Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 18

Fake News
I got that the person above has shown many reasons as to why it is fake news, but calling Alex Jones an entirely fake news source is the BIGGEST BIAS I have ever seen, Wikipedia is here to show from all perspectives, for example when they're talking about the US they tell us about the good side and the bad, but over at this Wikipedia page Alex Jones is plainly called a liar? Because that's what I read, you're telling people that EVERY SINGLE BIT OF NEWS Alex Jones has ever spread is fake, I propose to change it to something a bit more, unbiased, for example: [ Alex Jones is rumored to be spreading a fair amount of fake news.] We can remove some of the bias AND keep the same reasoning in there. Now I'm not here to convert you all to Alex Jones Servants but I'm also not here to start Impaling him, there must be some balance to this topic. Alex Jones True News Predictions: https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html (9/11 Prediction, Scarily Accurate) https://twitter.com/mandystadt/status/1497959083298672641 ( Please don't scream in my ear that my source is twitter, he's been banned everywhere I can't find one good news source that includes this.) Also don't you find it weird that almost all news sources are against this guy? Almost seems like they're ordered to do it. 15038623asd (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * In the lead, the actual description is Jones's website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news, which is accurate. In the InfoWars section, the reference describing it as a fake news website is well sourced. As a side note, yes his 9/11 prediction was accurate, which is unsurprising given he's made thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of incorrect predictions over the decades. There is a phrase for this type of phenomenon: even a stopped clock is right twice a day. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not 100% accurate and … isn’t that supposed to be the trusted definition of “accurate”? That something is 100% true not partially? 166.181.251.153 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that was the point being made, that Infowars is not accurate 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes this. Or even 0.5% accurate for that matter. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also don't you find it weird that almost all news sources are against this guy? Of course not. They are against him because it is easy to see that he is wrong about nearly everything. Only people who use screwed-up logic like Almost seems like they're ordered to do it do not see that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hard to reply without sark here. No I do not find it odd at all, just as I do not find it odd that sop many sources call Hitler a racist, or Jack the Ripper a murderer. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really a fair comparison. What about all the people Jack the Ripper didn't murder or the races that Hitler liked?  G M G  talk  14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s easy to be correct sometimes. Tarot card readers, stock pickers (or monkeys) who throw darts at stock pages, incompetent football touts, astrologers are correct on occasion, I was even correct once. It was April 1, 1992. I remember it well. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024
This piece is heavy on someone's personal opinion and stated as fact. Biased "reporting". The way the writer states that Alex Jones was speaking somewhere on the day Capitol Hill was "attacked". Very matter-of-factly. Edit this and keep Wikipedia a portal of known facts, not opinions. 174.68.50.225 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What was he speaking about? Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard to determine your point. Are you saying the word attacked is biased? That's not someone's opinion. So far, over 750 people have been sentenced, most of whom pleaded guilty. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  Newslinger  talk   18:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

not right
"conspiracy theories and fake news" 2A00:23C4:995A:9C01:9537:CDF3:5D58:E7AF (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * RS say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And by "RS", we mean reliable sources. Please see and  for the citations which confirm that InfoWars is a conspiracy theory and fake news website. —  Newslinger   talk   05:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Jones' coverage of Epstein
Someone has been repeatedly adding unsourced claims that Jones was somehow "in the know" about Epstein prior to the story breaking; I can't find any news coverage of that anywhere, though. Most of the recent coverage that does exist instead focuses on Epstein's defenses of Trump - he was concerned that Trump's name would appear in the list (as they did) and preemptively, without evidence, decried the mentions of Trump as fabricated. Older coverage focuses on the way Jones used Epstein's name to push unrelated conspiracy theories (after the story already broke.) I can't find any reliable sources discussing the idea that Jones was somehow ahead of the curve with Epstein. --Aquillion (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on talk. --Aquillion (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's a gross misrepresentation of facts to imply that the fact that Epstein was in fact a sex offender means that Jones was right all along about the elite pedophile ring conspiracy. The two things are not the same. EasyAsPai (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion over this made me realize that the article doesn't currently cover Jones' promotion of Pizzagate, which did get significant coverage (though he later apologized for it.) Perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a mention at, though it's in the "Litigation" section. Perhaps this could be expanded. —  Newslinger  talk   20:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's review Wikipedia policy, shall we?
The let's review portion of this article is entirely inappropriate and violates the first two lines of the page's header:

71.74.165.166 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alex Jones article.
 * This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.


 * It is there because of the huge number of editors who come here to say Alex Jones is real news. We can point to it instead of repeating everything over and over again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I get that some sort of boilerplate message is warranted - but the tone and verbage seems highly inflammatory and against the manual of style. 71.74.165.166 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS is for articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I won't argue semantics. MoS may very well indeed govern articles but WP:TALK definitely discusses what behavior is acceptable and what is not. 71.74.165.166 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:TALK does indeed discuss that, but I see nothing unacceptable here. You won't find any rule against sarcasm. MrOllie (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Peter Ustinov said: "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." IMO, humor is of great value in difficult articles -- and in difficult situations IRL. Sarcasm is a strong form of humor. But it has its uses. How else do you deal with a constant demand that utter nonsense is real news? Does the section you are referencing contain sarcasm? Yes. But how else can you explain to some folk that that which is promulgated is just beyond what anyone can value as news? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seem valid to me. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)