![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Alex Jones' own lawyer says that Alex Jones is basically playing a fake character to make money. Does this count as Alex Jones defrauding his audience? I suggest labelling Alex Jones as a fraudster in the article opening paragraph. This entire article needs to be rewritten in my opinion, since this fact that Alex Jones' open admission that his entire public persona is an "act" and has nothing whatsoever to do with his actual views and beliefs. Everything that Alex Jones does in public is basically just a tool for making money as admitted by Alex Jones' lawyer.
This entire article on Alex Jones must be completely, totally, fully, wholly and thoroughly be rewritten. The section on Alex Jones' "views" saying that Alex Jones is "conservative" is extremely misleading. Alex Jones' lawyer says that Alex Jones is nothing but an act, so, we can in no way say that Alex Jones is really a "conservative" based on Jones' own statement. Alex Jones may actually be a liberal, his "conservative" views in public may be his "act".
"Alex Jones’ Defense in Upcoming Custody Battle Is That He’s a Fake" http://fusion.net/alex-jones-defense-in-upcoming-custody-battle-is-that-1794370575 175.156.24.120 ( talk) 06:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Alex Jones has publicly been called a performance-artist and actor who does not believe in his own public positions, notably by his own lawyer in order to avoid libel suits.
" His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16]"
It would be best to include context for this sentence to directly state which sources have labelled Alex Jones fake news. Changing it to "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website by USnews, LAtimes, Washington Times, and MotherJones.com.[13][14][15][16]" or even change the sentence to state "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website by a number of competing news outlets.[13][14][15][16]" would better objectively reflect the truth of the statement and give the reader the full story on the conflict between the different news organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahuterschuter ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
concerning Alex Jones, he is not a far-right person but a libertarian who interviews people who are mistakingly labeled by the opposition party as "right wing" or "alt right". He refutes ims this claim on air nearly on every episode of infowars.com. Nor is he a conspiracy theorist because he has been proven,98% of the time, to be right on many issues concerning the world because of his impeccable journalistic resources that include former politicians, political strategists, whistleblowers, guests from all departments and agencies of the government and so forth. It is well documented by other patriot talk show hosts concerning Alex Jones accuracy on items long before they are announced and coopted by mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turk9570 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Nor is he a conspiracy theorist because he has been proven,98% of the time,I'd like to see how you arrived at that number. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stating that Alex Jones and Infowars is Fake News, is FAKE NEWS. Unless you want a lawsuit I suggest you remove this remark. Butterfly0fjune ( talk) 23:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Through several news reports, certain new information on the personal life of Alex Jones should be included into the "Personal life" section. They include:
I feel that the "personal life" section on Alex Jones is completely and totally outdated and needs a serious rewrite.
Can we please stop trying to use this article as a live news feed about a custody battle. This is all just salacious tittle tattle (whoever sauys it) that adds nothing, and just makes us look petty.
Slatersteven (
talk)
08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Update what about Chobani Yogurt suing Alex Jones over a false allegation some news outlets are discussing this new lawsuit out of Idaho over a false rape case.
Update other news outlets are mentioning that Alex Jones is being sued for $10,000 US dollars by Chobani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:2767 ( talk) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/25/chobani-yogurt-company-sues-right-wing-radio-host-alex-jones.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.96.188 ( talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article146943339.html
Alex Jones could go to Idaho to respond to the allegations Chobani has on him. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
130.86.96.188 (
talk)
23:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And we do not need daily updates on Jonses doings either. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The verdict is out for the Alex Jones Child Custody case the ex-wife gets the kids.
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that Alex Jones is "far-right". I would like that part removed. Alex Jones is anti-foreign intervention, he advocates libertarian stances on civil liberties issues, and he takes an egalitarian stance on race related issues and has criticized the "Prison-Industrial Complex". Categorizing Alex Jones as "far right" with the likes of Benito Mussolini and Hitler who favored aggressive foreign policy, extreme violations of civil liberties, and implementing explicitly racist policies is not accurate.
NOTE: The links posted below are not to be used as sources in the article. As I'm merely requesting that "far right" be removed it is not required. The links below are merely to show what Alex Jones' outlet, Infowars, has said on issues related to civil liberties, foreign policy, and race-related issues. Some may disagree with his views, but they are certainly the opposite of what the "far right" believe. If Alex Jones is far right then that term has lost all of its meaning.
Alex Jones on civil liberties:
https://www.infowars.com/the-freedom-act-is-worse-than-the-patriot-act/
Alex Jones on Iraq:
https://www.infowars.com/the-horror-of-the-iraq-war-one-hundred-years-from-now/
Alex Jones on Prison-Industrial Complex and police state:
https://www.infowars.com/the-prison-industrial-complex-the-economics-of-incarceration-in-the-usa/
https://www.infowars.com/video-alex-jones-predicted-staged-race-war/ AscherLio ( talk) 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Contrary to some others who have tried to remove this part from the lead, I look at this from a true editor's standpoint. Even if we think he is far-right, there are obviously many people who disagree with the statement. By putting this in the lead like so, we are stating that he is for a FACT far-right. This is biased. Later in the lead, it is clarified that "Jones has described himself as a libertarian and paleoconservative, and has been described by others as conservative, right-wing, alt-right, and a pro-Russia propagandist." This is better, as it tells what others think of him and how he views himself, it is not stating for a fact what he is or is not, since he himself and many others state otherwise. This is not an opinionated issue... Rather, this is an issue of being opinionated. Agree? -- TheFancyFedoraWielder ( talk) 00:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The article currently states: "Following the 2016 Republican National Convention, Jones and Roger Stone began plotting the removal of Ted Cruz from his Senate seat in 2018 via potential challengers Katrina Pierson and Dan Patrick." A reader of this article could easily be misled into believing that Jones is currently involved in "plotting the removal of Ted Cruz from his Senate seat in 2018". This is not the case. I understand that one could interpret this as referring to something he was specifically doing "following the...Convention", but given the next mid-term elections are in 2018, it is my opinion that this is confusing for readers. At best, it provides an incomplete and inaccurate impression of Jones' relationship with Cruz.
On January 23, 2017, Alex Jones heaped praise on Cruz during a video interview. The video appears to be an uncut clip of Jones' entire interaction with Cruz. Given this was conducted by Alex Jones himself, it was published on his own site, Infowars, which is not generally regarded as a reliable source. Due to the esoteric nature of this interview, it was not covered by reliable secondary sources - the only secondary source available appears to be the conservative blog The Right Scoop, which would likely be regarded as similar in reliability to the original Infowars source.
However, given this is a primary video source, I believed it was suitable as a source for clarifying Jones' relationship with Cruz and added it to the article. Admittedly, I could have indicated the sourced was Jones himself (e.g. 'However, in January 2017, Alex Jones himself said, "*insert quote here*"') to satisfy MOS:QUOTE, and I would do so in the future. MjolnirPants ( talk · contribs) and MelbourneStar ( talk · contribs) reverted this edit on the grounds that Infowars is not a reliable source.
WP:IRS says the following with regards to questionable sources: 'Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.' This does not appear to be a contentious claim. The three individuals who reverted my edits did so for different reasons, with the first mistakenly believing I had deleted information from the page, and the other two reverting on the basis that it was not reliably sourced, rather than questioning the claim itself.
'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
The first requirement is met. The purpose of adding this material is to clarify a prior claim for the benefit of the reader. The second requirement is met. The claim is about Alex Jones himself. The third requirement is met, assuming 'subject' is defined as the subject of the claim. This is a primary source for the event addressed in the claim. The fourth requirement is met, given it is a video and there is no evidence of doctoring, nor any motive for Jones to do so with regards to this. The fifth requirement is met, as the sole purpose of using this source is to clarify a prior claim made by another source, and most of the article still consists of reliable sources.
WP:IRS later brings up some more relevant rules: 'Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.' Once again, I do not think this is contentious material, and have not observed any evidence from other editors that they regard it as such. Their problem appears to be with the source itself.
'Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.' This was published by the subject of the biographical material.
As a result of all this, I think there is a strong case for using a questionable self-published primary source in this case in order to avoid the possibility of misleading and confusing the reader.-- Jay942942 ( talk) 13:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I came here after reading some information claiming he denies the Sandy Hook massacre took place.
What I found was an article that is obviously edited by people who have a partisan agenda against him. Citing articles from highly partisan sources like the Daily Beast and Slate made me take EVERYTHING within this article with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Citing articles from highly partisan sources like the Daily Beast and Slate made me take EVERYTHING within this article with a grain of salt.That's a good thing. That makes me happy. Next, start taking everything Jones say, everything Fox News and Breitbart say with a grain of salt. In fact, take everything you hear or read online with a grain of salt. Welcome to skepticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The least you can do is out the whole picture out there instead of covering half of it up. It makes you the writer look inept. BenScheidegger ( talk) 04:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
73.15.47.45 (
talk)
02:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/connecticut-nbcmegyn-kelly-alex-jones-interview-1202469317/.
Here is an update WVIT is not airing the Megyn Kelly/Alex Jones interview due to the Sandy Hook conspiracies Alex Jones and his fan base has been accused of ranting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:934 ( talk) 00:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kevin005 ( talk) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Megan Kelly Interviewed him in 2017 it was a bad idea. 75.121.60.198 ( talk) 01:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://alexjonespodcast.com for external links -- Henkri ( talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alex Jones (radio host). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-alex-jones-custody-press-conference-live/
“I want to respond to grossly inaccurate media reports that I lost custody of my children. My ex-wife and I agreed 2 years ago at the time of our divorce to be joint-managing conservators of our 3 awesome children. My ex-wife went to trial asking for her to become the sole managing conservator of our kids and limit me to supervised access. The jury resoundingly rejected her request for sole custody and left us at the same place where we began this horrible journey. The jury agreed we should remain as joint-managing conservators with the only change being who can designate the primary residence – effectively a change of 10 miles. As only the judge in a trial can decide what amount of time each parent will have with their children, I am confident that the Judge will carefully consider the various schedules that have been put in place in the last two years and will give each of us the time that is appropriate. I have throughout this ordeal deferred to the experts and this Court to determine the kids’ schedule with due regard to their own wishes. I have and will continue to place my trust in the Court to continue to do what is in their best interest.” Benallen123 ( talk) 18:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is the definition from far right: Some aspects of fascist ideology have been identified with right wing political parties; in particular, the fascist idea that by superior persons should dominate society while undesirable elements should be purged, which in the case of Nazism resulted in genocide.[9] Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform in London, has distinguished between right-wing nationalist parties which are often described as "far-right", such as the National Front in France, and fascism.[4]
Far-right politics include but are not limited to aspects of authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism.[10] Claims that superior people should have greater rights than inferior people are sometimes associated with the far right.[11] The far right has historically favoured an elitist society based on its belief in the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses.[12] However, right-wing populist ideologies which are described by some commentators as "far-right" often use appeals to the "common man" as opposed to the appeals of the elites.[3] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[13] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.[14]
If you have ever listened to Jones, he is clearly anti-establishment and extremely anti-authoritarianism. This negates the authoritarian and elitist suggestions. Furthermore, Jones, just about daily, says something along the lines of "no race or person is superior" and that "global elites want races and parties to be divided so they can conquer us," etc., which eliminates the separatist/segregation/racist/fascist argument. The burden of proof is shown on infowars, looking at "about alex jones show" (which is a reflection of himself and his character) at https://www.infowars.com/about-alex-jones-show/ Key quotes from this source: "SEEKING THE TRUTH AND EXPOSING THE SCIENTIFICALLY ENGINEERED LIES OF THE GLOBALISTS AND THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL OF ENSLAVING HUMANITY." "Jones is dedicated to libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, in addition to what he has coined "1776 worldwide" - promoting a true culture of liberty, transparency and freedom on a planetary scale to empower humanity, while vehemently opposing Agenda 21 and the globalist threat to national sovereignty." "Jones passionately argues against foreign entanglements and wars for the sake of corporate and banking interests. Jones avoids the bogus political labels of "left and right" and instead focuses on what really matters — what's right and wrong"
Request to remove "far right" and replace with "libertarian." I would even be willing to bargain and say he is a "conservative conspiracy theorist." However, "far right" is extremely inappropriate given his beliefs that directly contradict what Wikipedia defines "far right" as. Furthermore, Jones is more focused on the up/down (authoritarian vs libertarian) rather than left/right, and I think the opening sentence should summarize that. I think leaving it as is would make it misleading to wikipedians who know little about Jones and may make them assume he is a racist/nazi, and cause him to automatically be grouped with other far righters who are appropriately categorized.
I understand that this article has been heavily politicized. However, we cannot ignore the truth and the truth is that Alex Jones is NOT far-right on any level. Just because a few news outlets falsely characterized him as far-right for one story about globalism (which is, again, by definition the opposite of far right) does not make it far right.
Thank you for your time, Respectfully Aglo123 ( talk) 02:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
authoritarianism=No (lets be generous and ignore his support for Donny)
anti-communism=Yes
nativism=Possible, he certainly does seem to rant a lot about other races.
favouring an elitist society= Hard to say, as it all depends on what you mean by an elite. Certainly he seems to favour Donny (a member of an elite if ever there was one, in fact bending over backwards to justify him).
anti-immigration=Yes
anti-integrationlly, bit hard to tell given the rants about Yogart makers and general anti-immigration material. But yes, he does seem to have issues with "the other".
So on balance he seems to either explicitly or to some degree support polices that can be seen as far right. Slatersteven ( talk) 23:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Why is wikipedia submitting to this sort of smear? Far right based on the opinion of two random journalists. I thought this was supposed to be an unbiased site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:4044:D4E9:2466:CF34 ( talk) 09:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alex's middle name is misspelled. It should be "Emric" 76.191.67.59 ( talk) 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to retain the line about Jones' sales promotions in the article lead. I believe Jones' salesmanship is vital to understanding his work. I have added credible citation. I would like expand the article in the next few days with a small section on his website sales and sales figures. WarpSpeedRainbowRead ( talk) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Have noted Buzzfeed/Labdoor's report on Alex Jones' supplements. This is obviously a contentious page, so I wanted to run it by other editors before making any significant changes - - - do we want to add anything to the article about these vitamin supplements which are claimed to play a major part in sustaining Jones' business model? I couldn't quickly find anything about the matter on the page. I have noted the discussion above, but it does seem curious that there should be no mention of vitamins (I see some mention of products), when they are all over the website, and Jones himself often promotes them verbally. Given that these and his other products are directly related to his pet theories (such anti-fluoridation water filters) and guests (see Edward Group, GQ below), does this warrant its own section, given that according to Der Spiegel two-thirds of Infowars' funding derives from such sales? A few links for anyone who's interested:
San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/local/article/SF-lab-finds-out-what-s-actually-in-Alex-Jones-11748954.php
Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-visit-to-the-infowars-studios-of-alex-jones-a-1136654.html
GQ: https://www.gq.com/story/john-oliver-alex-jones-owned
Salon: http://www.salon.com/2017/08/10/alex-jones-infowars-supplements/
Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/john-oliver-alex-jones-last-week-tonight-infowars-644240
Infowars has also responded:
https://www.infowars.com/fail-buzzfeed-attack-on-infowars-blows-up-in-their-face/
Any thoughts? Cpaaoi ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
How would something like this sound (haven't bothered to format the links yet):
A 2017 piece for German magazine Der Spiegel by Veit Medick indicated that two-thirds of Jones' funds derive from sales of a successful range of his own products. These products are marketed through the Infowars website and through advertising spots on Jones' show. They include dietary supplements, toothpaste, bulletproof vests and "brain pills", according to Medick, amid a wide range appealing to "anyone who believes Armageddon is near". [1]
In August 2017, Californian medical company Labdoor, Inc reported on tests applied to six of Jones' dietary supplement products. These included a product named 'Survival Shield', which was found by Labdoor to contain only iodine, and a product named Oxy-Powder, which comprised a compound of magnesium oxide and citric acid; common ingredients in dietary supplements. Labdoor indicated no evidence of prohibited or harmful substances, but cast doubt on Infowars' marketing claims for these products, and asserted that the quantity of the ingredients in certain products would be "too low to be appropriately effective". [2] [3] [4] Cpaaoi ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is clearly no particular objection to this curious omission of what appears to be Jones' central activity; so in it goes! Cpaaoi ( talk) 14:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to labor this point, and, again, I would have just gone right ahead and done it myself, but there is obviously a lot of debate over this page, so I ask here: Jones is described here as a "radio show host, filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist". Would it be appropriate to note in this list that he is a businessman, given that his mail-order business appears to be the principal way in which he feeds himself and his family? Cpaaoi ( talk) 14:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.806924 AHC300 ( talk) 06:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Haaretz is most certainly a reliable source - for this as well. However, I agree that for this to be added we'd need more than just one source stating it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Alex Jones' own lawyer says that Alex Jones is basically playing a fake character to make money. Does this count as Alex Jones defrauding his audience? I suggest labelling Alex Jones as a fraudster in the article opening paragraph. This entire article needs to be rewritten in my opinion, since this fact that Alex Jones' open admission that his entire public persona is an "act" and has nothing whatsoever to do with his actual views and beliefs. Everything that Alex Jones does in public is basically just a tool for making money as admitted by Alex Jones' lawyer.
This entire article on Alex Jones must be completely, totally, fully, wholly and thoroughly be rewritten. The section on Alex Jones' "views" saying that Alex Jones is "conservative" is extremely misleading. Alex Jones' lawyer says that Alex Jones is nothing but an act, so, we can in no way say that Alex Jones is really a "conservative" based on Jones' own statement. Alex Jones may actually be a liberal, his "conservative" views in public may be his "act".
"Alex Jones’ Defense in Upcoming Custody Battle Is That He’s a Fake" http://fusion.net/alex-jones-defense-in-upcoming-custody-battle-is-that-1794370575 175.156.24.120 ( talk) 06:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Alex Jones has publicly been called a performance-artist and actor who does not believe in his own public positions, notably by his own lawyer in order to avoid libel suits.
" His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16]"
It would be best to include context for this sentence to directly state which sources have labelled Alex Jones fake news. Changing it to "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website by USnews, LAtimes, Washington Times, and MotherJones.com.[13][14][15][16]" or even change the sentence to state "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website by a number of competing news outlets.[13][14][15][16]" would better objectively reflect the truth of the statement and give the reader the full story on the conflict between the different news organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahuterschuter ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
concerning Alex Jones, he is not a far-right person but a libertarian who interviews people who are mistakingly labeled by the opposition party as "right wing" or "alt right". He refutes ims this claim on air nearly on every episode of infowars.com. Nor is he a conspiracy theorist because he has been proven,98% of the time, to be right on many issues concerning the world because of his impeccable journalistic resources that include former politicians, political strategists, whistleblowers, guests from all departments and agencies of the government and so forth. It is well documented by other patriot talk show hosts concerning Alex Jones accuracy on items long before they are announced and coopted by mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turk9570 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Nor is he a conspiracy theorist because he has been proven,98% of the time,I'd like to see how you arrived at that number. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stating that Alex Jones and Infowars is Fake News, is FAKE NEWS. Unless you want a lawsuit I suggest you remove this remark. Butterfly0fjune ( talk) 23:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Through several news reports, certain new information on the personal life of Alex Jones should be included into the "Personal life" section. They include:
I feel that the "personal life" section on Alex Jones is completely and totally outdated and needs a serious rewrite.
Can we please stop trying to use this article as a live news feed about a custody battle. This is all just salacious tittle tattle (whoever sauys it) that adds nothing, and just makes us look petty.
Slatersteven (
talk)
08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Update what about Chobani Yogurt suing Alex Jones over a false allegation some news outlets are discussing this new lawsuit out of Idaho over a false rape case.
Update other news outlets are mentioning that Alex Jones is being sued for $10,000 US dollars by Chobani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:2767 ( talk) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/25/chobani-yogurt-company-sues-right-wing-radio-host-alex-jones.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.96.188 ( talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article146943339.html
Alex Jones could go to Idaho to respond to the allegations Chobani has on him. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
130.86.96.188 (
talk)
23:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And we do not need daily updates on Jonses doings either. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The verdict is out for the Alex Jones Child Custody case the ex-wife gets the kids.
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that Alex Jones is "far-right". I would like that part removed. Alex Jones is anti-foreign intervention, he advocates libertarian stances on civil liberties issues, and he takes an egalitarian stance on race related issues and has criticized the "Prison-Industrial Complex". Categorizing Alex Jones as "far right" with the likes of Benito Mussolini and Hitler who favored aggressive foreign policy, extreme violations of civil liberties, and implementing explicitly racist policies is not accurate.
NOTE: The links posted below are not to be used as sources in the article. As I'm merely requesting that "far right" be removed it is not required. The links below are merely to show what Alex Jones' outlet, Infowars, has said on issues related to civil liberties, foreign policy, and race-related issues. Some may disagree with his views, but they are certainly the opposite of what the "far right" believe. If Alex Jones is far right then that term has lost all of its meaning.
Alex Jones on civil liberties:
https://www.infowars.com/the-freedom-act-is-worse-than-the-patriot-act/
Alex Jones on Iraq:
https://www.infowars.com/the-horror-of-the-iraq-war-one-hundred-years-from-now/
Alex Jones on Prison-Industrial Complex and police state:
https://www.infowars.com/the-prison-industrial-complex-the-economics-of-incarceration-in-the-usa/
https://www.infowars.com/video-alex-jones-predicted-staged-race-war/ AscherLio ( talk) 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Contrary to some others who have tried to remove this part from the lead, I look at this from a true editor's standpoint. Even if we think he is far-right, there are obviously many people who disagree with the statement. By putting this in the lead like so, we are stating that he is for a FACT far-right. This is biased. Later in the lead, it is clarified that "Jones has described himself as a libertarian and paleoconservative, and has been described by others as conservative, right-wing, alt-right, and a pro-Russia propagandist." This is better, as it tells what others think of him and how he views himself, it is not stating for a fact what he is or is not, since he himself and many others state otherwise. This is not an opinionated issue... Rather, this is an issue of being opinionated. Agree? -- TheFancyFedoraWielder ( talk) 00:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The article currently states: "Following the 2016 Republican National Convention, Jones and Roger Stone began plotting the removal of Ted Cruz from his Senate seat in 2018 via potential challengers Katrina Pierson and Dan Patrick." A reader of this article could easily be misled into believing that Jones is currently involved in "plotting the removal of Ted Cruz from his Senate seat in 2018". This is not the case. I understand that one could interpret this as referring to something he was specifically doing "following the...Convention", but given the next mid-term elections are in 2018, it is my opinion that this is confusing for readers. At best, it provides an incomplete and inaccurate impression of Jones' relationship with Cruz.
On January 23, 2017, Alex Jones heaped praise on Cruz during a video interview. The video appears to be an uncut clip of Jones' entire interaction with Cruz. Given this was conducted by Alex Jones himself, it was published on his own site, Infowars, which is not generally regarded as a reliable source. Due to the esoteric nature of this interview, it was not covered by reliable secondary sources - the only secondary source available appears to be the conservative blog The Right Scoop, which would likely be regarded as similar in reliability to the original Infowars source.
However, given this is a primary video source, I believed it was suitable as a source for clarifying Jones' relationship with Cruz and added it to the article. Admittedly, I could have indicated the sourced was Jones himself (e.g. 'However, in January 2017, Alex Jones himself said, "*insert quote here*"') to satisfy MOS:QUOTE, and I would do so in the future. MjolnirPants ( talk · contribs) and MelbourneStar ( talk · contribs) reverted this edit on the grounds that Infowars is not a reliable source.
WP:IRS says the following with regards to questionable sources: 'Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.' This does not appear to be a contentious claim. The three individuals who reverted my edits did so for different reasons, with the first mistakenly believing I had deleted information from the page, and the other two reverting on the basis that it was not reliably sourced, rather than questioning the claim itself.
'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
The first requirement is met. The purpose of adding this material is to clarify a prior claim for the benefit of the reader. The second requirement is met. The claim is about Alex Jones himself. The third requirement is met, assuming 'subject' is defined as the subject of the claim. This is a primary source for the event addressed in the claim. The fourth requirement is met, given it is a video and there is no evidence of doctoring, nor any motive for Jones to do so with regards to this. The fifth requirement is met, as the sole purpose of using this source is to clarify a prior claim made by another source, and most of the article still consists of reliable sources.
WP:IRS later brings up some more relevant rules: 'Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.' Once again, I do not think this is contentious material, and have not observed any evidence from other editors that they regard it as such. Their problem appears to be with the source itself.
'Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.' This was published by the subject of the biographical material.
As a result of all this, I think there is a strong case for using a questionable self-published primary source in this case in order to avoid the possibility of misleading and confusing the reader.-- Jay942942 ( talk) 13:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I came here after reading some information claiming he denies the Sandy Hook massacre took place.
What I found was an article that is obviously edited by people who have a partisan agenda against him. Citing articles from highly partisan sources like the Daily Beast and Slate made me take EVERYTHING within this article with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Citing articles from highly partisan sources like the Daily Beast and Slate made me take EVERYTHING within this article with a grain of salt.That's a good thing. That makes me happy. Next, start taking everything Jones say, everything Fox News and Breitbart say with a grain of salt. In fact, take everything you hear or read online with a grain of salt. Welcome to skepticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The least you can do is out the whole picture out there instead of covering half of it up. It makes you the writer look inept. BenScheidegger ( talk) 04:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
73.15.47.45 (
talk)
02:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/connecticut-nbcmegyn-kelly-alex-jones-interview-1202469317/.
Here is an update WVIT is not airing the Megyn Kelly/Alex Jones interview due to the Sandy Hook conspiracies Alex Jones and his fan base has been accused of ranting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:934 ( talk) 00:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kevin005 ( talk) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Megan Kelly Interviewed him in 2017 it was a bad idea. 75.121.60.198 ( talk) 01:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://alexjonespodcast.com for external links -- Henkri ( talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alex Jones (radio host). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-alex-jones-custody-press-conference-live/
“I want to respond to grossly inaccurate media reports that I lost custody of my children. My ex-wife and I agreed 2 years ago at the time of our divorce to be joint-managing conservators of our 3 awesome children. My ex-wife went to trial asking for her to become the sole managing conservator of our kids and limit me to supervised access. The jury resoundingly rejected her request for sole custody and left us at the same place where we began this horrible journey. The jury agreed we should remain as joint-managing conservators with the only change being who can designate the primary residence – effectively a change of 10 miles. As only the judge in a trial can decide what amount of time each parent will have with their children, I am confident that the Judge will carefully consider the various schedules that have been put in place in the last two years and will give each of us the time that is appropriate. I have throughout this ordeal deferred to the experts and this Court to determine the kids’ schedule with due regard to their own wishes. I have and will continue to place my trust in the Court to continue to do what is in their best interest.” Benallen123 ( talk) 18:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is the definition from far right: Some aspects of fascist ideology have been identified with right wing political parties; in particular, the fascist idea that by superior persons should dominate society while undesirable elements should be purged, which in the case of Nazism resulted in genocide.[9] Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform in London, has distinguished between right-wing nationalist parties which are often described as "far-right", such as the National Front in France, and fascism.[4]
Far-right politics include but are not limited to aspects of authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism.[10] Claims that superior people should have greater rights than inferior people are sometimes associated with the far right.[11] The far right has historically favoured an elitist society based on its belief in the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses.[12] However, right-wing populist ideologies which are described by some commentators as "far-right" often use appeals to the "common man" as opposed to the appeals of the elites.[3] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[13] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.[14]
If you have ever listened to Jones, he is clearly anti-establishment and extremely anti-authoritarianism. This negates the authoritarian and elitist suggestions. Furthermore, Jones, just about daily, says something along the lines of "no race or person is superior" and that "global elites want races and parties to be divided so they can conquer us," etc., which eliminates the separatist/segregation/racist/fascist argument. The burden of proof is shown on infowars, looking at "about alex jones show" (which is a reflection of himself and his character) at https://www.infowars.com/about-alex-jones-show/ Key quotes from this source: "SEEKING THE TRUTH AND EXPOSING THE SCIENTIFICALLY ENGINEERED LIES OF THE GLOBALISTS AND THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL OF ENSLAVING HUMANITY." "Jones is dedicated to libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, in addition to what he has coined "1776 worldwide" - promoting a true culture of liberty, transparency and freedom on a planetary scale to empower humanity, while vehemently opposing Agenda 21 and the globalist threat to national sovereignty." "Jones passionately argues against foreign entanglements and wars for the sake of corporate and banking interests. Jones avoids the bogus political labels of "left and right" and instead focuses on what really matters — what's right and wrong"
Request to remove "far right" and replace with "libertarian." I would even be willing to bargain and say he is a "conservative conspiracy theorist." However, "far right" is extremely inappropriate given his beliefs that directly contradict what Wikipedia defines "far right" as. Furthermore, Jones is more focused on the up/down (authoritarian vs libertarian) rather than left/right, and I think the opening sentence should summarize that. I think leaving it as is would make it misleading to wikipedians who know little about Jones and may make them assume he is a racist/nazi, and cause him to automatically be grouped with other far righters who are appropriately categorized.
I understand that this article has been heavily politicized. However, we cannot ignore the truth and the truth is that Alex Jones is NOT far-right on any level. Just because a few news outlets falsely characterized him as far-right for one story about globalism (which is, again, by definition the opposite of far right) does not make it far right.
Thank you for your time, Respectfully Aglo123 ( talk) 02:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
authoritarianism=No (lets be generous and ignore his support for Donny)
anti-communism=Yes
nativism=Possible, he certainly does seem to rant a lot about other races.
favouring an elitist society= Hard to say, as it all depends on what you mean by an elite. Certainly he seems to favour Donny (a member of an elite if ever there was one, in fact bending over backwards to justify him).
anti-immigration=Yes
anti-integrationlly, bit hard to tell given the rants about Yogart makers and general anti-immigration material. But yes, he does seem to have issues with "the other".
So on balance he seems to either explicitly or to some degree support polices that can be seen as far right. Slatersteven ( talk) 23:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Why is wikipedia submitting to this sort of smear? Far right based on the opinion of two random journalists. I thought this was supposed to be an unbiased site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:4044:D4E9:2466:CF34 ( talk) 09:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alex's middle name is misspelled. It should be "Emric" 76.191.67.59 ( talk) 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to retain the line about Jones' sales promotions in the article lead. I believe Jones' salesmanship is vital to understanding his work. I have added credible citation. I would like expand the article in the next few days with a small section on his website sales and sales figures. WarpSpeedRainbowRead ( talk) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Have noted Buzzfeed/Labdoor's report on Alex Jones' supplements. This is obviously a contentious page, so I wanted to run it by other editors before making any significant changes - - - do we want to add anything to the article about these vitamin supplements which are claimed to play a major part in sustaining Jones' business model? I couldn't quickly find anything about the matter on the page. I have noted the discussion above, but it does seem curious that there should be no mention of vitamins (I see some mention of products), when they are all over the website, and Jones himself often promotes them verbally. Given that these and his other products are directly related to his pet theories (such anti-fluoridation water filters) and guests (see Edward Group, GQ below), does this warrant its own section, given that according to Der Spiegel two-thirds of Infowars' funding derives from such sales? A few links for anyone who's interested:
San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/local/article/SF-lab-finds-out-what-s-actually-in-Alex-Jones-11748954.php
Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-visit-to-the-infowars-studios-of-alex-jones-a-1136654.html
GQ: https://www.gq.com/story/john-oliver-alex-jones-owned
Salon: http://www.salon.com/2017/08/10/alex-jones-infowars-supplements/
Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/john-oliver-alex-jones-last-week-tonight-infowars-644240
Infowars has also responded:
https://www.infowars.com/fail-buzzfeed-attack-on-infowars-blows-up-in-their-face/
Any thoughts? Cpaaoi ( talk) 22:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
How would something like this sound (haven't bothered to format the links yet):
A 2017 piece for German magazine Der Spiegel by Veit Medick indicated that two-thirds of Jones' funds derive from sales of a successful range of his own products. These products are marketed through the Infowars website and through advertising spots on Jones' show. They include dietary supplements, toothpaste, bulletproof vests and "brain pills", according to Medick, amid a wide range appealing to "anyone who believes Armageddon is near". [1]
In August 2017, Californian medical company Labdoor, Inc reported on tests applied to six of Jones' dietary supplement products. These included a product named 'Survival Shield', which was found by Labdoor to contain only iodine, and a product named Oxy-Powder, which comprised a compound of magnesium oxide and citric acid; common ingredients in dietary supplements. Labdoor indicated no evidence of prohibited or harmful substances, but cast doubt on Infowars' marketing claims for these products, and asserted that the quantity of the ingredients in certain products would be "too low to be appropriately effective". [2] [3] [4] Cpaaoi ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is clearly no particular objection to this curious omission of what appears to be Jones' central activity; so in it goes! Cpaaoi ( talk) 14:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean to labor this point, and, again, I would have just gone right ahead and done it myself, but there is obviously a lot of debate over this page, so I ask here: Jones is described here as a "radio show host, filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist". Would it be appropriate to note in this list that he is a businessman, given that his mail-order business appears to be the principal way in which he feeds himself and his family? Cpaaoi ( talk) 14:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.806924 AHC300 ( talk) 06:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Haaretz is most certainly a reliable source - for this as well. However, I agree that for this to be added we'd need more than just one source stating it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)