Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 9

Films?
As I spot checked the long list of non-notable "films", I kept seeing a lot of examples of just YouTube videos. Why are we calling a simple video of Jones doing what he always does a "film" and acting like it's a real production? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are most of these films on youtube anyway? Could we at least put references in for each item? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to actually remove this. I don't feel like fighting with the Jones supporters who will oppose every step. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Moon landing source
The article from The Daily Beast is a much better source for the assertion regarding Jones's moon landing beliefs than the Youtube video of Jones, which is a primary source. Furthermore, the text of the article as it was written pre-edit war more accurately portrays Jones's beliefs: specifically, that he thinks the filming of it was fake. The edits made by Pudist remove the fact that he thinks the filming was fake and just mentions that he has been labelled a "Moon Landing Denier" but believes the landing actually took place; this tells only half the story. Thus, I have reverted Pudist's edits. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And we have a thread at WP:ANEW. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect; I was actually in the middle of starting a new report there right now. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By my count they are in their 6th revert. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted. If he reverts again, it might just be best to wait until the block goes through (I can't see how it won't at this point). Inks.LWC (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how is deducted Jones belief in filming of the moon landings on Earth, as current sources do not back that statement up. Demonstrate source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist (talk • contribs)
 * Its cited in the footnotes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * None of those sources prove the claim. It needs to be removed.   He has infact had Buzz Aldrin and several other astronauts on his show


 * Page still locked. False claims still in article.  They need to be sourced or removed. Current sources are not valid.  You have 2 partisan blog editorials which claim it with no source, and the third source doesn't mention it at all.  Alex Jones is on tape speaking for 3 hours a day for a decade.   If he claimed it then source the claim.  Because I can source him saying the exact opposite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_IKEJaieGc

Project Mockingbird
Could someone add info about AJ's involvement with Project Mockingbird? It is relevant as it affects everything he does (such as screaming on talk shows to give the impression to the public that those who believe in alternate theories and distrust MSM are crazy "tinfoil hat wearing" loonies). He works for, not against the very people he warns us about. He is a disinfo agent. Thanks. 2001:569:BC3C:2200:C039:919C:F69C:4F (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please cite a professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic source for that claim, because all Wikipedia does is summarize those kinds of sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC):
 * Do you mean Operation Mockingbird? The CIA program? Or is this a new thing? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Alex Jones (radio host). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511140552/http://cbs5.com/local/BART.officer.threats.2.1039379.html to http://cbs5.com/local/BART.officer.threats.2.1039379.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

libertarian vs paleoconservative
aren't "libertarian" and "paleoconservative" incompatible categories? surely paleoconservatives support continuing the criminalization of prostitution and recreational drug use, while true libertarians think that the government should stay out of such matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cd0e:aa30:1e6:961d:cb95:65bd (talk) 08:50, December 22, 2015‎

Distorted (photoshopped) picture
Sorry but the pic for this man has been photoshopped. Jut take a lot at it. It's comical. 223.205.248.154 (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He seems comical in his presentations. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The picture with the crazy nerds, one with a "Creative Commons" shirt, the other one with "Big Brother is Watching You" is a really good one. Laber□T 08:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , - I think the current infobox image is inappropriate for him, considering there are other free photos of him. I would use the 9/11 truth movement photo. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 22:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the current one? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - it is a photo of him having his thumb up and smiling, it's just strange having that photo in the infobox, but that's just me. It ain't a big deal though. CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 01:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Smiling? Thumb up? I can't see where either of these makes him look bad. If anything, they make him look less like an angry the-sky-is-falling-everything-is-a-conspiracy type. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * you have a good point! CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 02:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The point we're all trying to make here is: Better picture with proper licensing, we do not have. So, next person who bumps into him on a good day should shoot one (as in picture). Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 03:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I first read that as " next person who bumps into him on a good day should shoot him," which I consider inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bad photography habit. Shooting involves me and a camera, never guns. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What about that one? --Laber□T 21:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the reference "BadCall" a reliable source?
The reference named "BadCall" (currently numbered as 21) ], which points to a Youtube video, may not be a reliable source for the information provided. The following sentence is referenced by it: "In his video podcasts, he reports that he is of Irish,[20] German, Welsh, mostly[21] English, and partially Native American descent.[21]." Which time exactly he says on the video that "he is of German, Welsh, mostly English, and partially Native American descent"? (note that the first reference [20] is ok for the "Irish") Faltur (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually a copyright violation. The Stern show is obviously copyrighted and there's no indication that the YouTube channel has permission. See WP:LINKVIO. I've removed it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is overly negative about him.
It lists all the bad things about him but not many of the good things. It does not match the style of the other biography's on the wiki.


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:FORUM. On the inquisition side, what good things are there about him? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but it's also what he's known for. Through all the noise and bluster he does have a good conscience, a morality, a demand for transparency, an inherent distrust of secrecy, and though I despise religion and patriotic fervor many people find those traits admirable. I like Alex Jones with a grain of salt. I believe that his politics have softened/shifted/drifted from original truther and complete libertarian to right-libertarian. (Yes, there's a very big difference.) He used to shit on everyone left or right, but now he supports Donald Trump whole heartedly and uncritically (and there's a lot to criticize) and he slams Hillary Clinton (and there's a lot to slam). Perhaps he flew to close to the sun and got warned by power or grew complacent in old age. Also, I don't know if this is relevant to mention on this page or on an InfoWars page, but he's selling a lot more of his snake oil or whatever those supplements are (which may in fact be healthy, or not - we don't know because the FDA is so loose and everyone supports "business" regardless.) JasonCarswell (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:FORUM, WP:BLP. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. You're right for pointing out my error in presenting my ramble. I didn't know about those pages of policies and now that I've looked at them I'll try to shift my future behavior accordingly.  I apologize.  JasonCarswell (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Books?
Are books listed under films, or have I misread that?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I adjusted some of the headings. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Classification as a "Conspiracy Theorist"
Listing jones as a conspiracy theorist definitively in the first sentence is defamatory. This term is a common perjorative and there is no official definition. The sources quoted aren't peer reviewed and are simply the author's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.44.64.84 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first source is published by Springer Publishing, which is an academic publisher that specializes in relevant fields like psychology. That is effectively peer-review.  They wouldn't publish something calling someone a conspiracy theorist if the claim was flimsy.  The term means "someone who advocates or believes in conspiracy theories," of which Alex Jones is one, and undeniably so for anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist.  Further in the article, there is a peer-reviewed source, as well as journalistic sources that are definitely not opinion pieces.  Our intro notes that he does not disagree with he conspiracy theorist label.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing requires every source be "peer reviewed". Other reliable sources:, , [ http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/conspiracy-theorist-and-his-powerful-pals], , , ... and on and on. Face it, he's a conspiracy theorist. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Independently of what the mainstream media says or if we believe or not on his theories, Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist because he creates and spreads conspiracy theories through his Youtube channel and his InfoWars website. He is also best known for such theories. So the term "conspiracy theorist" is not used here in a derogatory manner, it's just what defines him. He already said in this interview that he doesn't reject the term "conspiracy theorist". I think the term should be explicitly cited in the introduction without the phrase "and described by many media outlets as a conspiracy theorist", and this phrase may be added in another paragraph. Faltur (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Any lawyer would fit under that proposed definition of "conspiracy theorist" because they propose conspiracy theories to the jury for contemplation. They propose a theory of what could have happened the day a crime was commited based on whatever evidence they have, connecting the dots. Should we go to lawyers wiki pages and say "this lawyer espoused the conspiracy theory that OJ Sinpson killed his wife"? The term conspiracy theorist is an absolute perjorative and has no basis in reality. Everyone formulates theories based on any evidence they have and if that theory is based on the notion of wrongdoing everyone would be a "conspiracy theorist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.44.128.21 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If this were an BLP of a lawyer and you had reliable sources calling them a conspiracy theorists, then you may have a point. But this isn't about a lawyer, it's about Alex Jones and there are plenty of reliable sources calling him a conspiracy theorist. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Should truther be added too? JasonCarswell (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not since that's essentially a conspiracy theorist. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2016
Change the link of "Pro-Russian" to Russophilia, not just simply Russia Caesarnapoleon (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Dane 2007  talk 04:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jones no longer identifies as "Libertarian"
Attempted edits to reflect that have been reverted several times. Jones no longer claims affiliation with or membership in the Libertarian Party and has spent several months now condemning the LP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9kkENKPfNI

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/18/alex-jones-celebrates-trumps-takeover-of-the-gop/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.228.161 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article for Class-- Religious Statement and Expansion on Role as Pundit in 2016 Election Cycle
Hi everyone, I am commenting for a class assignment where we have to evaluate Wiki articles. Anyways, it is true that Jones said Hillary and Obama smell like sulfur and etc., however in later broadcasts (after Obama sniffed himself during a speech) Jones says he only meant this statement metaphorically and that he "totally trolled them." I have been listening to Jones for the past couple months for a political media discourse analysis class, and I have been sifting through a lot of recordings-- when I find the recording with Jones' statement about how he only meant them to be demons metaphorically, I will add that to this post. So, based on what Jones has said, I would say the original statement could be kept (though it is not up to date on Jones' stance) if followed up by his partial retraction of the statement.

I also think Jones' role as a pundit in the 2016 election cycle could be expanded upon in this article, especially with Trump using Jones as a resource as well as the attention that's been paid to Jones by Hillary's campaign (For example, there was an add calling out Trump for his connection to Alex Jones). Hope this was helpful. Best. Jennydale17 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

US News & World Report is the sole arbiter of what is true or fake?
I don't personally find Alex Jones to be a great beacon of anything, but the way the reference from USN&WR has been tacked onto the end of the first paragraph, as if they are the only authority in the matter, looks disingenuous, partisan and recentist. Bear in mind that the article on "fake news websites" was only made this 16 November, and it's currently being banded about by MILLIONS of outlets who each have their own definition of it. The fact that the term "conspiracy theorist" is rightly included in the opening line is proof enough to a reader of what kind of material he covers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.222.31.46 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They're a reliable source. Also, they're not the only source listed, so I'm not sure why we single them out.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Infowars as separate article
I think this website should have its own article, if even a stub. There have been several dozen anchors and writers involved and much of the content is not from Jones himself, decreasingly so over the last 10 years. Additionally, the site has become a business selling Infowars-brand products (t-shirts, bumper stickers, 'Infowars Life' nutritional supplements, etc.) Though both run by Jones, the Alex Jones Radio Show is a separate news program and venture from Infowars. Based on prominent ranking systems like Alexa the site gets 50 million views per month and has a larger audience than many 'mainstream' sources. Prison Planet on the other hand does not have anywhere near as wide an audience, though still easily meets the standard for notability based on secondary-source mentions and audience size; perhaps it also should get an article, but only a small stub; either way a Prison Planet article would be a lower priority.50.182.99.115 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Dad Mark Barden: ‘Disgusting’ That Trump Advised by Truther Alex Jones


Suggested source for this article. Use it how you wish. Sagecandor (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Biased introduction: propose removing "fake news" label
Left-wing people can laugh and sneer all they want at InfoWars. At the same time, InfoWars knew that Trump had a good chance at winning the election. That is more than I can say about the New York Times, which ran endless stories featuring bogus polls month after month. While the New York Times is on the verge of going bankrupt, tens of millions of people are watching InfoWars. I therefore propose that we remove the sentence in the introduction that labels InfoWars as "fake news." After all, I could make similar allegations about the New York Times. In support of this, I could cite various alternative media sources that were all better able to predict the outcome of the 2016 election than the mainstream media. What really constitutes being "fake news" other than being something that dying mainstream media sources don't like and feel threatened by? Boab (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * InfoWars also "knows" the US government (under orders from the New World Order) was behind 9/11. Your allegations do not matter, professionally published mainstream sources are what matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not make edits then talk about them minutes later (giving the impression in the edit summery you had already talked about it). This has been disused ad infinitum and consensus is it stays.Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain to me how it could be that my edit, which I just made for this first time, has already be debated "ad infinitum"? In fact, this is the first time that I have ever made an edit to this particular page. My guess is that this page is controlled by a bunch of left-wing people who are still angry about the results of the election. My guess is that feel very threatened by Alex Jones and so you watchlist this site and try to block anyone from making edits. That is really not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Your behavior on here is very undemocratic.Boab (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed on this talk page ad infinitum with a bunch of conspiracy theorists and other people who don't know what real news is. The consensus is that professionally published mainstream sources confirm that Jones is a conspiracy theorist and his site is fake news.  You are not the first of that lot.  Either take off the take off the tinfoil hat quit advocating for a website that assume a secret order made the US gov't destroy the World Trade Center or leave the article alone.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit was not, but what you want to put in and take out has been. Also lay of the accusations of bias, it is a PA and against the rules. And Wikipedia is not a democracy. You are not blocked from making edits, you made one, you are free to do so again just expect them to be undone if other users disagree with them.


 * Maybe if you had come here and discussed the edit before making it you would have been told we have already debated this topic, rather then making it then trying to discus it.Slatersteven (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As to "off the tinfoil hat", that is also a PA, leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I think that it's time for you to take off your tinfoil hat. Admit it, you probably spent months reading about a bunch of bogus polls in the mainstream media. You probably thought, like Huffington Post, that Hillary Clinton had a 98.2% chance of winning.
 * By the way, could you cite a specific line from WP:RS documenting what you are saying? I see too many people on Wikipedia who whip out lengthy pages claiming that there is some kind of consensus in them. In this particular case, what specifically does WP:RS say about Alex Jones? I would like to see a direct quote. Thank you. Boab (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, YOU have to cite reliable sources here, since you were the one trying to make changes. Reliable sources have been presented in the article, and for you to ignore them is tendentious.  The consensus is on this talk page
 * Again: InfoWars just assumes that the New World Order ordered the US gov't to carry out the 9/11 attacks on its own people -- do you, or do you not, think that is reliable? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "A conspiracy theorist blamed with propagating the so-called Pizzagate scandal and urged supporters to petition President-elect Donald Trump this week in order to prevent being silenced by a supposedly imminent “government-led shut down” against online purveyors of fake news." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist-appeals-trump-aid-o/Slatersteven (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Calling Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist"?
Does anyone have a reference that documents Alex Jones referring to himself as a "conspiracy theorist"? If not, then I think that this label needs to be removed from the introduction. After all, it seems like more of an allegation than a fact. 2601:280:4300:350:1553:9A41:2DA9:B84C (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Well infowars does. www.infowarscom/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-says-donald-trump-called-to-thank-him/ Slatersteven (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. That is not exactly written by Alex Jones himself though. Does anyone know whether he disputes this claim in any way or whether he personally embraces it?Boab (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Infowars is his site that he edits and controls. Are you really saying this was not OK'd by him?Slatersteven (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really know. It would depend on whether "conspiracy theorist" is a term that he uses to describe himself. To me, it seems to have a negative connotation. I am asking whether he has ever denied being a "conspiracy theorist." If not, then it is not a problem to have that description in the introduction. Boab (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well untill we can have an RS saying he denies it lets leave alone shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I see Boab's been indeffed. Doug Weller  talk 19:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Reasons for removing the "Libertarian" label from Alex Jones
Since there seems to have been a few edit wars regarding the "Libertarian" label, here's why I think the reference should be removed: Until Jones explicitly says "I'm a Republican" or something like that, we cannot add that to the infobox. But the "Libertarian" label should be removed for the reasons which I have just given above, IMO. HelgaStick (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Howard Stern Show is not a reliable source. Additionally, without any online link or context, it's difficult to tell the context – I'm sure that Alex Jones has described himself as "libertarian" many times in the past, but does he clearly state that he's a member/supporter of the Libertarian Party in that clip? I'm suspicious.
 * The citation is outdated (2013) – Jones' closeness to the Republican Donald Trump, as well as the GOP under Trump has been documented so many times throughout the campaign. Alex Jones has www.infowarscom/alex-jones-exposes-pro-amnesty-libertarian-gary-johnson/ attacked] the 2016 nominee for the Libertarian Party www.infowarscom/libertarian-vp-bill-weld-vouches-for-honest-hillary-says-we-should-just-ignore-email-scandal/  as well as] Bill Weld, his running mate.
 * I replaced one reference to Libertarian because the ref link to ABC did not use the word in the video and replaced it with Cn. I flagged another as a dead link.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Has been labeled fake news"
Well, we've all been labeled something by someone. Shouldn't that be in a separate section, under "criticism," for instance? This claim is quite subjective and arbitrary, especially since no source is provided (only footnotes). It is rather biased and inappropriate to place it in the lead. 184.153.89.10 (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer "has been labelled fake news by reliable sources," or just "is fake news"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer Wikipedia and the people running it to be less obviously biased. 184.153.89.10 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:GEVAL. Being neutral doesn't mean that we give his website artificial credibility when it is run by an avowed conspiracy theorist (see WP:FRINGE) and is labelled by professionally published mainstream sources as "fake news." Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * — Being neutral doesn't mean using every pejorative one can think of to describe a living person in a biographical article. Your answer to the anonymous commenter is glib and disingenuous. You know damn well that many of the "reliable sources" and "professionally published mainstream sources" that have been sanctioned by certain Wikipedia editors and bureaucrats are totally unreliable and biased, and that over the last decade Wikipedia has become a cesspool of "political correctness", a particularly pernicious form of leftist bias. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 00:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He advocates ideas that any professionally published mainstream source (either journalistic or academic) would label as "conspiracy theories." His profession is to advocate those ideas.  For this reason, professionally published mainstream source (journalistic and academic) have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist.  It is ironic hypocritical to complain about political correctness when you are the one trying to get reliably sourced terms replaced with euphemisms that better fit your political bias.
 * You seriously think that sources like the Washington Post or something published by Palgrave Macmillan have been "sanctioned by certain Wikipedia editors and bureaucrats" [as] "totally unreliable and biased"? There's no way you could possibly be sitting after pulling that out.  I'm no proctologist, but that can't be healthy.  You should present strong evidence for such claims or else not make them -- not doing so gives other users very little reason to trust you.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "He advocates ideas that any professionally published mainstream source (either journalistic or academic) would label as 'conspiracy theories'". Of course they would.  He labels them as dinosaurs on practically a daily basis.  Using WP:RS to contend that their agenda automatically becomes our agenda is something that anyone can see right through. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  01:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So we should abandon WP:RS (which favors a variety of sources with a reputation for fact-checking and minimizing their agendas, and bring in sources that would have conflicting "agendas") in favor of InfoWars's agenda, is what you're saying. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually yes, I think "has been labeled a fake news site and conspiracy theorist" might be more neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Completely biased statement in my view and I'd say a lot of what he says is factually inaccurate. Labelled by who? Why has the label been placed? For what reason? This has been slapped on here and a news articles with ZERO authority has been cited as fact instead of opinion. One sole opinion is not a consensus. This isn't balanced whatsoever, nor is it in the correct section.

Think about the statement too, "fake news". Is he intentionally creating news about events that are not real? No. He's a radio presenter that hosts a "show". He doesn't claim to be a news outlet or a media outlet. Guys be objective here, "false" is not the same as "factually inaccurate" or "wrong". False/fake implies he is consciously creating false stories about events that did not happen and reporting them as fact, as news. He's not. By definition of the ENTIRE article he is not a news outlet.

This shit on Wikipedia really needs to stop, it's at the point now where it's legitimately getting in the way of putting accurate information on the page. If there is no consensus, nothing should be there. Anything less than that is unscientific and misinformation, never mind biased. 86.40.19.94 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have professionally published mainstream sources which show that the assessment given by the currently cited professionally published mainstream sources is disproportionate? Otherwise, your opinion does not matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016
Please remove the statement saying that Info Wars is a fake news website. From the article on Wikipedia "Alex Jones (radio host)" the text states, "His website,InfoWars.com, has been labelled a fake news website." SOURCES: www.infowars.com/infowars-announces-fake-news-analysiscenter/ www.infowars.com/americans-reject-fake-news-censorship-on-social-media/ www.infowars.com/the-ultimate-fake-news-list/

Conservationfootball (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Conservationfootball (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . That statement is sourced, and we need reliable and independent sources (i.e. not infowars) to say otherwise. GABgab 04:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Take your mother to the RS forum Mrs Jones
Rather then edit war how about taking it to the RS forum and ask?Slatersteven (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD. SWF88 boldly removed the cite stating his personal view that MJ is not a reliable source, he was reverted, presumably at some point he will start a discussion. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Or not, since that user has been blocked for sock puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Who predicted that. Guy (Help!) 01:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake news
Are we really going to have to list every sources that lists it as a fake news site? Also can anyone provide an RS saying it is not a fake news site (yes I know the answer I am giving SWF88 a chance to justify his edits before he breaches 3RR)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do we make of this source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/alex-jones-infowars-joins-war-081327951.html? Pretty much the only RS I can find that says anything about InfoWars as a non-fake news site, and you'd have to read between the lines.  I looked for sources for a bit and can't find anything countering the notion its fake news other than that. Trumpetbum8794 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that would be synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like having cite overkill in the lead (even though I put it there) but if the alternative is weasels and edit warring, it makes things a lot simpler. If we want to go back to one source, that's fine, but we'll just have to keep an eye on it drifting away from NPOV. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How about just having the links (all of them) here under a FAKE NEWS banner?Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Synthesis would be taking a source that says "fake" and a second that says "news" and combining them to say "fake news." If we have a bunch of sources that all explicitly say "fake news," we can put all of them in one citation.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's equally possible to read through those line that Infowars is a fake news site. Look at the following quote from it:
 * From using the phrase selected quotations to describe the objects of the first sentence (a technique that allows one to use scare quotes without obviously using scare quotes) to the aside that ends the paragraph, I smell laughter at Jone's expense. I don't think there are any RSes which think Infowars isn't a hotbed of CTs. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From using the phrase selected quotations to describe the objects of the first sentence (a technique that allows one to use scare quotes without obviously using scare quotes) to the aside that ends the paragraph, I smell laughter at Jone's expense. I don't think there are any RSes which think Infowars isn't a hotbed of CTs. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Consider revising from "conspiracy theorist" to "critical thinker"
As brought up previously in an archived thread, the term Conspiracy Theorist has become a day-to-day term used to defame a person for their belief system - whether it be personal, religious, political, or judicial beliefs. For example, a lawyer is chosen to defend a client - whether they are right or wrong - should the lawyer be classified under the umbrella term, or should the client be left without representation because of a defamatory term?

Also, there are no Credible sources that quote Alex Jones in his own words as being a "Conspiracy Theorist" - and therefore; this term should be considered for revision -- my suggestion is to the term Critical Thinker.


 * We go with what reliable sources say, not the subject's portrayal of themselves. --Neil N  talk to me 03:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * But why not the subjects portrayal of themselves? Users of WP can't just go and call someone a "conspiracy theorist" based on no hard facts - this makes the term defamatory in nature. If a reliable source said that Wikipedia was not reliable - would the users of Wikipedia have to contend to that? 70.67.57.18 (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No, describing an individual as the reliable sources describe him is not "defamatory," and as NeilN explained above, we don't describe individuals exclusively as they prefer to be described. Read Neutral point of view, Self-published sources, Identifying reliable sources. Jones is overwhelmingly identified as (and described as) a prominent conspiracy theorist by academics and journalists. Thus we describe him as such. Neutralitytalk 04:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, see Wikipedia. Plus if we do as you suggest, we'd have a lot less biographies of criminals and a lot more biographies of "people who are misunderstood by society". The bottom line is that we're an encyclopedia, and not the subject's mouthpiece. --Neil N  talk to me 04:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that "conspiracy theorist" is shopworn and trite, and doesn't describe him correctly. Especially in the wake of the 2016 United States presidential election, many of the issues promoted by Alex Jones and derided others as conspiracy "theories" have proven to be true.  Perhaps he should be called a "conspiracy analyst". See the Gore Vidal quote in Lionel (radio personality).  However, I don't think the Urban Dictionary site should play any role here; it is a satire site, in the vein of The Onion. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 01:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theorist fits him quite nicely (read that perfectly) and numerous reliable sources agree. Which reliable sources call him a "conspiracy analyst"? And if you're one of the ones starting and promoting a conspiracy theory, are you still an analyst? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Alex Jones describes himself as a conspiracy theorist, and as mentioned before, multiple sources refer to him as a conspiracy theorist. The debate about whether he is factual or not is not contingent on his title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamHolt6 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * — I've listened to many hours of his broadcasts and have yet to hear Jones seriously describe himself as a "conspiracy theorist", a term used exclusively by his detractors. When he uses the term, he is quoting his detractors, not labeling himself.  Can you provide any evidence supporting your statement? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 23:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those "detractors" happen to fit our reliable sourcing rules. His ideas fit our our rules on fringe topics. Ian.thomson (talk)01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea that Alex Jones is a "critical thinker" is hilarious. The biggest criticism of Jones is his uncritical promotion of every bullshit conspiracy theory known to humanity. He thinks with his gut, and his gut is, as biology tells us, busily engaged in the process of turning nice things into shit. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Jones is the very definition of conspiracy theorist and many, many reliable sources agree. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV means we represent all view points, if Jones has never contested he is not a conspiracy theorist then there is no reason for us to represent a view he has never expressed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOV means we represent all view points That's a bit simplistic... NPOV means we give all represented viewpoints (some don't merit mentioning per WP:WEIGHT) due weight based on their preponderance in the sources. So even if Jones says he's not (I'm actually pretty sure I remember reading where he embraced the label, though he may not have been entirely serious) and a few fringe sources agree with him, the overwhelming weight of reliable sources calling him one means we should, too. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True, but as this is a BLP we would at least have to say he denies it. We (however) do not have to say anyone else does, per WP:WEIGHT.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right. Now, does anyone have a source where Jones either confirms or denies it? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

IHeartRadio
Would it be worth mentioning in the opening paragraph that Jones' show has been hosted by IHeartMedia which is propriety of Bain Capital? I'm trying to avoid POV but to me this does back up the "fake news" notion of Jones' show seeing as the show is distributed by a "globalist" multi-national corporation, which seems to conflict with Jones' typical message.--206.255.40.218 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not sinister, it's just garden variety hypocrisy. The anti-globalist does not inquire too closely when the lure of filthy lucre is there... Guy (Help!) 16:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've never known a globalist, multinational corporation to sneer at money of any sort. Hell, the public consciousness meme of the "Big Evil Corporation&trade;" was designed, created and propagated by enormous multinational corporations. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Do any RS talk about this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but I'm sure there's a conspiracy theory about it somewhere. www.infowarscom/bain-capital-owns-clear-channel-romney-supported-by-talk-show-sphere/ Oh look, there's one now...]  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  13:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Attribution
"His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website." Here, "been labeled" fails WP:ATTRIBUTION. So I try to add "by media outlets, such as The Washington Times and Los Angeles Times," and my edit was reverted. Second opinions? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Infowars makes just about every reputable list of fake news outlets, so picking out two outlets known to have a left-wing bias is not proper attributions, but a POV shift intended to undermine the legitimacy of the claims. So... no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're telling those outlets are biased.. but validating it? Why would we hide who are calling it "fake news"? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:YESPOV lays it out pretty clearly: having a bias doesn't make a source wrong. Also, Infowars has been called fake news by outlets with no obvious bias, such as US News and World Report, and the L. A. Times (both of which are cited in that sentence). So unless you can provide a preponderance of reliable sources disputing the label, then we're not going to water down the attribution by naming the two liberal outlets. And the fact that you would sit here and suggest that we're hiding it when the citations are right there in the sentence does nothing but imply that you're pushing your own views rather than demonstrating any real concern for the quality of the article.
 * Oh, and for the record? I personally don't think Infowars is fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)