Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

descriptions of Alex Jones

Claims about a living person unsubstantiated by reliable sources

There are many sources online that show Alex Jones as a far right racist but I am wondering whether below clip can be used as a source in the bio to show that Alex Jones is a racist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sU-9ZV7WsM Alex Jones responds to MSNBC's Racist claims 219.75.106.37 (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC) No, that clip does not "prove" he is racist. Calling him such in his bio would be a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The accusations of racism could possibly addressed in the bio if there is significant enough coverage of the issue in multiple reliable sources and it were presented in a neutral and balanced manner.--Dwc89 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC) I don't know, there are clips all over the place on Alex Jones' blatant racism, for example: Alex Jones is a Racist.Alex Jones and Bigotry 119.74.160.192 (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I wonder how many of the people who read/edit this article and talk page actually listen to his show. If you don't, you might not know about the kick he's been on lately where he shouts "Shut up, racist!" over and over again, in highlighting examples of how he's been proven right on various topics and yet is automatically dismissed as a racist at every turn. Sounds to me that he wouldn't take anything to this effect personally (after all, he did famously dismiss Wikipedia as being hopelessly out of touch in the Piers Morgan interview, which wasn't entirely rooted in the sort of hyperbole you would expect in such as situation), but would love it for the fodder (and therefore, material with which to talk about) it provides. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 18:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC) lol. That is a very naive and gullible view of Alex Jones. People who are less naive can easily see through the racism of Alex Jones. Is Alex Jones Racist? Is The Pope Catholic? And wikipedia is "hopelessly" out of touch. And "infowars" is a credible "news site", I suppose. lol. You might as well tell me Obama plotted the Boston bombings. lol.219.74.133.191 (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I'm no fan of this man. To me he's a con-artist. Doesn't mean he's a racist. An editor who wishes to add this accusation to his page should present mighty good evidence. Core values like WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP must be upheld to the max then. I think there can be no discussion about it. A website with a professional layout which makes allegations, or uses original definitions of 'racism', does not count. Citing the contents of a YouTube video does not count either. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "I'm no fan of this man. To me he's a con-artist." Alex Jones is worse than a far right con man to others: "Sure, it's both fun and funny to treat these buffoons like, you know, buffoons, and I enjoy doing it, but it's important to remind ourselves that underneath the cartoonishly unhinged rants, they're really deceitful, sociopathic individuals who market in fear and paranoia while turning serious events and the deaths of innocent civilians into their own personal clown show. Again and again and again." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/alex-jones-insists-the-ke_b_4006051.html121.7.228.101 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

additional discussion about Bob Cesca and the Huffington Post

redacted duplicate comment from above to give context

Alex Jones is worse than a far right con man to others:(redacted) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/alex-jones-insists-the-ke_b_4006051.html121.7.228.101 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Cesca's background appears to be as a comedian and not of the standing required for commentary in a article about a living person. This is not a chatroom to spam every comment from every person who doesnt like Jones.

Closing and archiving per WP:BLP / WP:TPG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

huffingtonpost states that Bob Cesca is a political writer. I don't see a problem with that. Can you cite a source that shows Bob Cesca is not credible as a political writer?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/ 219.75.50.93 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Red Pen, what grounds to you have to say that Bob Cesca is not a political writer?219.75.50.93 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If no one provides evidence that shows Bob Cesca is not a political writer, I will be reverting the archive status of the topic thread.219.75.50.93 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom you are clearly overstepping your bounds and deleting comments to hide an ongoing discussion. Your argument that Bob Cesca is not a political writer is exceptionally odd considering Bob Cesca says he is a political commentator and YOU are that last person to make an edit on that page. Huffington Post also says he is a political commentator. Note that your argument that his background is as a comedian is not in his Wiki page and you have provided no references to back up your assertion. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

it is NOT out of bounds to remove accusations of racism about a living person from section headings where no reliable sources make such claims.

Re Cesca: "he founded Camp Chaos, an alternative media production studio based near Philadelphia for which he animated and performed voices for the cartoon Napster Bad. He currently runs a new media production company called Snark Rocket.

Beginning in 2006, Cesca edited and directed the animated series Kung Fu Jimmy Chow for Heavy.com. In addition, he conceived and produced ILL-ustrated, a VH1 animated comedy series which premiered on October 17, 2003.[3]"

not a basis for someone to be making BLP claims

before that he was with Don and Mike Show also, not a foundation to be making BLP claims. I stand by (repeated) removals of accusations of racism from the section headings and closing the comment that had been open for over a month with no reliable sources provided per Wikipedia:TPG#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy.

and even if Cesca is reliable for BLP claims, the article listed does NOT call him a racist, it goes into quite a bit of details about his wingnut theories, but it does not call them racist, just "deceitful, sociopathic" "bafoons", but i would have been justified to remove those from the section headers as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm noticing shifting goal posts here. You skipped right past the part about political commentator and paraphrased his previous experience down to comedian. Which ironically is what you are objecting to when the IP editor paraphrases down to racist. Yet Huffington Post was your justification for including Will Bunch as qualified to comment but he was a reporter not a political commentator prior to his move to HuffPo. So if writing for HuffPo is no longer bonafides for being a political commentator shall we remove the Will Bunch material?--Daffydavid (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Being called a comedian (particularly one compared to Weekend Update, Steve Allen, Aziz Ansari,) when you create cartoons is now the equivalent of being called a racist? And the where exactly does the Huff Po actually call Jones a racist so that such slander should be allowed in multiple section headers as being "sourced"? (and yes, there are times and places when even generally reliable sources are not reliable. For example, when a reliable source is being used as a source for news as compared to an opinion piece by a comedian in an reliable source making commentary about a living person. One is generally acceptable; one is almost always not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you about the racist thing, it hasn't been said but I disagree completely with your characterization of Cesca as a comedian. It doesn't wash and repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. I never said that HuffPo called him racist so quit trying to make strawman arguments. What I am saying is that if HuffPo is valid to supply bonafides for Mr. Bunch then you can't say it's not valid for Cesca. So, racist- no RS sources for this, Cesca as a political commentator - using your criteria for validating Bunch, yes. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1) thank you for admitting that I was justified in my actions in removing and hatting BLP content. 2) Huff Po was one of many publications publishing content that further qualified the credentials of Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and made his publications a duh in realms of reliable sources. Huff Po is the only source publishing the content of a cartoonist and former shock jock radio person. Yes, the Huff Po does indeed raise his reliability a little, but to compare the two and place them on the same level is just ridiculous. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No, comparing the 2 is not ridiculous, winning a Pulitzer does nothing to establish credibility as a political commentator since the Pulitzer is for REPORTING not commentary. Would a prize winning (whatever the award is for this)automotive reviewer/journalist be qualified to offer political commentary? I would like to think no, but that's the way your argument appears. --Daffydavid (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Daffydavid, what happened to your previous dispute with Red Pen of Doom? Did you report him to the wiki authorities? Ren Pen of Doom is shamelessly abusing his power as mod to cover up and white wash Alex Jones. He is on the side of Alex Jones. I am going to report him to the wiki authorities.116.14.146.77 (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Although I agree with you that Jones is a right-wing loon, a political commentator is not a BLP-reliable source. We would need a journalist, and no one has provided evidence that Cesca is a journalist. You're quoting an opinion column in Huff Po. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Everyone knows that Alex Jones is a far right southern fringe John Birch Society gun nut. The only one who disagrees on that here is Red Pen of Doom. He is probably a far right follower of Alex Jones. I am wondering whether below three sources can be used as reference on Alex Jones being a bigot:

SPL Center report on Alex Jones, ADL file on Alex Jones, IREHR profile on Alex Jones.116.14.148.109 (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm clearly missing the logic behind your argument Arthur Rubin. Why do we need a journalist? How does that qualify someone to be a political commentator? As far as I can tell the two are mutually exclusive. Just because someone can report on a story (hopefully accurately but no guarantee of that, ahem Fox News) does not somehow validate the ability to write political commentary. It's just bad logic. But I would love to hear the explanation of why you think that reporting validates opinion writing. Waiting with an open mind. Thanks --Daffydavid (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake. Cesca's credentials are irrelevant. We need a news article, rather than a political opinion column. A political commentator is very likely to write the latter, while journalists are more likely to write the former. We need the former, to be BLP-RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Robin, did you look at the sources that I provided? I want your views on whether they are valid as a reference to show that Alex Jones is a far right racist bigot. Can you take a look at them and give your views? Thanks.

Southern Poverty Law Center report on Alex Jones,
Anti-Defamation League file on Alex Jones,
Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights report on Alex Jones.219.74.220.99 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(od) only the last appears to call his positions "racist" and the problem is that that article appears to be specifically aimed at promoting an editorial opinion rather than be an objective article on the living person. Burghart appears to be an anonymous blogger (see his "picture"), and Petra Foundation appears a tad non-notable for a major award (it appears to give out about $20K per annum in awards" per four NYT articles from press releases). His Twitter posts seem all to be to blogs, and I suggest he might not meet WP:RS for any contentious claims of fact. WP:BLP requires strong reliable sourcing for contentious claims, and calling a living person an far right racist bigot seems to fall into that category. Collect (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that Alex Jones has racist tendencies? Mainstream media seems to agree on that.220.255.169.143 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Read WP:BLP ad WP:RS lease. Contentious claims about living persons require strong reliable sourcing. So far, no such source has been proffered. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

MSNBC says that Alex Jones is a far right deep racist. MSNBC Calls Alex Jones “Deeply Racist” So far no one from mainstream media has come out and say that Alex Jones is not racist. There seems to be no argument in mainstream media on whether Alex Jones is a racist or not. To say that Alex Jones is a racist is not controversial in mainstream. 121.7.118.225 (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

what kind of drugs are you on? even in that edited clip there is not once where anyone calls jones a racist. i really do not understand your personal obsession. you dont have to make shit up to make Jones look bad. he does a fine job of that all by himself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The video from 5.10 onwards clearly shows the hosts implying that Alex Jones has strands of a far right fringe racist. There's no doubt on that. No one can deny, suppress, distort or whitewwash Alex Jones on that point. 121.7.118.225 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

you would see someone talking about chocolates as clearly implying jones was a racist and someone mentioning the sky is blue as clearly implying jones is insane. you are grasping at straws but the only thing you are clearly showing that jones isnt the only looney out there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to deny that the hosts in the video from 5.10 onwards is implying that Alex Jones has far right racist strands? No one so far has a problem with that video mentioning that Alex Jones has racist strands. You are the first so far. You are also the only one who raised issues with Bob Cesca being political writer.121.7.118.225 (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow "implication" as a reason to make a claim in Wikipedia's voice. Nor does it allow us to add what we "know" to be the "truth" it requires us to use only what reliable sources state as fact when we state something as a fact. Period. And I would kindly suggest that you well ought to raise your position at WP:BLP/N as you quite appear to lack any support from others here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

POV about conspiracy theories

Calling Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist" seems derogatory. Doesn't the use of this term presuppose the truth or non-truth of his claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.39.8 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

not per WP:REDFLAG and the fact that multiple reliable sources consider him to be a conspiracy theorist.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what TRPoD said, the term "conspiracy theorist", at its most basic, refers to one who puts forward theories regarding conspiracies, which is undoubtedly what Alex Jones is most known for. I wouldn't say that "conspiracy theorist" is, in itself, derogatory. clpo13_(talk) 04:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that a lot of the discussion on this talk page over the past four months smells of trying to "seek consensus" for what amounts of POV pushing. Glad to see that it hasn't gained much traction. As for this specific point, I question placing "conspiracy theorist" as an occupation in the first sentence of the article. While it certainly can be argued that this is his "occupation", I still feel like that could be expanded and better handled elsewhere in the lead. I also question seeing twelve sources in the lead. The lead should lack sources, yet reflect sourced content found in the article's body. Of course, it's a pretty common over-reaction found in all too many articles. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, regarding "conspiracy theorist": "In recent decades the term has acquired a derogatory meaning." We can (and should) include a discussion of this claim within the body of the article, but there is nothing neutral about stating it unconditionally in the lead sentence, as if it were undisputed fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.39.8 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

We document what reliable sources say, regardless of whether they are derogatory or not. That is none of our concern. If we censored the RS, reported them differently than what they actually said, or refused to use them, that would be an introduction of editorial bias and POV, and that is forbidden. NPOV means free from editorial bias and POV. It applies to editors' introduction of their own POV, not to the documentation of POV found in RS. Articles which fail to document POV are blah, boring, and not worth having. The real world is full of POV, and we document it, including some pretty strong stuff. If properly sourced, it's fair game for inclusion. Countless RS describe him as a conspiracy theorist.

We do discuss the claim in the body of the article, and document it using many RS. It is an undisputed fact that he spreads conspiracy theories.

You seem to deny that he spreads conspiracy theories. Is it true that you deny the claim?

When we describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist, we are not taking any position as to the truth or falsity of his claims, we are only using the descriptions used by RS. You would have to examine the sources to find out what they mean.

As to whether a conspiracy theory is true or not, it can be true or not true. Some conspiracies exist, and some which are claimed do not exist. At Wikipedia, if the title of an article indicates it is about a conspiracy theory, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, that indicates that so far RS have not proven that it is a true claim. When RS prove that the theory is true, we change the title of the article to indicate that fact. Theory has become fact. We cannot state something is fact until RS have shown it to be fact. It would also be foolish to give it credence until such proof is presented, and claims are not proofs.

In the real world, this quote is a good guide: "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." (Bertrand Russell). At Wikipedia, our policies are inline with this good advice. It is an invariable fact here that editors who fail to bring their fringe POV into line with the facts described in our articles usually end up being bad editors who do nothing but cause trouble. They are unable to learn, and therefore are mentally unfit for collaborative work on this project. There are very few exceptions to this rule of observation, IMHO. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

the following comment was originally posted in the middle of Brangifer's comment, following the paragraph that begins "When we describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist,...

Brangifer, I don't have a position on Jones as a conspiracy theorist, but that justification in the immediately preceding paragraph surprised me. Isn't it a bit too broad? Following logic, if someone restates an accusation without the disclaimer that it is an accusation made by a particular source, then that last person in the chain is simply joining in on the attack. The same problem arises when using something like the phrase “sources have said”: anonymous "references" do not give the reader a chance to investigate the claims. Same for not including a reference to a reliable source what disagrees with the accusation. All of those actions are not neutral, but can slyly advocate the attackers’ position—intentionally or not. Wouldn't you agree that we have an obligation to do some quick basic research and then carefully craft our summaries so that we are presenting a NPOV? Desertroad (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"omnipresent conspiracy theorist" the most visible and vocal of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "one of America's best known conspiracy theorists "conspiracy theorist broadcaster" "radio talk show host, film maker and conspiracy theorist" --- in representing the mainstream academic view of Jones, to not call out "conspiracy theorist" would be inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Desertroad, since I don't have any context in the form of a quote from the existing content which you dispute, I can only answer in principle. If you will provide some disputed wording, maybe we can improve it. There are situations where you are correct. The question would be if this is one of them. Provide some wording and we can talk about it.

Otherwise, you seem to be treating a description as being equal to an accusation. In principle that can be true, but in this case I doubt you'd find anyone who would deny that Alex Jones uses much of his time in discussing and spreading various conspiracy theories. If there were any doubt, we'd probably be more careful and add qualifying words, like "so and so has described Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist." Attribution would solve any problem. In this case, it's so obvious that adding attribution would seem as foolish as being required to add attribution to the description of a common crow: "According to so and so, a crow is black in color." Since crows ARE black (with few exceptions), and all are agreed on that fact, we are safe to just state it as a fact: "Crows are black in color." Attribution isn't needed.

OTOH, if we were stating that Jones spreads untrue conspiracy theories, we'd have to attribute that, because there would be wide disagreement on that issue. I don't think we say that in Wikipedia's voice, do we? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, thanks for your reply. I haven't read the article while keeping the conspiracy theory labels in mind, so I don't have any particular statement from the article in mind. As I mentioned, it was the sweeping comment about descriptions that caught my attention. I appreciate your explanation. Personal attacks such as labeling someone to minimze them and avoid a real discussion (ad hominem attacks) from the media are common nowadays. But without a specific statement from the article, there's no point in my pursuing this. Regards, Desertroad (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Anytime you wish to pursue this with something specific, we can deal with it. We don't want to mislead anyone or misuse sources. Whether something is a label or a description (a label should be descriptive....) is in the eye of the beholder. If a label isn't accurate, I'm sure RS would comment on that fact, and we might be able to use such sources. I doubt that anyone would deny that a large part of what Jones deals with falls under the label/description of conspiracy theories, and RS seem to confirm this. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Small edit

when the news spread that Jared Laughner had been "a fan" of the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change, of which Jones had been an executive producer. His name is actually Jared Loughner. Doopliss von grapple 2.0 (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation for YouTube views

I couldn't help but notice a citation needed mark on in the starting synopsis regarding total views on his YouTube channel. I don't have editing accessibility to that part of the article so I'm requesting aid from anyone who has. The source for the claim is easily found here and matches the current claim:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/about.

If it's relevant enough to be mentioned it's relevant enough to be cited. The views portrayed on any YouTube channel with a dedicated focus to the man should serve as a fine indication of his relevance to public interest, an important factor for a conspiracy theorist. 80.197.59.82 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC) - AKA PPH, a casual editor

 Done --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 06:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Project Mockingbird

Blowing through and after scanning what has been written so far I've found there is nothing here in this article about AJ being part of Project Mockingbird, a u.s. gov mis/disinformation campaign. I think, concerning AJs current role and that PM made him what he is today it should definitely be in the article. Is there a reason this info has been excluded, or did I just read too fast and miss it? 96.54.130.64 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: 'moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Alex Jones → Alex Jones (radio host)
• Alex Jones (disambiguation) → Alex Jones

– I realize that this was discussed just over a year ago, but I believe this is an example of systemic bias, see WP:BIAS. The large number of people with this name means that we should be cautious about deciding a primary meaning, and Alex Jones (presenter) is quite a well known figure in Britain, many British people would regard her as the primary meaning, and have never heard of the radio host. Traffic stats aren't everything. PatGallacher (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral - I'll be okay with this either way this goes. As an American, Alex Jones, the radio host, is the only one who comes to mind when I hear his name but I suppose it is different elsewhere. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• weak oppose the US Alex Jones article right now has coverage from the Ottawa Citizen the the guardian the BBC and a british edition from palmgrave macmillon and when you type "alex jones" into the search engine for the major aussie paper "The Age" 4 of the first six hits are for the US Jones (the other two being a fictional movie character and a school crossing guard ) showing significant international coverage. the other Alex Jones article has coverage from British press and wales, her place of birth. when you do a google book search and filter out the books written by the US alex jones and the Wikipedia scrapings that feature the US alex jones the overwhelming majority of hits on the first few pages are still the US alex jones, with a few other "Alex Jones" thrown in, but none of whom we have articles for so the coverage is decidedly overwhelmingly about this guy. the only place where he isn't is in the english language India news, but the Times of India and the Hindu combined provided a total of two valid hits for "alex jones" - one about the movie character and one about a leader of a local business association and google scholar where there are a lot of works by various alex jones who do not have articles yet but maybe should. when you take out jones as author to find who is being written about, the first couple of pages of results are mostly not ones that we dont seem to have articles about [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22alex+jones%22+-author:jones&hl=en&as_sdt=0,24 with the rest slightly favoring the pulitzer prize journalist alex jones over the US conspiracy theorist alex jones.

all in all i am not convinced that we have not got the primary alex jones. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(and you obviously havent read the article if you think this alex jones is a radio host giving traffic stats) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support – this Alex Jones clearly does not approach the threshold for primary topic of such a common name, and gets fewer than half the page views. Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support doesn't meet a 66% of all long term print uses criterion. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not even convinced this Alex Jones is notable, not to mention the primary usage of the term. I should add that we would need to check the references to Alex Jones to make sure they point to the correct place, afterward. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Does not meet the threshold ("highly likely" and "much more likely") set by wp:primarytopic ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Each is the primary topic in their respective countries, but neither is internationally. Also move Alex Jones (presenter) to Alex Jones (TV presenter), since a radio host is also a presenter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

a search of news from around the globe puts your claim of "is the primary in their country" claim in quesion. in the Guardian [1] this Alex Jones is the primary hit as well as at the times [2] even at the BBC where some other Alex Jones pop up, [3] and you might be able to argue the Alex Jones in sports have equal press time, the us conspiracy theorist is the only one in the "news" section and the top hit under editors choice. As shown above the top hit in Australia news is the US conspiracy theorist, and also in the Canada national papers [4] and [5] and in the german press [6] and japanese english language press [7] and spain [8]

And he is not a TV presenter, he is a radio and internet guy. however if there is going to be a DAB on him, Alex Jones (conspiracy theorist) would be the most descriptive indicator.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say he was a TV presenter. I said a radio host is also a presenter (any broadcaster in any medium is a presenter), so using "presenter" to disambiguate the British Alex Jones is no disambiguation at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Support The radio host is clearly not the primary topic from a global perspective, and arguably is not primary by any measure, as he is far from a household name in America. Xoloz (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Complete and total Support Alex Jones is seen more as a far right John Birch Society type lunatic fringe figure in the U.S. that panders to a small fringe on the U.S. far right. He is not widely known to the rest of the world at all. It is completely wrong to list Alex Jones as primary topic. That panders to Alex Jones' far right fringe followers. That is wrong.182.55.93.198 (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article protected for a week

The issue concerning "To support this point of view, he often refers to the book Ecoscience co-authored by John Paul Holdren, the current Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy." is two-fold. Per No original research, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In addition there is WP:UNDUE. Come to an agreement and I'll unprotect early or someone can ask at WP:RPP. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 May 2014

Add Christianity as Alex Jones' religion

source: http://hollowverse.com/alex-jones/ Reverend Mick man34 ♣ (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It doesn't look like hollowverse.com qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, as it is self-published. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Alex Jones and fans at the Première of A Scanner Darkly, an animated film by Richard Linklater, in which Jones has a voice credit.[20]

The movie is a live action-animation mix. To call it simply an animated film is not accurate. First actors are filmed, then they were rotoscoped over with animation for the final film. Alex Jones did this as well for his cameo. A better wording would be:

Alex Jones and fans at the Première of A Scanner Darkly, a film by Richard Linklater, in which Jones has a cameo.[20]

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion

I think Jones's appearance in The Man Who Wouldn't Stand Up (which I admittedly just read) merits mentioning; if someone else agrees, please add in a way that does not run afoul of rules (which I seem to have done) LincolnWarsII (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "appearance"? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

sandy hook

no explanation of this:

Jones has been the center of many controversies, such as the controversy surrounding his actions and statements about gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Zeddocument (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It should be taken down. Mdifranco (talk) 14:55, 04 August 2014 (UTC)

reference abuse

[9] shows what appears to be the only mention of Alex Jones in Bunch's book. The quotes asserted to be in that book do not appear to be in that book. Creation of quotes and attributing them to a book where the google search in that book does not show such a quote is improper.

*p 73 "His highly conspiratorial tone and Web-oriented approach brings in a younger demographic than do Beck and other well-known talkers" *p 73 "he's aired on roughly 60 stations (it used to be more before his 9/11 inside-job rants)" *p 74 "Beck, naturally, synthesized the parts of Alex Jones inspired style that worked for him."

When a claim fails verification, one doubts the use of the source entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do NOT try reverting again - it simply makes me get to regard an editor as tendentious when they repeatedly insert material which is not in the source cited. Collect (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Books has a page for this book but does not have the book itself. It says on the Google page 'no eBook available'. That's why the quote cannot be found using Google. However, Amazon UK has a 'look inside' facility for the book, including search, and I was able to confirm that the quote IS in the book. I cannot link to the sub-page which opens up when you click on 'look inside' but the product page is http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backlash-Right-Wing-Radicals-High-Def-Hucksters/dp/0061991724/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409342090&sr=1-1

EDIT: The sub-page CAN be linked but you will have to input text into the search box to find the quotations: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backlash-Right-Wing-Radicals-High-Def-Hucksters/dp/0061991724/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409342090&sr=1-1#reader_0061991724 Dubmill (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in Dubmill, Collects' constant edit-warring is becoming really tiresome. I've alerted the editor who originally inserted the sourced statement into the article to see what s/he has to say about this.

Collect: you have inserted twice now an inexistent link with your constant reverts (which by the way is a Youtube link being used as a source; ironic given how much you opposed YT sources in the above thread). You need to stop now. Gaba ^(talk) 20:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually it counts as a "dead link" which is not automatically a problem, it did exist once per the note it was live on 13 Feb 2014. But I have removed the dead link and now use a live Forbes link for listenership. Dead links are not the same as links which do not support a claim in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The link given here was for the US hardcover - and not the UK paperback. It appears the two may either have different content or that Google's search is not as good as Amazon's. I suspect the different publication dates may indicate that the US hardcover book is not the same as the UK paperback. What is clear, however, is that the ref as given failed verification. Reading the book, it does not appear, alas, to be a strict recitation of fact, but appears to be a tad polemic. As such, most of the material should be cited to the author as opinion at best. The author is a fellow at MMfA, and is possibly not a dispassionate observer of those whom he pillories. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that inspite of acknowledging the quote is verified you still haven't' re-instated it into the article. Why am I not surprised? I'll add it myself since I have the distinct feeling you have no intention of doing so, even though it was you who removed it from the article twice. Gaba ^(talk) 23:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I use a quote which is quite notable about Jones - and cite it specifically as Bunch's opinion. I believe I said a few times that opinions must be cited as opinions. The quote you loved is not apparently in the earlier book, but in the UK paperback AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no issues with that quote, I never touched it. I do have an issue however with you not self-reverting to re-instate the properly sourced content you removed even after being proven wrong. Gaba ^(talk) 00:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Where something is not provably in a source given, the obligation is to remove it. In the case at hand, the quote was found in what appears to be a different edition of the book - so it can now be allowed, but it was clearly nor in the original cite, so the policy requirement is clear. This has absolutely nothing to do with who edits - it is part of WP:BLP. And note the youtube stuff is still not a valid ref. Collect (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh-huh "not provably in a source given", perhaps you should have better checked the source or even taken the time and invested the effort I did in tracking down the original edit and asking the editor who made it.

Not sure what you mean by "the youtube stuff is still not a valid ref" but in case you are referring to the moon landing statement, I note that two editors already have agreed with me and I'm waiting to hear about a third before re-instating the properly sourced content into the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaba_p is correct: The citations given for the statement on the Moon landing meet the policy requirements. --Mr. Billion (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

[10] may be a reliable source for the fact that Olivia Nuzzi has opinions about Jones. That, alas, does not make her editorial a reliable source for claims of fact about Jones.

YouTube videos are covered under WP:RS. Videos are not simply allowed as a source -- at best they are a "primary source" and where quotes are used, the need for a full transcript is essential. Too often people take nice snippets from material and forget that we do not quote mine but try to present full context. Nuzzi does not appear to be phrasing anything neutrally, which further removes her as a source for any contentious claim. Find real reliable secondary sources please. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• you need reliable secondary sources for any contentious claims, which is why I presented a WP:RS. That you feel it is opinionated is so irrelevant it makes your second revert, once again acting as if you had never heard of WP:BRD, borderline WP:VANDALISM.
• The youtube videos are precisely a primary source as I explicitly mentioned in my summary. You chose to ignore this as well.
• Nuzzi does not appear to be phrasing anything neutrally, do you want to know how much your own personal opinion about a WP:RS is worth?

I'll give you the chance to reinstate the very long standing content you removed. If you feel it needs to paraphrase Jones more closely then edit it. Gaba ^(talk) 22:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Find reliable secondary sources other than opinion sources for statements of fact. Cheers Collect (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "opinion sources". The DB article is a WP:RS by a political journalist ("Olivia Nuzzi is a writer and journalist who covers politics for The Daily Beast.") and the YT videos, as stated three times now, are proper primary sources..

Once again: stop ignoring the proper WP:RS and primary sources in place and restore the content you removed with no valid reasons. Gaba ^(talk) 00:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with WP Editor Collect on this issue. Biographies of living persons MUST have the highest standards for reliable sources. See: WP:RS To restore these assertions you will need truly reliable secondary sources ReformedBeliever (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ReformedBeliever I'm well aware of WP:RS, in case you haven't' noticed I mentioned it several times. If you have an issue with the DB article then WP:RSN is the place to ask. Until then is it indeed a WP:RS by a political journalist and both you and Collect need an actual reason to reject it along with the also valid primary sources that were in place with it. Your own personal opinion on how it "MUST have the highest standards" as a reason to dismiss it, is as irrelevant as Collect's.

Collect: restore the content you removed for no valid reason, third time. Gaba ^(talk) 02:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You can quote Nuzzi's opinions as opinions cited to her. As I have iterated. The primary video sources are,however, not permitted. Find a reliable secondary fact source if you wish to refer to anything like that. All too often, a primary video source is presented with a "quote snippet" which does not reflect the entirety of the source, which would mislead readers, whom I am sure you would not wish to mislead in any way. I would suggest, moreover, that substantial amounts of this article are critical of Mr. Jones, and that adding a problematic claim would substantially weaken the article. Cheers. By the way, "commanding editors" is not exactly a great idea when dealing with policy-basd cavils. Collect (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• "You can quote Nuzzi's opinions as opinions cited to her", no that's what you should have done instead of removing long standing and properly cited content from the article, as I've stated above already: if you feel it needs work done WP:SOFIXIT, don't edit-war to remove it blatantly ignoring WP:BRD and then challenge other editors to fix your mess.
• "The primary video sources are,however, not permitted.", given the time you've spent as a WP editor I'm going to WP:AGF that this is just an honest mistake and you are actually familiar with WP:PRIMARY.
• If you have an issue with how a properly cited piece of information is presented, then do what a WP editor should do and edit the content appropriately. This leads to the involvement by other editors who will also contribute and so on. That's how it works. You don't break WP:BRD and edit-war a suitable and reliable sourced statement from an article because you think the article is too negative.
• "substantial amounts of this article are critical of Mr. Jones", I couldn't care less, see above.

Collect: restore the reliably sourced content you've edit-warred to remove editing it if you think it needs improvement. Fourth time. Gaba ^(talk) 13:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have become Emperor, I find your tone here to be errant from the requirements of the project. You have made claims that it is up to others to fix your own mess. That is not true. You have asserted that you can command others. You can't. If you want to use primary sources, the onus is on you to show they are needed and that they are being used properly. Videos sans transcripts are often misused otherwise. Find a transcript for what you wish to claim -- Wikipedians find it hard to verify what someone says in a video and consider the full context of what they are saying even with a transcript. Now drop your WP:Stick. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Collect (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What?

• "You have made claims that it is up to others to fix your own mess." What? I did not add the statement into the article, it was added long ago by some other editor, I simply provided the secondary source after you removed it. You need to clean your own mess and edit the sourced information in place rather than edit-war to remove it completely because you feel the article is too "critical".
• "You have asserted that you can command others." What? I have asserted? So you've decided you are simply going to lie now?
• "If you want to use primary sources, the onus is on you to show they are needed and that they are being used properly." Which they are, as clearly proven by the reliable secondary source in place.
• "Find a transcript for what you wish to claim", what? You are challenging me to find a transcript while holding the properly sourced information hostage until that happens? Are you for real or was that a bad joke?
• I don't understand why you feel quoting WP:OR strengthens your case in any way. The secondary source is in place along with the primary sources. If you have an issue with the DB's political journalist, WP:RSN is that way.

Collect: stop filibustering and restore the appropriately sourced content you edit-war to removed twice with no valid reason. Fifth time. Gaba ^(talk) 14:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Gaba p, Per WP:BLP, contentious material about living persons require reliable sources. Personally, I have no doubt that Jones does not accept the accurate, mainstream view of the moon landings, but, until we have a reliable, third-party source for exactly what Jones does (state that he) accept(s), it may not be in the article. The Alex Jones show itself is not a reliable source unless there is no other possible interpretation of what he said. (Considering that (IMO) no one in his right mind could believe much of what he said, possible must be given a wide range.) Youtube videos are not reliable sources unless we can verify that it was uploaded with permission of the copyright holder. I'm not familiar enough with The Daily Beast to determine whether your secondary source is "news" or a "column". I lean toward it being a "column", which would probably not be a WP:RS. On the other hand, ultra-liberal columnists (not "journalists") are considered reliable sources for conservatives such as the Koch brothers, so what do I know? I don't fully agree with Collect as to what is needed here, but I agree that what has been provided is not enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin the videos can be used as primary sources and are reliable sources for what he verbatim said since it's recordings and filming of him saying them. There is no possible interpretation involved because there is no interpretation to be made. Just to remind you, this is what is being sourced:

• "has (...) accused the U.S. government of (...) filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology"

"until we have a reliable, third-party source", we already have it, it's the DB article I posted. It is an article by a political journalist (Olivia Nuzzi is a writer and journalist who covers politics for The Daily Beast.) posted in the Politics section of a reputable news outlet. I'm not sure what you mean by a "column" vs an "article", you mean if it is an editorial opinion piece? In that case no it is not, as I stated above the author is a political journalist and this is an article by said journalist.

. The article used even has that relevant part of Jones' statement transcripted (as Collect felt was so utterly crucial):

• "On his radio program, he told his listeners: “The government lies out of hand. You say, ‘well then, why do you believe in the moon landing?’ Because I have sources inside NASA—they put on some fake stuff for you—see, there was a lie. It’s not just ‘did we go’ or ‘didn’t we go.’ You were shown the tinker-toy stuff because you’re not supposed to see what they really got. You’re not supposed to know the thousands of astronauts that have died. Oh, yeah. In fact, I should to a whole show on that. This is the kind of stuff that will get you killed. I shouldn't even get into things I know, because I don’t have the absolute proof in front of me—I just have sources and evidence that backs it up, but I’m digressing.”"

If Collect feels the article and the transcript within it are not representing the statement reliably (which would be a surprise since apparently he didn't even bother to read the article otherwise he would've known there was a transcript inside) what he should have done is edit it accordingly, not edit war to remove it twice completely ignoring WP:BRD as he tends to do to whitewash conservative/republican BLPs.

I'm going to give him yet one more chance (the sixth) to fix his own mess and restore the information he removed improperly, editing it if he feels it would be appropriate. Gaba ^(talk) 02:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- "transcript" means a transcript of the show not an excerpt in an article. Is this clear? Absent the full context, how do we know he was not making a point in a hypothetical manner -- f'rinstamce suppose one added a simple question mark after "Because I have sources inside NASA?" which would completely negate the claim you wish to assert. Jones may be loony, but that does not mean we abrogate Wikipedia policies because of that, in fact it means we should and must follow the policies more strictly for him. Collect (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I see, so the goalpost now moved to a transcript of the entire show. I'll tell you what is clear, your filibustering which escapes no one. "suppose one added a simple question mark", uh? "One" added? You do realize you are talking about altering a source, right? The article has the excerpt fully transcripted and it is of course a reliable secondary source for it. Now you are talking about what would happen if someone altered it??

Once again you've wasted a significant portion of my time attempting by all means to whitewash conservative/republicans WP:BLPs with your stonewalling, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and constant goalpost moving. I'll take this to the proper noticeboard. Gaba ^(talk) 15:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I note the reply you already got there. Collect (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Noted indeed which is why the statement is back up in the article. Gaba ^(talk) 01:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Will Bunch opinion added

Given and sourced as opinion lest anyone think I would censor his opinions. Collect (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect, about the recent edit you are making [11]:

• You keep introducing syntax mistakes like multiple spaces (</ref> , the show) and loose symbols (paranoia."<.<ref). Be more careful.
• The and in "..Web-oriented approach" and "there was always.." is grammatically inconsistent. Stop introducing it.
• Your MMfA link is invalid and furthermore this is an award winning book author and journalist of many news outlets as properly sourced. Stop removing this information.

Gaba ^(talk) 01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Found a source where it states that Bunch is apparently still a fellow in MMfA. I added it into the article. Gaba ^(talk) 01:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Je suis en vacance, but I find your tone above inapt. Spaces are not a major issue on Wikipedia, I told you what his affiliations were, and any cavil about the word "and" is simply silly. Back to vacation. Collect (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I'm pretty sure I've indicated before that I'm a listener. I rarely drink anymore, so nothing else to do at 1 or 2 in the morning when KFAR airs his show. All I'm gonna say is this: regardless of whatever opinion you have of Alex Jones or his show, the bullshit I see constantly coming across my watchlist only validates the sort of things coming from his mouth. This article in particular is an obvious poster child, but plenty of other examples point to a concerted effort by a cadre of editors to marginalize anything which doesn't mirror the corporate and governmental disinformation found everywhere else on the web. However, give it a rest, please. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. I've noted a tendency to censor anything contradicting liberal propaganda, but we "marginalize" Alex because reliable sources do. Every single one of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)