence on world events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.91.129 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you're arriving at your interpretation of that statement. What about it implies that he's defensive? When other sources apply labels to describe something about you or your activities, isn't it natural to "insist" whatever label or description you think is most accurate? You wouldn't necessarily be getting defensive by simply offering a response (in this case, an alternative point of view). For example, I can insist I'm an atheist without anyone ever questioning that I am or typecasting me as a theist. So I disagree that the statement was unencyclopedic. Putting that aside, I edited the article to remove the statement you drew attention to, on grounds that it cites a dubious source (a YouTube video), per WP:RSEX#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. As for his family, we'd need reliable sources to support assertions about anti-semitic sentiments towards Jones relating to his wife's heritage. For his father and his claims about ancestral participation in the Civil War (probably a significant chunk of multi-generation Americans have distant ancestors that fought in the Civil War, tbh, so maybe it's not even that notable), Jones could be used as a source for his own claims (preferably a written source and not a video). John Shandy` • talk 02:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones conspiracy theories about Global Warming

He also spreads slurs and hate speech against Green politics and calls environmental stewardship is a Nazi plot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdMQfiRqacQ&feature=channel_video_title He regularly invites climate skeptics like Marc Morano or Lord Monckton to his shows and agrees to their debunked claims about about climate science. With this stance he supports the orchestrated campaigns of Big Oil and contradicts himself. Gise-354x (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I too am aware of his stances toward climate change and environmental politics, but unfortunately we need a reliable source (YouTube is inadequate, per WP:RSEX#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?). I think I might have one, or if not can find one. Kinda busy, so I may need a few days, and that's if I don't forget. John Shandy` • talk 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'd need a reliable source specifically for the "Big Oil" reference, and a source referring to "Big Oil" is unlikely to be reliable, in general. However, we should be able to find a reference for all except the last sentence of Gise-354x's comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well he is on record in his videos, which are also accessible through his various websites. I do not visit his website, but he publishes articles there and announces his radio guest, might as well publish his claims and personal attacks there too. Looking forward to the addition of this position of Alex Jones. He echoes the same remarks as from the fossil fuel talking heads (which are all debunked i.e. see skepticalscience.com for debunked arguments by actual scientists) and takes care to not go into detail. Gise-354x (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of Alex's remarks. We need specific WP:RS as to what Alex is saying; just quoting Alex won't produce "hate speech"; "skeptics like Marc Morano or Lord Monckton; nor "supports the orchestrated campaigns of Big Oil". If he explicitly calls "environmental stewardship" a "Nazi plot", we could probably use that, but the general rule would be we would need a reliable source which notes that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Right wing

This article needs to remove the claim that Alex Jones is "Right wing" or represents right wing, or even that people SAY he is right wing. This is clearly false. ANYONE who has ever read or heard Alex Jones for more than 30 seconds would KNOW that it is false to call Alex Jones "right wing". Alex Jones continually tries to educate people to what he terms the "left-right paradigm". whether you believe this or not - it is a fact. This needs to be cleared up immediately. It is ANTI encyclopedic. In his own words he "avoids the bogus political labels of “left and right” and instead focuses on what really matters — what’s right and wrong." - he never supports or encourages so-called "right wingers" or "right wing politics" and he "concentrates on destroying the false 'left-right paradigm' " - just look at his websites www.prisonplanet.com and www.infowars.com for what he describes HIMSELF as. THIS IS INCREDIBLY unprofessional to say or imply by others opinions that he is "right wing". Even if repeating what uneducated people have said - it gives the impression to people who don't know Alex Jones that he is. Would it be correct to describe George Bush as a school teacher because he read a book about goats to some school kids and then provide a "SOURCE" with some video of him reading as proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.145.179 (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

updated by same user - see this video below for proof of Alex Jones' views on the "right and left".

202.78.145.179 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This part of the article is well sourced and balanced, discussing both how Jones is described by others and how he describes himself. Both sides of this are encyclopedic and merit inclusion. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is hardly a verifiable source. J. ORLY? (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article should explain how someone who is so hostile to the Pentagon is "right wing." He's beloved by conspiracy-loving leftists, just watch some of his appearances on RT (TV network). Here he says "Hugo Chavez... is right" and complains about the "military industrial complex" that serves the "Fortune 100" instead of "the people." How can he be identified as "conservative" if he is more interested in overthrowing the establishment than in defending it?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You're asking us to include our own opinions/analysis of what Jones says, which is explicitly not allowed per WP:OR. All we may state is what other reliable sources have stated. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Jones has identified as a paleoconservative, which is right-wing. It is accurate to describe Jones as right-wing, but it must be considered in a reliable context. Considering the fact that the Old Right has aspects in common with the Left, the claim makes sense. BakuninGoldmanKropotkin (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence "Mainstream news sources" to "Some news sources" as mainstream implies some alleged legitimacy. Gingermint (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is inappropriate. (Almost) all mainstream news media refers to him as "right-wing", and only alternative news media refer to him as not "right-wing". I'm reverting; unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, "mainstream" should remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mercury and Sentinel cites are too vague to verify. Consequently they fail WP:V. WSJ is WP:RS. However 1 source is insufficient to support this label. Contentious labels require solid source. If someone wants to add, let's say 2 more refs, we'll put the label back. Until then, label removed per WP:BLP violation.Lionel (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is "right-wing" necessarily a contentious label? I'm not entirely convinced that "right-wing" is somehow intrinsically contentious. Further, the right-wing article that was linked to appears to be a well-referenced and neutral article. John Shandy` • talk 01:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the previous removal of right-wing on grounds of it somehow being contentious was insufficiently justified, but I agree that it was weakly sourced with articles whose URLs became dead links (and as such, despite searching those news sites, nobody can verify the contents of those sources). I have restored right-wing and rephrased the sentence, and added a peer-reviewed scholarly journal article as a new source for right-wing conspiracy theorist, which is more reliable than a news source. John Shandy` • talk 22:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

For those who are concerned that Alex Jones is being labelled, "right-wing", "conspiracy theorist" all this mess this article is, don't bother. This article is so absurd that it surely will make more people visit his site. Anyone can see that this is infamous and infamy is something that everybody likes to check. --Justana (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article is quite favorable to Jones. We've been working to keep out the allegations that "his people" beat up a reporter at a rally, with Jones cheering, even though available on video. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"?

Duplicate talk page post, I collapsed it to reduce confusion. -John Shandy`
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I cannot believe any self-respecting source of information would ever include the above phrase in any of its articles The fact that there were references for that statement amused me greatly. Let's examine those together: Ref. 8: Black, Louis (2000-07-14). "Unknown Title". Austin Chronicle. http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/print?oid=77891. Retrieved 2008-05-20. "Jones is an articulate, sometimes hypnotic, often just annoying conspiracy theorist." Ref. 9: Duggan, Paul (2001-10-26). "Austin Hears the Music And Another New Reality; In Texas Cultural Center, People Prepare to Fight Terror" (Fee required). Washington Post: p. A22. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/85990051.html?dids=85990051:85990051&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+26%2C+2001&author=Paul+Duggan&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.22&desc=Austin+Hears+the+Music+And+Another+New+Reality%3B+In+Texas+Cultural+Center%2C+People+Prepare+to+Fight+Terror. Retrieved 2008-05-20. "[His cable show] has made the exuberant, 27-year-old conspiracy theorist a minor celebrity in Austin." Ref. 10: "Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - Q&A: What really happened" (FAQ). BBC News. 2007-02-16. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm. Retrieved 2008-05-19. "Leading conspiracy theorist and broadcaster Alex Jones of infowars.com argues that ..." So, instead of: "Mainstream news sources have referred to him as conservative,[4][5][6][7] and a conspiracy theorist.[8][9][10]", why not: "Mainstream news sources have referred to him as conservative[4][5][6][7], articulate, sometimes hypnotic, exuberant and a conspiracy theorist.[8][9][10]" What an incredible failure to be unbiased. In my eyes, it's -500 points for you guys. I can fill a cup with water, and it's still a better editor than those found here. At least it's not biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.183.203 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe any self-respecting source of information would ever include the above phrase in any of its articles The fact that there were references for that statement amused me greatly. Let's examine those together:

Ref. 8: Black, Louis (2000-07-14). "Unknown Title". Austin Chronicle. http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/print?oid=77891. Retrieved 2008-05-20. "Jones is an articulate, sometimes hypnotic, often just annoying conspiracy theorist."

Ref. 9: Duggan, Paul (2001-10-26). "Austin Hears the Music And Another New Reality; In Texas Cultural Center, People Prepare to Fight Terror" (Fee required). Washington Post: p. A22. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/85990051.html?dids=85990051:85990051&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+26%2C+2001&author=Paul+Duggan&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.22&desc=Austin+Hears+the+Music+And+Another+New+Reality%3B+In+Texas+Cultural+Center%2C+People+Prepare+to+Fight+Terror. Retrieved 2008-05-20. "[His cable show] has made the exuberant, 27-year-old conspiracy theorist a minor celebrity in Austin."

Ref. 10: "Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - Q&A: What really happened" (FAQ). BBC News. 2007-02-16. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm. Retrieved 2008-05-19. "Leading conspiracy theorist and broadcaster Alex Jones of infowars.com argues that ..."

So, instead of: "Mainstream news sources have referred to him as conservative,[4][5][6][7] and a conspiracy theorist.[8][9][10]", why not: "Mainstream news sources have referred to him as conservative[4][5][6][7], articulate, sometimes hypnotic, exuberant and a conspiracy theorist.[8][9][10]"

What an incredible failure to be unbiased. In my eyes, it's -500 points for you guys. I can fill a cup with water, and it's still a better editor than those found here. At least it's not biased. 109.165.183.203 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it was any malicious intent or bias on the part of editors to truncate some of the extra elaboration, but the point of view of the source itself should be appropriately channeled to the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. I reworded the statement to read as follows:

Mainstream news sources have described him as conservative, and as an articulate and occasionally hypnotic conspiracy theorist.

You can see my edit here. John Shandy` • talk 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See conspiracy theory. Are you not familiar with the term? He fits the definition to a T. 68.110.19.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

I cannot believe this article describes Alex Jones the way it does, presenting him as just a normal radio host and saying he has been "described as a conspiracy theorist". Alex Jones does not deny his belief in conspiracy theories, he is a conspiracy theorist in every definition of the phrase. Wikipedia has a duty to provide unbiased information, but it also has a duty to provide the truth and the whole story. This entire article needs reworking to show portray a honest picture of Alex Jones because at the minute it looks like it, and most probably was, written exclusively by followers of The Alex Jones Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.91.243 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your concern is shared, but changes to this article have been few and far in between because of WP:BLP. The BLP policy prescribes important directives for editors to follow that make sense for the Wikimedia Foundation's legal matters, however I feel BLP is often invoked as a copout on many BLP articles on controversial figures. Past editors have removed edits that, even when well-sourced, were perceived by them as biased. We must channel the biases from reliable sources, but many editors mistake a source's bias for an editor's bias. Nevertheless, the parts of the article that do characterize Jones's views (such as in the lede) are well-sourced and properly included by saying "described as such and such." One problem is that the article needs more reliable sources. Most of the discourse on Alex Jones is within the realm of news and media, however I have found a few peer-reviewed articles in academic journals that do describe him to a point. Though there are some parts of the article that don't fully encompass Jones, I don't feel like the entire article is a whitewash written by Jones's followers. John Shandy` • talk 02:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones Promotes Censorship

There is evidence that Alex Jones pressured Genesis Communications Network (GCN) to remove the Jeff Rense Program. Evidence can be found here: http://www.alexjonesmachine.com/

This alone is enough to be skeptical of anything Alex Jones says. Make up your own mind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepDigging (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That source is dubious at best. It appears to be self-published and definitely not mainstream or notable. Do you have a source that rises to Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources? John Shandy` • talk 22:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The youTube channel of Alex Jones is heavenly censored, i guess one of the biggest censor list on youTube. Point out the flaws in his reasoning and you get banned from commenting. Gise-354x (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones is an alien. Why nobody sees the truth? Alex Jones is extremist left-wing on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays. On Wednesdays he is a conspiracy theorist. On Thursdays Alex Jones is a Nazi-libertarian. On Fridays the man is a father. On Sundays he rests. This article is a compliment to Alex Jones. Thank you Wikipedia for promoting Alex Jones.--Justana (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from SmittyInTX, 14 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change his Party affiliation to Libertarian. He's not a Republican. http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/alex-jones-day-life-libertarian-radio-host/story?id=10891854

SmittyInTX (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a libertarian worldview and being associated with the Republican party is not mutually exclusive. There may be other sources, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Source: [1]

Infowars, the website of Libertarian radio host Alex Jones, was crammed with stories charging that the U.S. government had concocted the killing to justify a security crackdown.

Note the capital-L. [2] has small-l, but sources do not call him "Republican". These are current cites. The paywalled cite is from 2000, and should be carefully examined for what it states. Meanwhile, I concur that "Libertarian" per the LA Times is correct. Even [3] does not call him a "Republican." Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not an L is capitalized seems like a pretty wobbly leg on which to base any kind of argument. The matter of fact is that Jones ran for a political office on a Republican ticket. That establishes his party affiliation. It doesn't matter that the source article for that is from 2000, because nothing changes the fact that he was a Republican party candidate at that time. Whether his views are libertarian or not are secondary (how articles characterize his views is irrelevant to his party affiliation). A similar example would be Ron Paul, well-known for his libertarian points of view, but whose political party affiliation is Republican nonetheless. Further, the article already gives credence to Jones' self-identification with libertarianism and paleoconservatism, so I'm not so sure why such a number of editors have come to the article over time seeking to have his political affiliation changed. That it says Republican next to Political party in his infobox doesn't trump the content of the article in any way, but it is accurate. Likewise, his specific views do not trump his established political party affiliation. There's no conflict here. John Shandy` • talk 17:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

In most states, one does not need to remain registered in a party to have run for office in that party more than a decade past. The current use of "Libertarian" by the LA Times stands as a reliable source. I can find zero recent (even pretty non-recent) cites asserting that he is a registered Republican. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to change at this time  Chzz  ►  04:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

One potential resolution to this dispute is noting a year beside the party name. For example, Ron Paul's article lists: Republican (1976 - 1988) followed by Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election) and then Republican (1988 - Present). If some reasonably accurate dates can be discerned from sources, we then might be able to do similar for Alex Jones: Republican (Year of his campaign) and Libertarian (YYYY - Present). However, I don't think there's anything erroneous about the article the way it is. Further characterization of Alex Jones's libertarian views is certainly welcome in the article - I just don't see the reason for the strong push to remove Republican party affiliation from the infobox. I think that running for office on a Republican platform is considerably more notable than whether third parties associate Jones with the libertarian party. Also, keep in mind that not all libertarians are associated with the Libertarian party. Many libertarians who are Ron Paul supporters are not even aware of who the actual Libertarian party candidate was in the 2008 presidential election (contrary to popular belief, it was Bob Barr, not Ron Paul). I've noticed on articles for a number of politicians who have shifted their affiliation over time have multiple party affiliations listed, denoted by dates and ranges. Would others consider this a viable compromise? The next step would be finding the most appropriate dates. John Shandy` • talk 13:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So because he was Running for some rep thing in 2000 he is marked as Republican in end of 2011. Its well known that he is opposing both Parties and he never was involved directly into Politics for over 10 Years. I will try to delete that false statement that he is Republican now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.56.80 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said in this thread and in the thread that follows this one, it doesn't matter that his affiliation has changed. It doesn't change the fact that he campaigned as a Republican candidate for a political office. You are welcome to contribute, but I will revert any attempts to remove this sourced content from the article or distort its meaning. I've already said within this thread that a resolution to this content dispute would be to note a year beside the party name. I gave an example of Ron Paul's article, which lists him as Republican (1976 - 1988) and then as Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election) and then as Republican (1988 - Present). We could do something similar with Alex Jones, but we need reliable sources regarding Jones' current affiliation (or lack thereof). Then we could put Republican (2000) and _Whatever_ (???? - Present). We just need the reliable sources and relevant dates. Nobody seems willing to have pursued this and I am rather busy at present. John Shandy` • talk 02:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Jones's 2000 campaign for a Texas House seat as a Republican candidate

I recently reverted this edit by Cosprings which removed sourced content that Jones campaigned for office as a Republican. I went ahead and purchased a $5.95 24-hour subscription to the Austin American-Statesman archives to obtain and save a copy of the full-text article that is cited to support Jones's affiliation with the Republican party. I can verify that it indeed supports the content in this wiki article.

Here's the specific excerpt supporting the content written about Jones's Republican campaign for a Texas House seat in 2000.

The GOP race to succeed Greenberg has seven contenders: * Documentary filmmaker and public

access TV show host Alex Jones, 25, known locally for his diatribes against creeping federal control, says he's running ``to be a

watchdog on the inside."

Source: Scott S. Greenberger (January 4, 2000). "Nine to seek Greenberg's House seat" (fee required). Austin American-Statesman (Cox Enterprises): p. B1.

This dispute is therefore resolved, because the source does support what this wiki article says (GOP = Republican Party). Whether Jones's affiliation has changed is a separate matter, requiring reliable sources supplied with full citations. John Shandy` • talk 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

biosphere conspiracy theory biosphere conspiracy theory

should be included.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 14:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end of your comment before saving the page. Why should biosphere conspiracy theory be included? Do you have reliable sources that suggest Alex Jones embraces biosphere conspiracy theories? I'm sure he embraces many things, but in order for them to make it into the article we need sources. John Shandy` • talk 17:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anders Breivik Conspiracy

Jones caused a stir when he did a segment calling the 2011 Norway bombing and shooting carried out by Anders Breivik as a "false flag operation". Even normal viewers were turned off by it, most people were disgusted by it. I think this should be included as one of his controversies, particularly as it is recent, but I do not have the privilege to edit this article. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K58TjYorsKA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.24.200 (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be notable. However, we need a better source to demonstrate the notability and reliability of this. We can't rely on YouTube videos as sources, per WP:RSEX#Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources?. Are there any national newspapers or other mainstream sources that confirm viewers' or listeners' distaste with Alex Jones's allegation of a false flag operation? John Shandy` • talk 03:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There maybe more truth in it, then "most viewers" did think tough, but I think that belongs with articles relating to Breivik and the incident. --41.151.87.79 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11

They say he predicted 9/11 on a radio show in July 2001. Is this true or false? Y no mention in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.189.31 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he claimed he "knew something big was going to happen," but he says that a lot, and it doesn't always pan out. ----DanTD (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time the things that Alex predicts happen, so, it's probably true. --Kyleundercofler (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time the things he "predicts" were before the prediction, so.... Nonetheless, he (and hardly anyone else) says he predicted 9/11 in July 2001. We might list the fact that he claims to have made a prediction, but without a 3rd party reliable source, we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that he did predict 9/11. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

In re: Mezlo's removal of the Greenberger source and Jones's affiliation

Mezlo, please see the first two sections on this talk page which discuss why this content should not be removed. In fact, I proposed a workaround, but nobody (including myself) seems to have been able to produce a timeframe for his Republican affiliation in order to use my solution. For the time being, we could denote his party affiliation in this way: Republican (2000); I should think that would help alleviate any readers' concerns. Nevertheless, I am puzzled by why Jones supporters so often attempt to change that infobox while ignoring how the article already covers Jones's libertarianism and paleoconservatism, as if having Republican in the infobox has somehow detracted from Jones's prevalent political leanings. To remove it outright however, is to remove sourced content in a very selective and POV way. John Shandy` • talk 20:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Small cleaning

In the Legal section, the sentence "The programmers made their views known via radio broadcast and websites" seems to have no relevance to this page. I'll remove it. Spotle99 (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, maybe not, I don't think I have enough seniority yet to edit this article. Would an editor please clean this? Thanks! Spotle99 (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it seems like an unnecessary sentence given the one that precedes it. I'll remove it, though I'm not sure why you were unable to. I think the semi-protection only prevents anonymous editors (unregistered IPs) from editing the article. John Shandy` • talk 22:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Biography

I noticed that his biography was presented as a "promotional biography". Since there is no clear definition of what constitutes a "promotional biography" versus a "non-promotional biography," this adjective adds no value to the page and may actually mislead readers. I deleted it, but Daffyduck and Tom Harrison undid my deletion. I posted this on Tom Harrison's talk page in an effort to clear up the matter, and would like to post here as well: If you can ascertain the definition of a "promotional biography" and then categorize his biography as such (with reliable sources), then please, by all means, correct me. If it is your opinion that it is a "promotional biography," then that is another matter. Wikipedia is a source for information, not misinformation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazemzad (talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Daffyduck (lol) The reason it is promotional is because it is being used to promote his show on their (the writers) radio station. If someone wrote about Mr. Jones without gaining a direct benefit (ie. publicity for a show) then it would be simply a biography. With your last edit Kazemzad you are engaging in a slow edit war. I will leave it as is for now until more editors weigh in but trying bullying tactics will not win the argument. A little decorum goes a long way. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that says it's a biography? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that, but you've reworded it well.Kazemzad (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Kazemzad

Jones's political party affiliation

Yet again someone has taken issue with the party affiliation in the infobox. I have resolved this dispute in the past and have indeed suggested a compromise, but removal of sourced content is unacceptable as I also pointed out here. My suggestion for compromise was to denote the years of affiliation. However, it's incorrect to just make stuff up, like "Independent (2001-present)" - how can you substantiate Independent rather than say, Libertarian, or 2001-present instead of 2003-present, etc.? Including later party affiliations is a good idea, but a reliable source is still needed at a minimum and none has so far been provided. I looked several months back, but didn't have any luck. And no, Infowars.com is not a reliable source. I don't think anyone here is trying to paint Alex Jones as a present-day Republican (e.g. I do not think he is one), but the WP:Verifiability policy and WP:RS guidelines serve an important purpose here. At any rate, it's not like the Infobox white-washes the content in the article that already covers Jones's self-identification as a libertarian, paleoconservative, and constitutionalist. John Shandy` • talk 06:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent SPLC edit and BLP

I think there's some confusion here about our BLP policy and what we mean by primary sources. I see the issue has been raised at WP:BLPN. The SPLC is clearly not a primary source, and there is no problem with using opinion so long as it is clearly shown to be opinion and well cited - even if it is florid. The text should be restored. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the source is not primary and that clear attribution nullifies concerns over the contents of the opinion. On an irrelevant note, is it an attack to describe someone who goes on a rant while shouting and expressing anger or frustration to the extent that their face turns a little red, as engaging in a red faced tirade? The word choice could possibly be a bit softer, but there are videos of Jones performing what could certainly be described as red faced tirades, so I think it's reasonable. The fecund imagination bit is a little more subjective, but I digress. John Shandy` • talk 14:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think SPLC's opinion is even notable, but consensus is otherwise. However, I quite agree that there's no BLP violation there, because it's a primary source as to SPLC's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I can't comment on the notability of SPLC. I have been familiar with them for a few years now, but I haven't any idea about their reach or the impact of their work. John Shandy` • talk 17:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's forget about the technicalities if that opinion is an attack piece or not. The mechanics of bringing this piece into the article are substandard; actually let me rephrase: they suck. Let me explain. This opinion piece most probably would have been ignored by the mainstream media and it would have most probably stayed on the website of the SPLC, had it not been imported into Wikipedia. By directly importing opinions from primary sources into articles on Wikipedia we bestow notability which otherwise might not have happened. This is why in order to import any such commentary into an article it should have been first covered and analysed by external press sources. Doing so would have ensured its notability and relevance. The solution is not to scour the internet for any negative commentary from sources of doubtful notability and then import it into a BLP article. This is a very low threshold of inclusion and it makes a mockery out of our BLP policy. The above flaws only get even more exacerbated if the BLP article links to the reference and the reader upon reading the reference material further, gets introduced to more attacks like "red faced tirades" etc. I think doing so is disingenuous on our part, because although we do not include these remarks in the article, we provide the link to the readers, so in effect we wink and nudge the reader to read the whole article at the external website. If this is what BLP has come to I want no part of it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with this assesment. I removed the external link since its already linked to in the citation. I would also question if this material rises to the level worthy of inclusion. I arrived here from the BLP board for disclosure. --Malerooster (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Malerooster for the support. However this will not change things. The piece is still in the article. Until BLP gets enforced more rigorously I just give up on this article and perhaps any other article as well. This is a BLP-enforcement problem and it certainly is not mine. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Restored old material to lead

I was puzzled as to why the lead didn't say anything about his politics, and found a paragraph in an earlier version that does, which I've restored. As it stood the lead was too short, leaving out material that should be in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work, other than some references being dead links this seems referenced enough to remain... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is an exact duplicate of the "Reception" section where it was originally removed from the lead. Now we have two identical copies of the same material in the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. The gist of it needs to be in the lead, any suggestions? Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It was recently relocated by another editor on the basis that it had many citations for the lead. Perhaps we can rephrase the lead part and leave the citations out from the lead. Alternatively we can remove the recently created "reception" section. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex's grandparents

Hale County, Texas Bryan Jones

LOOP - Funeral services for Bryan Jones, 84, father of Joyce Wright of Sunnyside, will be at 2 p.m. Friday in Connally Funeral Home Chapel in Seagraves with the Rev. Chuck Sammons officiating. Burial will be in Loop Cemetery by Connally Funeral Home. Mr. Jones died Tuesday, Nov. 5, 1996, in Lubbock. He was born April 30, 1912, in Hastings, Okla. He had farmed in the Loop area for many years and was a member of Loop School Board, Co-op Gin and was a deacon of Primitive Baptist Church in Brownfield. He married Mildred Irene Wright on Jan. 29, 1935, in Roswell, N.M. She died Oct. 30, 1984. Other survivors include two sons, Ross and Perry Jones, both of Seagraves; a brother, Glenn Jones of Waco; a sister, Judy Taylor of Fairfield, Calif.; eight grandchildren; 11 great-grandchildren; and two great-great-grandchildren. Wjhonson (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules not being followed

I was researching this article for a school assignment and I'm confused as to why Content that was challenged has been allowed to stay in the article despite a complete failure at satisfying the Wikipedia rules like undue. Am I missing something? I'm referring to the discussion between Daffydavid and Redpenofdoom. As near as I can tell Daffydavid is correct. Can someone explain this?190.7.205.2 (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either of them is particularly close to the guidelines:

1. A source can be reliable only if the reputation of the publisher or author indicates reliablity, and that reliability can be challenged if the source is wrong (contradicted by credible sources, even if not reliable). (WP:RS)
2. Especially in cases of persons of fringe interest, we must be careful not to interpret the source using logical reasoning, but only using the reasoning presented in the source. (WP:OR, WP:SYN)
3. Once we've established that the material is actually referenced in the source, we must not give it more presence than is appropriate due to its influence among reliable sources. (WP:UNDUE)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)