![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I have nothing against her, but what is the reason that her opinon of AJ is in the article about AJ? She isn't some famous scientist. Again I don't have a problem with her, but I don't see her as a some magic source of truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.171.1 ( talk) 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Because this is Wikipedia. AKA a joke.
Agreed this statement is not important.
12.129.136.5 (
talk)
04:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
He's known for supporting Conspiracy theories. If some of them were accurate, that wouldn't effect anything. He's not known for supporting civil rights. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that 'Civil Rights' is not a very good tag. His line is far more about a particular interpretation of the constitution, and some Libertarian ideals, which includes supporting and defending many rights, but that's not quite the same as being a civil rights activist in my opinion. When people talk of civil rights, I tend to think more of equality for all races and genders, which Jones supports, but he seems to concentrate more on free speech, gun rights, and freedom from government intrusion, where some of his opinions will be at odds with many classic civil rights campaigners who want guns banned, like government intrusion in many areas, and like free speech only up to a certain point. Terrorlistforlife ( talk) 06:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why the use of the beating around the bush type language in reference to his conspiracy theories. The phrase "Mainstream news sources has referred to Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist" is puzzling to me, as he has a veritable galaxy of THEORIES about CONSPIRACIES in virtually every facet of society and life in general! Is it considered opinionated or accusatory to simply say, "He is a dedicated conspiracy theorist"? I understand that most conspiracy theorists dislike the term, presumably due to the negative connotation and connotations of insanity that goes along with such a label. However, the fact remains that he theorizes about various conspiracies. It appears the phrase "Mainstream news sources has referred to" is unnecessary and shows weakness on the part of Wikipedia to do the very thing that an information resource is designed to do: present information as clearly, error-free, and unbiased as possible. I checked Rush Limbaugh's page, and it refers to him as a "conservative political commentator." No mention of "He is commonly thought to be..." or "Some people think of him as a...". No, it calls him what he is. Why should Alex Jones receive special treatment? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are... 70.134.74.15 ( talk) 07:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the phrase "Mainstream news sources have referred to..." remains. A very misleading phrase that needs to be removed. It's a stain on the article. 70.134.97.106 ( talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I would fix it myself if the article wasn't locked. It's absurd. In one paragraph, the article notes that mainstream news sources have referred to Jones as a "right-winger", "conservative" and a "conspiracy theorist." In the next, the article states what Jones calls himself. He "self-admits" that he believes that there is a global conspiracy taking place to establish a "New World Order" where 80% of the population will be wiped out and a one-world government will be put in place. At the center of this...uh, conspiracy, is Barack Obama and the United Nations, who are working in tandem to accomplish this, in no small part to using the swine flu vaccine as a scare tactic that is really designed for eugenic purposes to assist in the mass murder of the Earth's population. Even with all this, the phrase "...have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist" remains. Just because he doesn't like the phrase "conspiracy theorist" doesn't mean that it makes the article inaccurate to label him as such. The current phrasing is asinine and shows a clear bias. Don'tDrinkTheKoolAid ( talk) 08:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it a conspiracy for the mainstream media to refer to Jones as a conspiracy theorist? Part of a very nasty mudslinging campaign? Jones describes himself as one who "only talks about what he can prove". If anyone spends time listening to him, 90% of his show is him reading mainstream articles on air (the other 10% is commercials). It would violate POV to "declare" that he is a conspiracy theorist when he clearly isn't. Mainstream media, his competition, is not/(can not be) an authority on him.
Actually, I have a big problem with the term "mainstream". Can someone define mainstream media for me? Or for that matter can anyone point me to a reputable source that lists which media outlets that are mainstream? The mainstream sources cited in this article--with the possible exception of the WSJ--can hardly be considered "mainstream" by any common idea of the term. Besides the common idea of the term, which is nearly impossible to define, the term itself is meaningless, vague, and charged, and shouldn't appear in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about precision, information, and reliability. 72.93.193.22 ( talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Alex Jones has repeatedly peddled antisemitic conspiracies about the "New World Order" often siting prominent Jewish business men as a shadow elite controlling world events. I think a good amount of what Alex Jones says can fall under the category of antisemitic, as you may know Jews have been persecuted through history and I think antisemitism has no place in todays society.-- Davidzim ( talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever listened to him? He never denigrates Jewish people, he mentions over and over that he has no problem with Jewish people, because people constantly make this accusation against him. He does have some problems with elements of Zionism, and the actions of the state of Israel. Are you a subscriber to the "New Anti-Semitism" school? Alex has on guests regularly from groups like "Jews for Gun Rights" and other Jewish groups. In your comment you mention "prominent Jewish business men", I assume you mean Rothschilds? If you'd actually listened to him, you'd know this again is an area he makes pains to say it's not a Jewish conspiracy, a few of the top people in his theory do happen to be Jewish, but many others are Christian, or non-religious. In his view it's not their religion/race that defines them, it's their actions (You shall know them by their fruit). Terrorlistforlife ( talk) 06:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am a near daily listener to Alex Jones, and while I do not agree with the majority of what he says, i do find him entertaining and interesting. I dont believe 9/11 was an inside job etc etc. And while Alex may say some "controversial" claims i have NEVER heard him say anything anti-semetic in the least. Some callers have brought up the global zionist stuff but Alex has never said anything bad about people who are Jewish as a whole. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Iscream22 (
talk •
contribs)
17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a lot of the criticism he gets about being antisemitic have to do with his comments on the government of Israel as well. I would like to point out that while I do find him to be inflammatory, I cannot in good faith support the idea that his statements represent antisemitism anymore than a persons stated dislike of Normal Rockwell represent a dislike of small town America.
24.188.207.20 (
talk)
23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"Alex Jones is a zionist shill" - Jeff Rense
He has never shown anti-semitic bias. Accusing unpopular/controversial figures of racial or other bias is a common scare tactic to discredit them. Stating that the Israeli government is corrupt and part of a global conspiracy along with America's government is (political) criticism of a government and has nothing to do with race. Whether or not you agree with Alex Jones' views, for the sake of argument if he is even partly right about controlled & subservient mainstream media, don't baseless accusations like the ones on this page neatly fit his theory that independent media figures are attacked at all costs? Sursurrus ( talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If you listen to the interview its clear that they just call him a journalist because he's useful to them as an American who was willing to come on the show and badmouth America during the South Ossetia war. It isn't a news story about Alex Jones. What are they going to do, introduce him as a conspiracy theorist? Its not a reliable or neutral source. 71.182.211.157 ( talk) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.191.205 ( talk) 05:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't he in Slacker? AusJeb ( talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No, Alex Jones was not in the film Slacker. He was in Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
having looked at his I really can't see it's relevance. Does this article really need a list of some of a no doubt a small number, of appearance Jones has made in the "media? He is after all a media entertainer; this is something he does every day.
I really can't see how this is justified. However, I thought i would add this for discussion before doing anything with it. The7thdr ( talk) 09:13,1 March 2009 (UTc)
Actually, reconsidering I have checked the articles for those media people that he share common interests with: William Cooper and David Icke Their articles, rightly, do not contain sections like this. This confirms my initial thoughts that this section is clearly unnecessary. Featuring, as himself in A Scanner Darkly, is noteworthy of course, but is already included in the article. On this basis I will remove media appearances section. Please discuss here if you think that this section is warranted and should be reinserted in some form. The7thdr ( talk) 09:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What are his religious beliefs, and how do they affect his agenda? Lily20 ( talk) 17:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...Im pretty sure hes not a Discordian if that's what you're saying. That was a serious question, btw. Does anyone know the answer? Lily20 ( talk) 17:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
He describes himself as protestant christian. As for how that affects his agenda, well, we can't really say within the article without a good source as that would be original research. A place to get a quote about that may well be Jon Ronsons book. It makes him think that things like the Grove rituals are satanic, whereas someone more mainstream/rational like Ronson just thinks it's immature behavior of the wealthy and powerful blowing off steam. Agent4200 ( talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks! Lily20 ( talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This article gives some idea on his religious position www.infowarscom/movie-review-avatar-and-paganism/ unreliable fringe source? -- 24.43.71.37 ( talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Endgame the movie has been deleted by a wikipedia admin. - It is a movie, it exists, it deserves a page. Not providing a page actually PROVES his points about control over free speech, and media control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khilkoff ( talk • contribs) 23:46, September 26, 2009
Yep, I saw that the Endgame page is up now. Thanks for putting it on wikipedia. Now if only we can properly expand the Alex Jones wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know what similarities Alex Jones has with the John Birch Society's ideas. Can anything be dug up? I haven't found anything much. Max Blumenthal compares today's far right to the John Birch Society of Eisenhower's day. He lumps Alex Jones in with today's far right. That's about as close as I've come. It's important to compare Alex Jones ideas to ideas of the past. Here's an interesting quote I put in the lede from a New Republic article: "Nevertheless, Jones’s roots are very much on the far right. He represents an old strain of American conservatism--isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies--that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday." Anyone with sources that provide more insight? Varks Spira ( talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
One very prominent item is his opposition to flouridation of water. That was a huge issue with the JBS 40+ years ago.
Radio Sharon ( talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a "views of Alex Jones" article? There doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of his own assertions in this article. For example, I'm listening to his 12 Oct 09 program, and he asserts that he is on "government hit lists": I seriously think that including that in his article would bring some "balance" to his article... as right now, this doesn't go into enough detail about his crazy views. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother trying to add criticisms or anything that puts alex in an unfavorable light to this article.. they will never stay.. they will just be reverted over and over using the excuse of BLP (no matter how well sourced or documented). I mean there was like 5 video's from different angles of his little screaming fit against tiny michelle malkin where people were screaming kill michelle malkin and hes yelling to people dont let her go... but as you can see. all vanished from the article.. this is one of those "special" articles that needs to be locked and have only a small group of people neutral to alex jones be allowed to edit it. The guy says were all gonna be locked up in amtrak concentration camps equipped with gas chambers..and he makes tons off selling fear to somewhat unstable people. With all the products advertised on prison planet being stuff like gold bullion, stocked food containers for the coming apoocolypse, red light evader license plates, water purifying equipment... or whatever..He even used to list on his advertising page that you good buy ads disguised as news articles (so people are tricked into clicking on them).. This article does not go anywhere near enough into extreme "views" or propoganda or advertising or whatever you would like to call it. The sad thing is.. it never will. Im suprised this section has even stayed up on the talk page this long without somoeone crying BLP and deleting it all.. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does wikipedia always include completely biased views from leftist journalists in initial articles on conservatives? It's really annoying, why don't we see it written on for example, obamaramas article, "Rush Limbaugh has described obama as the communist negro anti-christ" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.186.173 ( talk) 14:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I just don't get how Michelle <!portion reducted per WP:BLP>berg's(or whatever her name was)is relevant in any sense. Is there anyway to precisely measure "real world consensus" by the way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.186.173 ( talk • contribs) 14:30, October 27, 2009
Doesn't Alex Jones own/run several websites? I don't see any mention of these (although I may not have looked closely enough). -- 95.34.3.54 ( talk) 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} please add 'citation neeeded' tag next to this sentence: The most frequent guests of the program include Jones' own staffers, producers, advertisers and the writers or publishers of books and videos which Jones sells at his web sites. thanks. 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Under 'Media > The Alex Jones Show' there is a list of guests, one of them is "Muse frontman Matthew Bellamy." The Muse link should point to Muse_(band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.166.80 ( talk) 02:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
he reported that american police force in montana had a serbian crest. www.infowarscom/investigation-could-sink-american-police-force/ unreliable fringe source? 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There's currently two references ( 4 & 7 in this version) which are supposed to be linking to a San Jose Mercury News article but are actually linking to a Google News search. I presume this is because the article is no longer available at least without paying but the search doesn't even find the article anymore. I did find the article via this search [5] which confirms it's not available. However using a Google search, which only shows a snippet isn't good practice and unless we can find an archive this probably should be removed. I presume the reason this article is used is because it's from the same paper and so intended to show that even some papers can't make up their mind. The problem is this probably isn't a particularly accurate reading of the situation, in fact the search we use does find some existing/working refs like [6] & [7] which show this is very likely an AP story (the text we can see looks the same) so the San Joes Mercury News article was probably just repeating what the AP story said. I suggest that the Google News search refs be replaced by one of these refs (and that ref archived) Nil Einne ( talk) 14:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Im not sure how this works but are we sure the image is properly licensed and not just taken from some page? I noticed the user who uploaded it is now indefinatly blocked from editing. Which makes me concerned wether or not the image license is valid.. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 15:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I am the user who uploaded the image, also note I have been allowed to return to to editing. The image is acceptable for wikipedia. I have changed the main photo back to the file I uploaded, it is a better portrait, the old photo is totally horrible and has outlived its time on the page.-- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note that this photo [11] you can barely make out Alex Jones' face due to lighting and it is from a off angle, and he has a sun frown. In the photo [12] the photo is frontal with much better lighting not to mention you can see his features with a semi smile. Others opinions on this matter are much welcomed.-- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that the image File:Alex Jones thumbs up.jpg is of lesser quality than the previous one, File:AlexJonesBB2007.jpg, both with regard to effective resolution and with regard to color. For me, the quality of File:Alex Jones thumbs up.jpg raises BLP concerns, because it may appear to be deliberately distorted. (Note that I do not think the author of the image actually has deliberately distorted it.) I'd recommend to restore the previous image. Cs32en Talk to me 09:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
For crying out loud use this: http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/bio/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.241.109 ( talk) 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Infowars and PrisonPlanet are similar but different sites both officially controlled by Jones. To say that "one is enough" without group consensus is unsupported. There's no good reason not to list both here. See WP:ELOFFICIAL for guidelines. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 03:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I like all of the Alex Jones' documentaries but the lack of a criticism section, makes me feel like I'm on the pages of "Gandhi" or "Mother Teresa", both persons with BIG personality flaws(racism and hypocrisy) but lacking of criticism, "because they are saints, they are perfect! they had flawless souls", etc. If we have to be fair, I would like to see other POV's, from people who disagree with Alex Jones, or his ideas. So don't dismiss all criticism, an article without criticism, it's, by definition a dogmatic article, a religious establishment.-- 201.247.28.7 ( talk) 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would think his style would be one area of criticism he shouts far too much, although I have no sources to back up my claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.107.228 ( talk) 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Certain articles are exempt from criticism. See for example Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions. ― cobaltcigs 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Who ever maintains this page needs to add How Weed Won The West to his filmography. Really good film. 174.59.63.144 ( talk) 00:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Two facts are referenced only to a radio station or show, with a date but no time. For a fact to be verifiable, it needs to be cited in such a way that someone questioning that fact can find the source of it. This is not the case for the following references:
^ Jones, Alex. Coast to Coast AM. January 27, 2007. ^ Jones, Alex. The Alex Jones Radio Show. February 6, 2006.
Wwallacee ( talk) 12:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Add Alex Jones (radio host) is an occasional "expert" on RT (TV network) (formerly known as Russia Today). 99.155.145.227 ( talk) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Angry in America: Inside Alex Jones' World Cs32en Talk to me 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read this article a few times over now, and I have to say that it is one of the worst articles I've seen on wikipedia. Alex Jones is primarily known for being a conspiracy theorist,
and yet it gives exactly zero information on the long list of nonstandard views that Alex Jones holds, even though that's what his radio show and almost all of his websites are dedicated to. Conspiracies that he has voiced support for which come to mind almost immediately include: 9/11 being an inside job, water fluoridation being a sterilization technique, rejection of the widespread scientific consensus on global warming, chem trails, government mind control, and many more.
I honestly have a hard time believing that an article about a man who believes that environmentalist, socialist dictators have taken over the planet with the long term goal of wiping out a significant portion of the global population could have been written in good faith when it makes absolutely no mention of that fact. The only explanation that I can think of is that this article is attempting to make Alex Jones appear more mainstream than he actually is. That said, this article needs to be reworked.
I'm a relative novice at editing wikipedia, having only done minor fact checking and grammatical editing on a handful of articles, but I believe I'm up to the task. What I do need, however, are *written* sources espousing the wide variety of nonstandard views that Alex Jones supports on his show; in particular ones whose authorship are attributed to Alex Jones himself. His websites all speak on these topics quite readily and are all used as sources on his own show (using yourself as a news source is awful convenient),
but I would prefer to avoid the debate about whether or not the opinions on his website can be reasonably called his own opinion, when the authorship is left blank.
Anybody else willing to lend a hand?
Yeahchris ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC).
I tried awhile back to add accurate sourced information on alex jones. nothing about his conspiracy theories or the fact that for instance the guy thinks amtrak stations are wired up as gas chambers to exterminate the populace after martial law is declared..or that amtrak depots are secret govt prisons built to keep people in not out.. will ever appear in the in this article no matter how you sugar coat it to come accross as bland and NPOV as possible. biased editors will change it and certain admins will immediatly suspend you no matter how well sourced it is due to "BLP".. I have seen video that clearly shows things be removed.. He could write a letter, sign it in front of the president and vice president, and the pope as witnesses explaining his views. and it will be a POV source, violation of BLP and deleted.. you want to talk about conspiracies lol.. now thats a conspiracy for you. Ive long gave up on this article.. and thats sad that is the case. so I focus on the million other articles I edit.. cause there is no point editing this one - Tracer9999 ( talk) 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with TheHerbalGerbil. Beyond a basic bio and simple background this article would turn into a something akin to one of the subjects websites, a broadcasting point for his theroies. J. ORLY? ( talk) 00:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I just removed an insertion of this claim into the article. Firstly, if such information is relevant, then it needs to be put in context to show that it is relevant. To avoid WP:SYNTH that had best be done by quoting someone pointing to this would-be fact and asserting that it is a problem. For possible reliable sources attesting to Khashoggi owning Genesis Communication Network such may possibly be found at The Unhive Mind II (a forum board). __ meco ( talk) 09:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
To quote the article, "Alex Jones is also the operator of several web sites centered on news and information about civil liberties issues, global government, and a wide variety of current events topics. Several of these sites are www.infowars.com, www.prisonplanet.tv, www.prisonplanet.com, and www.jonesreport.com."
Is it really necessary to post these websites anywhere on the article other than the External links? I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate. 72.240.82.155 ( talk) 19:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a new informative section regarding controversies against alex jones, in NPOV manner "Controversy Many individuals have tried to brandish Alex Jones as a...."
How do i include date in signature???/? Kruger1191 ( talk)
This is the most pathetic article I've ever seen on Wikipedia...and that says a lot. Did someone pay you to write this trash? Is it acceptable that the person with the "permission" to write and edit this article is someone obviously highly critical of Mr.Jones? i —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.127.144.103 ( talk) 12:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please change the political affiliation from "Republican" to "conservative". Anyone who does any empirical research into this man knows that he cannot be affiliated with a political party or any establishment for that matter. It is a mischaracterization to label Jones as a "Republican".
98.226.151.117 ( talk) 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Partly done: Given that I cannot find a single reliable source calling him a Republican (some call him conservative, some call him libertarian, others call him names that can't be used without violating
WP:BLP), I've removed it. Since that line in the infobox is only for a party affiliation, I can't put conservative in. If Jones is shown in a reliable source to be a registered member of any particular party, we can add/re-add with a reliable source.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
06:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Per the Austin American-Statesman:
Nine to seek Greenberg's House seat
BYLINE: Scott S. Greenberger
DATE: January 4, 2000
PUBLICATION: Austin American-Statesman (TX)
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Metro/State
PAGE: B1
Greenberg's departure after five terms in the Texas House has attracted two Democrats and seven Republicans, including a college student and a well-known public access TV personality.
The GOP race to succeed Greenberg has seven contenders: * Documentary filmmaker and public access TV show host Alex Jones, 25, known locally for his diatribes against creeping federal control, says he's running ``to be a watchdog on the inside."
He has run as a candidate for public office, and in doing so he filed paper work that proclaimed himself to be a member of a political party, specifically the Republican party, therefore we have are reliable source for his political party. Brimba ( talk) 14:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
same as above, to quote " The GOP race to succeed Greenberg has seven contenders: * Documentary filmmaker and public access TV show host Alex Jones, 25, known locally for his diatribes against creeping federal control, says he's running ``to be a watchdog on the inside." " Also please see WP:PAYWALL Brimba ( talk) 14:42, 5 February 2011 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I have nothing against her, but what is the reason that her opinon of AJ is in the article about AJ? She isn't some famous scientist. Again I don't have a problem with her, but I don't see her as a some magic source of truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.171.1 ( talk) 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Because this is Wikipedia. AKA a joke.
Agreed this statement is not important.
12.129.136.5 (
talk)
04:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
He's known for supporting Conspiracy theories. If some of them were accurate, that wouldn't effect anything. He's not known for supporting civil rights. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that 'Civil Rights' is not a very good tag. His line is far more about a particular interpretation of the constitution, and some Libertarian ideals, which includes supporting and defending many rights, but that's not quite the same as being a civil rights activist in my opinion. When people talk of civil rights, I tend to think more of equality for all races and genders, which Jones supports, but he seems to concentrate more on free speech, gun rights, and freedom from government intrusion, where some of his opinions will be at odds with many classic civil rights campaigners who want guns banned, like government intrusion in many areas, and like free speech only up to a certain point. Terrorlistforlife ( talk) 06:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why the use of the beating around the bush type language in reference to his conspiracy theories. The phrase "Mainstream news sources has referred to Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist" is puzzling to me, as he has a veritable galaxy of THEORIES about CONSPIRACIES in virtually every facet of society and life in general! Is it considered opinionated or accusatory to simply say, "He is a dedicated conspiracy theorist"? I understand that most conspiracy theorists dislike the term, presumably due to the negative connotation and connotations of insanity that goes along with such a label. However, the fact remains that he theorizes about various conspiracies. It appears the phrase "Mainstream news sources has referred to" is unnecessary and shows weakness on the part of Wikipedia to do the very thing that an information resource is designed to do: present information as clearly, error-free, and unbiased as possible. I checked Rush Limbaugh's page, and it refers to him as a "conservative political commentator." No mention of "He is commonly thought to be..." or "Some people think of him as a...". No, it calls him what he is. Why should Alex Jones receive special treatment? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are... 70.134.74.15 ( talk) 07:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the phrase "Mainstream news sources have referred to..." remains. A very misleading phrase that needs to be removed. It's a stain on the article. 70.134.97.106 ( talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I would fix it myself if the article wasn't locked. It's absurd. In one paragraph, the article notes that mainstream news sources have referred to Jones as a "right-winger", "conservative" and a "conspiracy theorist." In the next, the article states what Jones calls himself. He "self-admits" that he believes that there is a global conspiracy taking place to establish a "New World Order" where 80% of the population will be wiped out and a one-world government will be put in place. At the center of this...uh, conspiracy, is Barack Obama and the United Nations, who are working in tandem to accomplish this, in no small part to using the swine flu vaccine as a scare tactic that is really designed for eugenic purposes to assist in the mass murder of the Earth's population. Even with all this, the phrase "...have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist" remains. Just because he doesn't like the phrase "conspiracy theorist" doesn't mean that it makes the article inaccurate to label him as such. The current phrasing is asinine and shows a clear bias. Don'tDrinkTheKoolAid ( talk) 08:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it a conspiracy for the mainstream media to refer to Jones as a conspiracy theorist? Part of a very nasty mudslinging campaign? Jones describes himself as one who "only talks about what he can prove". If anyone spends time listening to him, 90% of his show is him reading mainstream articles on air (the other 10% is commercials). It would violate POV to "declare" that he is a conspiracy theorist when he clearly isn't. Mainstream media, his competition, is not/(can not be) an authority on him.
Actually, I have a big problem with the term "mainstream". Can someone define mainstream media for me? Or for that matter can anyone point me to a reputable source that lists which media outlets that are mainstream? The mainstream sources cited in this article--with the possible exception of the WSJ--can hardly be considered "mainstream" by any common idea of the term. Besides the common idea of the term, which is nearly impossible to define, the term itself is meaningless, vague, and charged, and shouldn't appear in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about precision, information, and reliability. 72.93.193.22 ( talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Alex Jones has repeatedly peddled antisemitic conspiracies about the "New World Order" often siting prominent Jewish business men as a shadow elite controlling world events. I think a good amount of what Alex Jones says can fall under the category of antisemitic, as you may know Jews have been persecuted through history and I think antisemitism has no place in todays society.-- Davidzim ( talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever listened to him? He never denigrates Jewish people, he mentions over and over that he has no problem with Jewish people, because people constantly make this accusation against him. He does have some problems with elements of Zionism, and the actions of the state of Israel. Are you a subscriber to the "New Anti-Semitism" school? Alex has on guests regularly from groups like "Jews for Gun Rights" and other Jewish groups. In your comment you mention "prominent Jewish business men", I assume you mean Rothschilds? If you'd actually listened to him, you'd know this again is an area he makes pains to say it's not a Jewish conspiracy, a few of the top people in his theory do happen to be Jewish, but many others are Christian, or non-religious. In his view it's not their religion/race that defines them, it's their actions (You shall know them by their fruit). Terrorlistforlife ( talk) 06:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I am a near daily listener to Alex Jones, and while I do not agree with the majority of what he says, i do find him entertaining and interesting. I dont believe 9/11 was an inside job etc etc. And while Alex may say some "controversial" claims i have NEVER heard him say anything anti-semetic in the least. Some callers have brought up the global zionist stuff but Alex has never said anything bad about people who are Jewish as a whole. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Iscream22 (
talk •
contribs)
17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a lot of the criticism he gets about being antisemitic have to do with his comments on the government of Israel as well. I would like to point out that while I do find him to be inflammatory, I cannot in good faith support the idea that his statements represent antisemitism anymore than a persons stated dislike of Normal Rockwell represent a dislike of small town America.
24.188.207.20 (
talk)
23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"Alex Jones is a zionist shill" - Jeff Rense
He has never shown anti-semitic bias. Accusing unpopular/controversial figures of racial or other bias is a common scare tactic to discredit them. Stating that the Israeli government is corrupt and part of a global conspiracy along with America's government is (political) criticism of a government and has nothing to do with race. Whether or not you agree with Alex Jones' views, for the sake of argument if he is even partly right about controlled & subservient mainstream media, don't baseless accusations like the ones on this page neatly fit his theory that independent media figures are attacked at all costs? Sursurrus ( talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If you listen to the interview its clear that they just call him a journalist because he's useful to them as an American who was willing to come on the show and badmouth America during the South Ossetia war. It isn't a news story about Alex Jones. What are they going to do, introduce him as a conspiracy theorist? Its not a reliable or neutral source. 71.182.211.157 ( talk) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.191.205 ( talk) 05:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't he in Slacker? AusJeb ( talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No, Alex Jones was not in the film Slacker. He was in Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
having looked at his I really can't see it's relevance. Does this article really need a list of some of a no doubt a small number, of appearance Jones has made in the "media? He is after all a media entertainer; this is something he does every day.
I really can't see how this is justified. However, I thought i would add this for discussion before doing anything with it. The7thdr ( talk) 09:13,1 March 2009 (UTc)
Actually, reconsidering I have checked the articles for those media people that he share common interests with: William Cooper and David Icke Their articles, rightly, do not contain sections like this. This confirms my initial thoughts that this section is clearly unnecessary. Featuring, as himself in A Scanner Darkly, is noteworthy of course, but is already included in the article. On this basis I will remove media appearances section. Please discuss here if you think that this section is warranted and should be reinserted in some form. The7thdr ( talk) 09:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What are his religious beliefs, and how do they affect his agenda? Lily20 ( talk) 17:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...Im pretty sure hes not a Discordian if that's what you're saying. That was a serious question, btw. Does anyone know the answer? Lily20 ( talk) 17:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
He describes himself as protestant christian. As for how that affects his agenda, well, we can't really say within the article without a good source as that would be original research. A place to get a quote about that may well be Jon Ronsons book. It makes him think that things like the Grove rituals are satanic, whereas someone more mainstream/rational like Ronson just thinks it's immature behavior of the wealthy and powerful blowing off steam. Agent4200 ( talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks! Lily20 ( talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This article gives some idea on his religious position www.infowarscom/movie-review-avatar-and-paganism/ unreliable fringe source? -- 24.43.71.37 ( talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Endgame the movie has been deleted by a wikipedia admin. - It is a movie, it exists, it deserves a page. Not providing a page actually PROVES his points about control over free speech, and media control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khilkoff ( talk • contribs) 23:46, September 26, 2009
Yep, I saw that the Endgame page is up now. Thanks for putting it on wikipedia. Now if only we can properly expand the Alex Jones wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know what similarities Alex Jones has with the John Birch Society's ideas. Can anything be dug up? I haven't found anything much. Max Blumenthal compares today's far right to the John Birch Society of Eisenhower's day. He lumps Alex Jones in with today's far right. That's about as close as I've come. It's important to compare Alex Jones ideas to ideas of the past. Here's an interesting quote I put in the lede from a New Republic article: "Nevertheless, Jones’s roots are very much on the far right. He represents an old strain of American conservatism--isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies--that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday." Anyone with sources that provide more insight? Varks Spira ( talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
One very prominent item is his opposition to flouridation of water. That was a huge issue with the JBS 40+ years ago.
Radio Sharon ( talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a "views of Alex Jones" article? There doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of his own assertions in this article. For example, I'm listening to his 12 Oct 09 program, and he asserts that he is on "government hit lists": I seriously think that including that in his article would bring some "balance" to his article... as right now, this doesn't go into enough detail about his crazy views. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother trying to add criticisms or anything that puts alex in an unfavorable light to this article.. they will never stay.. they will just be reverted over and over using the excuse of BLP (no matter how well sourced or documented). I mean there was like 5 video's from different angles of his little screaming fit against tiny michelle malkin where people were screaming kill michelle malkin and hes yelling to people dont let her go... but as you can see. all vanished from the article.. this is one of those "special" articles that needs to be locked and have only a small group of people neutral to alex jones be allowed to edit it. The guy says were all gonna be locked up in amtrak concentration camps equipped with gas chambers..and he makes tons off selling fear to somewhat unstable people. With all the products advertised on prison planet being stuff like gold bullion, stocked food containers for the coming apoocolypse, red light evader license plates, water purifying equipment... or whatever..He even used to list on his advertising page that you good buy ads disguised as news articles (so people are tricked into clicking on them).. This article does not go anywhere near enough into extreme "views" or propoganda or advertising or whatever you would like to call it. The sad thing is.. it never will. Im suprised this section has even stayed up on the talk page this long without somoeone crying BLP and deleting it all.. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does wikipedia always include completely biased views from leftist journalists in initial articles on conservatives? It's really annoying, why don't we see it written on for example, obamaramas article, "Rush Limbaugh has described obama as the communist negro anti-christ" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.186.173 ( talk) 14:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I just don't get how Michelle <!portion reducted per WP:BLP>berg's(or whatever her name was)is relevant in any sense. Is there anyway to precisely measure "real world consensus" by the way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.186.173 ( talk • contribs) 14:30, October 27, 2009
Doesn't Alex Jones own/run several websites? I don't see any mention of these (although I may not have looked closely enough). -- 95.34.3.54 ( talk) 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} please add 'citation neeeded' tag next to this sentence: The most frequent guests of the program include Jones' own staffers, producers, advertisers and the writers or publishers of books and videos which Jones sells at his web sites. thanks. 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Under 'Media > The Alex Jones Show' there is a list of guests, one of them is "Muse frontman Matthew Bellamy." The Muse link should point to Muse_(band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.166.80 ( talk) 02:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
he reported that american police force in montana had a serbian crest. www.infowarscom/investigation-could-sink-american-police-force/ unreliable fringe source? 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There's currently two references ( 4 & 7 in this version) which are supposed to be linking to a San Jose Mercury News article but are actually linking to a Google News search. I presume this is because the article is no longer available at least without paying but the search doesn't even find the article anymore. I did find the article via this search [5] which confirms it's not available. However using a Google search, which only shows a snippet isn't good practice and unless we can find an archive this probably should be removed. I presume the reason this article is used is because it's from the same paper and so intended to show that even some papers can't make up their mind. The problem is this probably isn't a particularly accurate reading of the situation, in fact the search we use does find some existing/working refs like [6] & [7] which show this is very likely an AP story (the text we can see looks the same) so the San Joes Mercury News article was probably just repeating what the AP story said. I suggest that the Google News search refs be replaced by one of these refs (and that ref archived) Nil Einne ( talk) 14:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Im not sure how this works but are we sure the image is properly licensed and not just taken from some page? I noticed the user who uploaded it is now indefinatly blocked from editing. Which makes me concerned wether or not the image license is valid.. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 15:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I am the user who uploaded the image, also note I have been allowed to return to to editing. The image is acceptable for wikipedia. I have changed the main photo back to the file I uploaded, it is a better portrait, the old photo is totally horrible and has outlived its time on the page.-- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note that this photo [11] you can barely make out Alex Jones' face due to lighting and it is from a off angle, and he has a sun frown. In the photo [12] the photo is frontal with much better lighting not to mention you can see his features with a semi smile. Others opinions on this matter are much welcomed.-- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that the image File:Alex Jones thumbs up.jpg is of lesser quality than the previous one, File:AlexJonesBB2007.jpg, both with regard to effective resolution and with regard to color. For me, the quality of File:Alex Jones thumbs up.jpg raises BLP concerns, because it may appear to be deliberately distorted. (Note that I do not think the author of the image actually has deliberately distorted it.) I'd recommend to restore the previous image. Cs32en Talk to me 09:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
For crying out loud use this: http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/bio/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.241.109 ( talk) 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Infowars and PrisonPlanet are similar but different sites both officially controlled by Jones. To say that "one is enough" without group consensus is unsupported. There's no good reason not to list both here. See WP:ELOFFICIAL for guidelines. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 03:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I like all of the Alex Jones' documentaries but the lack of a criticism section, makes me feel like I'm on the pages of "Gandhi" or "Mother Teresa", both persons with BIG personality flaws(racism and hypocrisy) but lacking of criticism, "because they are saints, they are perfect! they had flawless souls", etc. If we have to be fair, I would like to see other POV's, from people who disagree with Alex Jones, or his ideas. So don't dismiss all criticism, an article without criticism, it's, by definition a dogmatic article, a religious establishment.-- 201.247.28.7 ( talk) 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would think his style would be one area of criticism he shouts far too much, although I have no sources to back up my claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.107.228 ( talk) 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Certain articles are exempt from criticism. See for example Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions. ― cobaltcigs 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Who ever maintains this page needs to add How Weed Won The West to his filmography. Really good film. 174.59.63.144 ( talk) 00:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Two facts are referenced only to a radio station or show, with a date but no time. For a fact to be verifiable, it needs to be cited in such a way that someone questioning that fact can find the source of it. This is not the case for the following references:
^ Jones, Alex. Coast to Coast AM. January 27, 2007. ^ Jones, Alex. The Alex Jones Radio Show. February 6, 2006.
Wwallacee ( talk) 12:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Add Alex Jones (radio host) is an occasional "expert" on RT (TV network) (formerly known as Russia Today). 99.155.145.227 ( talk) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Angry in America: Inside Alex Jones' World Cs32en Talk to me 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read this article a few times over now, and I have to say that it is one of the worst articles I've seen on wikipedia. Alex Jones is primarily known for being a conspiracy theorist,
and yet it gives exactly zero information on the long list of nonstandard views that Alex Jones holds, even though that's what his radio show and almost all of his websites are dedicated to. Conspiracies that he has voiced support for which come to mind almost immediately include: 9/11 being an inside job, water fluoridation being a sterilization technique, rejection of the widespread scientific consensus on global warming, chem trails, government mind control, and many more.
I honestly have a hard time believing that an article about a man who believes that environmentalist, socialist dictators have taken over the planet with the long term goal of wiping out a significant portion of the global population could have been written in good faith when it makes absolutely no mention of that fact. The only explanation that I can think of is that this article is attempting to make Alex Jones appear more mainstream than he actually is. That said, this article needs to be reworked.
I'm a relative novice at editing wikipedia, having only done minor fact checking and grammatical editing on a handful of articles, but I believe I'm up to the task. What I do need, however, are *written* sources espousing the wide variety of nonstandard views that Alex Jones supports on his show; in particular ones whose authorship are attributed to Alex Jones himself. His websites all speak on these topics quite readily and are all used as sources on his own show (using yourself as a news source is awful convenient),
but I would prefer to avoid the debate about whether or not the opinions on his website can be reasonably called his own opinion, when the authorship is left blank.
Anybody else willing to lend a hand?
Yeahchris ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC).
I tried awhile back to add accurate sourced information on alex jones. nothing about his conspiracy theories or the fact that for instance the guy thinks amtrak stations are wired up as gas chambers to exterminate the populace after martial law is declared..or that amtrak depots are secret govt prisons built to keep people in not out.. will ever appear in the in this article no matter how you sugar coat it to come accross as bland and NPOV as possible. biased editors will change it and certain admins will immediatly suspend you no matter how well sourced it is due to "BLP".. I have seen video that clearly shows things be removed.. He could write a letter, sign it in front of the president and vice president, and the pope as witnesses explaining his views. and it will be a POV source, violation of BLP and deleted.. you want to talk about conspiracies lol.. now thats a conspiracy for you. Ive long gave up on this article.. and thats sad that is the case. so I focus on the million other articles I edit.. cause there is no point editing this one - Tracer9999 ( talk) 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with TheHerbalGerbil. Beyond a basic bio and simple background this article would turn into a something akin to one of the subjects websites, a broadcasting point for his theroies. J. ORLY? ( talk) 00:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I just removed an insertion of this claim into the article. Firstly, if such information is relevant, then it needs to be put in context to show that it is relevant. To avoid WP:SYNTH that had best be done by quoting someone pointing to this would-be fact and asserting that it is a problem. For possible reliable sources attesting to Khashoggi owning Genesis Communication Network such may possibly be found at The Unhive Mind II (a forum board). __ meco ( talk) 09:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
To quote the article, "Alex Jones is also the operator of several web sites centered on news and information about civil liberties issues, global government, and a wide variety of current events topics. Several of these sites are www.infowars.com, www.prisonplanet.tv, www.prisonplanet.com, and www.jonesreport.com."
Is it really necessary to post these websites anywhere on the article other than the External links? I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate. 72.240.82.155 ( talk) 19:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a new informative section regarding controversies against alex jones, in NPOV manner "Controversy Many individuals have tried to brandish Alex Jones as a...."
How do i include date in signature???/? Kruger1191 ( talk)
This is the most pathetic article I've ever seen on Wikipedia...and that says a lot. Did someone pay you to write this trash? Is it acceptable that the person with the "permission" to write and edit this article is someone obviously highly critical of Mr.Jones? i —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.127.144.103 ( talk) 12:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Please change the political affiliation from "Republican" to "conservative". Anyone who does any empirical research into this man knows that he cannot be affiliated with a political party or any establishment for that matter. It is a mischaracterization to label Jones as a "Republican".
98.226.151.117 ( talk) 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Partly done: Given that I cannot find a single reliable source calling him a Republican (some call him conservative, some call him libertarian, others call him names that can't be used without violating
WP:BLP), I've removed it. Since that line in the infobox is only for a party affiliation, I can't put conservative in. If Jones is shown in a reliable source to be a registered member of any particular party, we can add/re-add with a reliable source.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
06:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Per the Austin American-Statesman:
Nine to seek Greenberg's House seat
BYLINE: Scott S. Greenberger
DATE: January 4, 2000
PUBLICATION: Austin American-Statesman (TX)
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Metro/State
PAGE: B1
Greenberg's departure after five terms in the Texas House has attracted two Democrats and seven Republicans, including a college student and a well-known public access TV personality.
The GOP race to succeed Greenberg has seven contenders: * Documentary filmmaker and public access TV show host Alex Jones, 25, known locally for his diatribes against creeping federal control, says he's running ``to be a watchdog on the inside."
He has run as a candidate for public office, and in doing so he filed paper work that proclaimed himself to be a member of a political party, specifically the Republican party, therefore we have are reliable source for his political party. Brimba ( talk) 14:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
same as above, to quote " The GOP race to succeed Greenberg has seven contenders: * Documentary filmmaker and public access TV show host Alex Jones, 25, known locally for his diatribes against creeping federal control, says he's running ``to be a watchdog on the inside." " Also please see WP:PAYWALL Brimba ( talk) 14:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)