Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 11
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Alex Jones as a fraudster
Alex Jones' own lawyer says that Alex Jones is basically playing a fake character to make money. Does this count as Alex Jones defrauding his audience? I suggest labelling Alex Jones as a fraudster in the article opening paragraph. This entire article needs to be rewritten in my opinion, since this fact that Alex Jones' open admission that his entire public persona is an "act" and has nothing whatsoever to do with his actual views and beliefs. Everything that Alex Jones does in public is basically just a tool for making money as admitted by Alex Jones' lawyer.
This entire article on Alex Jones must be completely, totally, fully, wholly and thoroughly be rewritten. The section on Alex Jones' "views" saying that Alex Jones is "conservative" is extremely misleading. Alex Jones' lawyer says that Alex Jones is nothing but an act, so, we can in no way say that Alex Jones is really a "conservative" based on Jones' own statement. Alex Jones may actually be a liberal, his "conservative" views in public may be his "act".
"Alex Jones’ Defense in Upcoming Custody Battle Is That He’s a Fake" http://fusion.net/alex-jones-defense-in-upcoming-custody-battle-is-that-1794370575 175.156.24.120 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- When I see "basically" I see interpretation, do we have an RS saying he is a fraud in those words?Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- How about these:
- "Will Alex Jones Admit He's a Fraud to Keep His Kids?"
- http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54570/alex-jones-custody-case-performance-art/
- "Wait…Alex Jones is an Actor?! Actually, He’s Not the Only One"
- http://www.mediaite.com/online/wait-alex-jones-is-an-actor-actually-hes-not-the-only-one/
- "So Alex Jones is a “performance artist”? If so, his act is truly terrifying"
- http://www.salon.com/2017/04/18/so-alex-jones-is-a-performance-artist-if-so-his-act-is-truly-terrifying/
- 175.156.24.120 (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a total rewrite is necessary, but these are definitely strong enough sources that a qualified mention is due — including a mention in the lede. I would suggest the following second sentence:
Alex Jones has publicly been called a performance-artist and actor who does not believe in his own public positions, notably by his own lawyer in order to avoid libel suits.
- Not perfect, but it's a start. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik talk10:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure that the sources support this, I cannot find any reference to libel actions. This is all in relation to the custody battle, and I note that most of these articles say "If". Take out the bit about libel.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like that wording just above: it implies that this is a well-known and commonly made claim, when it's actually a new claim, made only by his lawyer in his divorce hearing. And the bit about libel just doesn't show up in the sources at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Edit request: Fake News La belling
" His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16]"
It would be best to include context for this sentence to directly state which sources have labelled Alex Jones fake news. Changing it to "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website by USnews, LAtimes, Washington Times, and MotherJones.com.[13][14][15][16]" or even change the sentence to state "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website by a number of competing news outlets.[13][14][15][16]" would better objectively reflect the truth of the statement and give the reader the full story on the conflict between the different news organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahuterschuter (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, except those outlets don't "compete" with Infowars. They're in the News business, not the conspiracy-theories-masquerading-under-a-flimsy-pretense-at-being-news business. And the cited sources are just a sampling: if we listed every reliable source that has called Infowars fake news, we'd triple the size of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah... You'll notice that they don't label any "other" competitors, like each other or CNN or what not, "fake news." That's because they generally don't want to draw attention to legitimate competition. Illegitimate competition? Sure, they'll point out that it's illegitimate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017
concerning Alex Jones, he is not a far-right person but a libertarian who interviews people who are mistakingly labeled by the opposition party as "right wing" or "alt right". He refutes ims this claim on air nearly on every episode of infowars.com. Nor is he a conspiracy theorist because he has been proven,98% of the time, to be right on many issues concerning the world because of his impeccable journalistic resources that include former politicians, political strategists, whistleblowers, guests from all departments and agencies of the government and so forth. It is well documented by other patriot talk show hosts concerning Alex Jones accuracy on items long before they are announced and coopted by mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turk9570 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Turk9570:
Nor is he a conspiracy theorist because he has been proven,98% of the time,
I'd like to see how you arrived at that number. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC) - Yes, we need an RS for that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017
![]() | This Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stating that Alex Jones and Infowars is Fake News, is FAKE NEWS. Unless you want a lawsuit I suggest you remove this remark. Butterfly0fjune (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please see ) 00:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Just noticed this from the ANI report. Wouldn't it be more in line with WP:NPOV to list the sources that claim that Infowars is a "fake news website"? Such as: "InfoWars.com has been labeled as a fake news website by U.S. News & World Report, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, and Mother Jones." —Farix (t | c) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Doing that would probably triple the size of section. I'm not being facetious, either. Almost every reputable news source has labelled Infowars "fake news". Certainly every one who has written about Infowars since the term became popular has. The list would be enormous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- However, completely leaving out who is calling the website fake news is creating a bias by omission. It is far better to state who is calling the website fake news and leave it to the reader to decided if the claims—and sources—are valid or not. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Several of the "who's" are answered by the sources. The fact that the statement is vague makes it more accurate, because the sources used are not exhaustive. If the claim in the article only named the source we used, that claim would be incorrect. And I've considered using a "sources such as .... have labelled Infowars a fake news outlet," statement, and while that would be technically accurate, it would run up against the implication that those sources are ideologically opposed to Infowars, and as such, leave the implication that they're the only sources labeling it fake news intact. The only way to be perfectly accurate is to either leave the statement alone, or list an exhaustive number of sources with a "...and many others" at the end, which would be too cumbersome to read and not encyclopedic. Note that this claim has been a long standing one in this article, with a great deal of support. It would require a new consensus to remove it or significantly alter it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose we could say something like "Has been called a fake news site by every reputable news and media organisation as well as media annalists such as...". In other words make it clear this is a (practically) universal accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, if we said "almost every" or "virtually every," I think I could live with adding a few examples.I just want to make sure that the statement is true both in implications and in the most technical sense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)- Actually, nix that. We'd be doing WP:IAR here though... I'm open to being convinced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.14:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose we could say something like "Has been called a fake news site by every reputable news and media organisation as well as media annalists such as...". In other words make it clear this is a (practically) universal accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Several of the "who's" are answered by the sources. The fact that the statement is vague makes it more accurate, because the sources used are not exhaustive. If the claim in the article only named the source we used, that claim would be incorrect. And I've considered using a "sources such as .... have labelled Infowars a fake news outlet," statement, and while that would be technically accurate, it would run up against
- However, completely leaving out who is calling the website fake news is creating a bias by omission. It is far better to state who is calling the website fake news and leave it to the reader to decided if the claims—and sources—are valid or not. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Doing that would probably triple the size of section. I'm not being facetious, either. Almost every reputable news source has labelled Infowars "fake news". Certainly every one who has written about Infowars since the term became popular has. The list would be enormous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"Personal life" section of this article needs update due to wealth of new info on Alex Jones
Through several news reports, certain new information on the personal life of Alex Jones should be included into the "Personal life" section. They include:
- Alex Jones suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder
- "Alex Jones is a narcissist, a witness testifies."
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/20/alex-jones-is-a-narcissist-a-witness-says-and-possibly-the-worst-client-ever/
- Alex Jones married a new wife in 2017 and has commited adultery against her.
- "Alex Jones Takes the Stand in Custody Battle, Admits to Cheating on Wife"
- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/20/alex-jones-takes-the-stand-in-custody-battle-admits-to-cheating-on-wife.html
- Alex Jones is a user of marijuana in Texas
- "Alex Jones admits to smoking marijuana in Texas where it's illegal"
- https://longroom.com/discussion/441677/alex-jones-admits-to-smoking-marijuana-in-texas-where-its-illegal-but-says-he-only-did-it-to-test-its-strength
I feel that the "personal life" section on Alex Jones is completely and totally outdated and needs a serious rewrite.
- Of the three I think only the Washington post would pass muster. Also much of this (such as smoking weed) is rather trivial, and anyway has not been prosecuted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- I find all three of the sources are fine. Every single one of them passes the "muster". I don't see Alex Jones smoking weed as trivial, it gives clues to the antics of Alex Jones. I see it as extremely important fact, nothing about it is trivial at all. I consider it completely wrong to see Alex Jones smoking weed as "trivial". 175.156.9.27 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BLP, because of these, only the first source really meets the additional requirements we put on sources making claims about a living person. You may believe that the sources are fine, but others believe otherwise, and when it comes to making potentially libelous claims; "when it doubt, leave it out." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.14:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please read
- I find all three of the sources are fine. Every single one of them passes the "muster". I don't see Alex Jones smoking weed as trivial, it gives clues to the antics of Alex Jones. I see it as extremely important fact, nothing about it is trivial at all. I consider it completely wrong to see Alex Jones smoking weed as "trivial". 175.156.9.27 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- "In midst of custody battle, Alex Jones reveals that at 16, ‘I’d already had over 150 women.’
- http://politics.blog.mystatesman.com/2017/04/24/in-midst-of-custody-battle-alex-jones-reveals-that-at-16-id-already-had-over-150-women/ 175.156.168.209 (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Can we please stop trying to use this article as a live news feed about a custody battle. This is all just salacious tittle tattle (whoever sauys it) that adds nothing, and just makes us look petty.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's no need to document every detail he reveals about himself during this. We should wait and see what details garner significant coverage, instead of posting every blog and op-ed that wants to put him on blast for every bizarre thing he says. We all know he says lots of bizarre things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Update what about Chobani Yogurt suing Alex Jones over a false allegation some news outlets are discussing this new lawsuit out of Idaho over a false rape case.
Update other news outlets are mentioning that Alex Jones is being sued for $10,000 US dollars by Chobani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:2767 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/25/chobani-yogurt-company-sues-right-wing-radio-host-alex-jones.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.96.188 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not personal life, but yes this could get a mention. But I think we need to wait till after the hearing (after all this could be no more then a fishing expedition).Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article146943339.html
Alex Jones could go to Idaho to respond to the allegations Chobani has on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.96.188 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And we do not need daily updates on Jonses doings either.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The verdict is out for the Alex Jones Child Custody case the ex-wife gets the kids.
- That might be worth including, but somebody needs to justify it, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Most of what I see in this section is trivia or opinion. Just because a RS prints the opinion of a random person it doesn't mean it gets included. The only thing I've seen in this trial that I feel might have merit to mention is that Jones considers himself a "showman" and that he admitted not really believing many of his conspiracy theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017
![]() | This Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that Alex Jones is "far-right". I would like that part removed. Alex Jones is anti-foreign intervention, he advocates libertarian stances on civil liberties issues, and he takes an egalitarian stance on race related issues and has criticized the "Prison-Industrial Complex". Categorizing Alex Jones as "far right" with the likes of Benito Mussolini and Hitler who favored aggressive foreign policy, extreme violations of civil liberties, and implementing explicitly racist policies is not accurate.
NOTE: The links posted below are not to be used as sources in the article. As I'm merely requesting that "far right" be removed it is not required. The links below are merely to show what Alex Jones' outlet, Infowars, has said on issues related to civil liberties, foreign policy, and race-related issues. Some may disagree with his views, but they are certainly the opposite of what the "far right" believe. If Alex Jones is far right then that term has lost all of its meaning.
Alex Jones on civil liberties:
https://www.infowars.com/the-freedom-act-is-worse-than-the-patriot-act/
Alex Jones on Iraq:
https://www.infowars.com/the-horror-of-the-iraq-war-one-hundred-years-from-now/
Alex Jones on Prison-Industrial Complex and police state:
https://www.infowars.com/the-prison-industrial-complex-the-economics-of-incarceration-in-the-usa/
https://www.infowars.com/video-alex-jones-predicted-staged-race-war/ AscherLio (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done There is a strong consensus on this page to describe him the way the reliable sources do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
We should NOT include "far-right" in the lead because it sounds too opinionated
Contrary to some others who have tried to remove this part from the lead, I look at this from a true editor's standpoint. Even if we think he is far-right, there are obviously many people who disagree with the statement. By putting this in the lead like so, we are stating that he is for a FACT far-right. This is biased. Later in the lead, it is clarified that "Jones has described himself as a libertarian and paleoconservative, and has been described by others as conservative, right-wing, alt-right, and a pro-Russia propagandist." This is better, as it tells what others think of him and how he views himself, it is not stating for a fact what he is or is not, since he himself and many others state otherwise. This is not an opinionated issue... Rather, this is an issue of being opinionated. Agree? --
- He is described as far-right in professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that conclude he's not far-right. The sentence later in the lede gets into more specifics without contradicting the far-right label. Paleoconservative is one of the many flavors that "far-right" comes in. Likewise Libertarianism is a very broad term that also includes Noam Chomsky (who is on the opposite end of the left-right spectrum from Jones). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know why you think that, I never said I support what he says and I never said that the majority of people think he is far-right. But you make some good points, I suppose. --talk) 01:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- It seems like this general issue has come up a lot recently, maybe that's just my watchlist. Anyway, if there is a reliable source for Jones disputing the 'far-right' label, let's see it. Reliable sources seem pretty clear to me, and hedging our wording to avoid the impression of being opinionated isn't actually neutral. Plain language is best. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I find label of "far right" as too tame to describe Alex Jones. I consider "ultra hardcore far right" to be a better label. 175.156.16.252 (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- My tale, if we have Jones disputing the use of the term, put in his rebuttal. Otherwise it's an uncontested claim made by RS. A "true editors" job is to reflect the rules and values of the organ they edit, inn this case verifiablility.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- It seems like this general issue has come up a lot recently, maybe that's just my watchlist. Anyway, if there is a reliable source for Jones disputing the 'far-right' label, let's see it. Reliable sources seem pretty clear to me, and hedging our wording to avoid the impression of being opinionated isn't actually neutral. Plain language is best. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know why you think that, I never said I support what he says and I never said that the majority of people think he is far-right. But you make some good points, I suppose. --
Relationship with Cruz
The article currently states: "Following the 2016 Republican National Convention, Jones and Roger Stone began plotting the removal of Ted Cruz from his Senate seat in 2018 via potential challengers Katrina Pierson and Dan Patrick." A reader of this article could easily be misled into believing that Jones is currently involved in "plotting the removal of Ted Cruz from his Senate seat in 2018". This is not the case. I understand that one could interpret this as referring to something he was specifically doing "following the...Convention", but given the next mid-term elections are in 2018, it is my opinion that this is confusing for readers. At best, it provides an incomplete and inaccurate impression of Jones' relationship with Cruz.
On January 23, 2017, Alex Jones heaped praise on Cruz during a video interview. The video appears to be an uncut clip of Jones' entire interaction with Cruz. Given this was conducted by Alex Jones himself, it was published on his own site, Infowars, which is not generally regarded as a reliable source. Due to the esoteric nature of this interview, it was not covered by reliable secondary sources - the only secondary source available appears to be the conservative blog The Right Scoop, which would likely be regarded as similar in reliability to the original Infowars source.
However, given this is a primary video source, I believed it was suitable as a source for clarifying Jones' relationship with Cruz and added it to the article. Admittedly, I could have indicated the sourced was Jones himself (e.g. 'However, in January 2017, Alex Jones himself said, "*insert quote here*"') to satisfy
) reverted this edit on the grounds that Infowars is not a reliable source.'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
- The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
- It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
- It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
- There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
- The article is not based primarily on such sources.'
The first requirement is met. The purpose of adding this material is to clarify a prior claim for the benefit of the reader. The second requirement is met. The claim is about Alex Jones himself. The third requirement is met, assuming 'subject' is defined as the subject of the claim. This is a primary source for the event addressed in the claim. The fourth requirement is met, given it is a video and there is no evidence of doctoring, nor any motive for Jones to do so with regards to this. The fifth requirement is met, as the sole purpose of using this source is to clarify a prior claim made by another source, and most of the article still consists of reliable sources.
'Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.' This was published by the subject of the biographical material.
As a result of all this, I think there is a strong case for using a questionable self-published primary source in this case in order to avoid the possibility of misleading and confusing the reader.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that Jones can praise Cruz and still be plotting against him. If RS say he was plotting we need RS contradicting this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about explicitly debunking that theory -my proposal is really just to add a line like the aforementioned 'However, in January 2017, Alex Jones himself said, "*insert quote here*"', and letting the reader make up their own mind. --Jay942942 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- That is not at all what your edit stated.
- Ifowars is still not a reliable source. Jones and IW contradict themselves regularly. Wait until this appears in a reliable source, then you can add it in the voice of the source, Jones or Cruz. But not in wikivoice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote above. Not all sources on WP have to be reliable as per WP's own rules. There are certain situations where questionable sources are justified, and this meets the requirements. I also concede that my edit could've been worded better and suggested an alternative approach, the quote. However, the sense of your response indicates you would also be opposing to merely quoting Jones on this topic. If so, please elaborate further as to why you don't think this would qualify under WP rules. The reality is that this is from a 4 month old story. The odds of it appearing in a reliable secondary source at some point down the line are next to none. --Jay942942 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- So if it does not explicitly state we we cannot infer or imply it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if we go down my suggested quote approach, as a primary source, it does explicitly state whatever Jones is quoted as saying. It is not intended to infer or imply anything, merely note a fact that is highly relevant to the topic being discussed (Jones' relationship with Cruz). --Jay942942 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Why is it relevant, if it does not say anything about anything then what are we saying by using it? Do we list all the other people Jones has praised?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is relevant only because this article discusses Jones' supposed attempts to take out Cruz (even though there is no evidence he ever followed up on these empty threats), and this would provide crucial further context. Currently, the article presents this as if it is an ongoing effort, which is factually incorrect. I would be totally for removing this fairly irrelevant line altogether, but I expect there will be a lot of pushback against that from other editors. Really, how long is that line going to stay up? Until after the 2018 TX Senate primary is over?--Jay942942 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be OR, unless RS say this is not an ongoing feud we cannot infer it. The issue of removing the reference to the feud it is a different matter.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- One doesn't have to directly infer the feud is *not* ongoing. Lay out sourced information (and as I've explained above, this qualifies as a justifiable use of a questionable source under the above WP rules), and let the reader infer what they will. It just provides relevant information about the situation in order to give the reader the full context. --Jay942942 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- And I disagree that your explanation justifies inclusion. This material does not prove that it is "factually incorrect" that the feud is over. It does not even infer it, you are using it to infer it (this is OR and Synthases).Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- One doesn't have to directly infer the feud is *not* ongoing. Lay out sourced information (and as I've explained above, this qualifies as a justifiable use of a questionable source under the above WP rules), and let the reader infer what they will. It just provides relevant information about the situation in order to give the reader the full context. --Jay942942 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- That seems to me to be OR, unless RS say this is not an ongoing feud we cannot infer it. The issue of removing the reference to the feud it is a different matter.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if we go down my suggested quote approach, as a primary source, it does explicitly state whatever Jones is quoted as saying. It is not intended to infer or imply anything, merely note a fact that is highly relevant to the topic being discussed (Jones' relationship with Cruz). --Jay942942 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about explicitly debunking that theory -my proposal is really just to add a line like the aforementioned 'However, in January 2017, Alex Jones himself said, "*insert quote here*"', and letting the reader make up their own mind. --Jay942942 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- If it's not covered in reliable sources, it's not fucking notable. That's the definition of WP:NOTABILITY. We're not going to break the rules just to make sure that the least notable part of his tiff with Cruz gets as much coverage as the most notable part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.14:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nice try, but you really have no clue what the rules are. From WP:Notability: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." This discussion isn't about creating a new article about the Jones-Cruz relationship. WP has rules explicitly PERMITTING questionable sources. --Jay942942 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
This page is too partisan
I came here after reading some information claiming he denies the Sandy Hook massacre took place.
What I found was an article that is obviously edited by people who have a partisan agenda against him. Citing articles from highly partisan sources like the Daily Beast and Slate made me take EVERYTHING within this article with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it (talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- This isn't a forum, this is a discussion page for how to improve this article. So what changes are you suggesting? All sources have some amount of bias. If you just want Jones's take on himself, you can go to his websites. Wikipedia favors independent, ) 22:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Citing articles from highly partisan sources like the Daily Beast and Slate made me take EVERYTHING within this article with a grain of salt.
That's a good thing. That makes me happy. Next, start taking everything Jones say, everything Fox News and Breitbart say with a grain of salt. In fact, take everything you hear or read online with a grain of salt. Welcome to skepticism.Tell me all about it.13:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The least you can do is out the whole picture out there instead of covering half of it up. It makes you the writer look inept. BenScheidegger (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- @BenScheidegger: Which of the 2,830 editors are you talking to? Doug Weller talk 09:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
73.15.47.45 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/connecticut-nbcmegyn-kelly-alex-jones-interview-1202469317/.
Here is an update WVIT is not airing the Megyn Kelly/Alex Jones interview due to the Sandy Hook conspiracies Alex Jones and his fan base has been accused of ranting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:934 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- What has this to do with our article?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2017
![]() | This Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kevin005 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- What edit?Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017
![]() | This Alex Jones (radio host) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |