Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Alex Jones may well be far right. However, this is contentious. It has very negative connotations. Contentious material about living persons that is potentially libellous should be removed. Misplaced Pages should be objective. It doesn't matter how many citations you find for people name calling him as "far right" - many of the people cited hate him which is why they call him that (most of the sites cited are left leaning and could be biased as a result).
IF he is far right, then I think it would not be contentious if he was described more specifically in his political views eg. what type of far right is he? This wouldn't involve name calling and being potentially libellous.
Having that phrase "far right" within the first sentence of his page seems designed to brand him in a negative way. If it were written somewhere further down the page with its many attached citations that would be more acceptable because it would have less affect of the article. Also putting it like this: "he is seen by many (citation, citation, citation x1000) as far-right", that would be much more objective and would not be a smear.
I am not saying he isn't far right, I am saying that having that written at the top of his page, is a hugely defamatory, negative statement and is designed to slander him and therefore is not objective. ] (]) 23:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:16, 29 June 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alex Jones article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why is Alex Jones described as a far-right conspiracy theorist?
A1: The preponderance of reliable sources describes him as this.
"The case of Mr. Jones and Infowars is tricky for many politicians and figures on the right. While many dislike the idea of tech companies censoring political speech, and Infowars leans far right, Mr. Jones regularly spreads lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory attacks against political enemies." ----The New York Times
"Kaiser, the Harvard researcher, said that Jones was a far-right 'beacon' -- a sort of gateway who could bring conservatives looking for right-wing media into the extreme fringes via YouTube's recommendations." --CNBC
"Twitter banned far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his website InfoWars from its platform Thursday afternoon" --CNN
"Twitter announced Thursday that it had banned the accounts of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his far-right media company Infowars" --NBC News
"Facebook today removed 22 pages associated with far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones" --The Verge
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
Let's review for our newly-arrived Infowars/Newswars/Prison Planet minions, shall we? Alex Jones claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps, that the US is being invaded by South American walruses... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
If he's an actor, these claims are taken out of context and should be framed in the context of his radio show persona. It's a blatant lack of integrity to take claims of a character and portray then onto the individual Objective Reason (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand why the context of these words is always excluded. Reliable sources in Misplaced Pages no longer includes direct sources, which means that the context is removed. If neutrality is the goal, it changes the entire page. Note that I presumed he has been an actor since 2007, based on the fact I've never seen these words on anything outside of his program. Not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that would be intellectually honest Objective Reason (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
You think he is an actor playing a role, I think he is a conman rolling the rubes. Neither of us are RS, what we think is not admissible. What we do is go with what RS say, if RS do not say he is an actor neither can we. End of story.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
“All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players;” Shakespeare was really talking about something other than what a lawyer attempting (and failing) to win a defamation lawsuit might claim. If there’s a claim related to a lawsuit, it could be added as such. Otherwise, I think any claim he is simply an actor is a non-starter. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Objective Reason (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Your argument is an ad-verecundiam, note that Removing the context is the issue. I'm not even claiming he's an actor, please do not divert the objection. The context would allow this plausible scenario to be true or false. This removes the need to "source" the 'claim', not because I'm an authority figure, but because it would be self evident. There's been 1000s of examples of people using a character to promote themselves since the beginning of time. What's abundantly clear is that the claims are nonsense which are in constant flux. Why is this a point of contention? Objective Reason (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Its not self evident its wp:or. You say it is self evident an actor, I say it is self evident he is a conman (and not an actor which has a specific connotation). That is why we have wp:v to ensure that our own opinions do not become a source for argument.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you unable to read or are you being intentionally dishonest? The word "truth" was never typed, I said neutrality which means PUT EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS IN CONTEXT (Such as, "On XYZ RS, Alex Jones Claimed Y"). I've been against Alex Jones for a while, but to attribute a view to someone based on a secondary source requires context for validity, not "Truth".Objective Reason (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm in no mood to argue with anyone that resorts to statements like: Are you unable to read or are you being intentionally dishonest? Happy New Year. O3000 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, note that my objection was to illustrate the lack of framing of the OP, and how context changes the perception, It's frustrating that I can't be clear.Objective Reason (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
No, what? I do not understand how attribution removes the necessity of context. I have RS quoting Seinfeld, are you saying the OP including links to RS without context would make it valid? Objective Reason (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I can find An RS that says Seinfeld is an actor (or even fictional character), the analogy does not work. As I said I think Jones is nothing more than a snake Oil salesman who uses politics as a front. That is not the same as being a fictional character in a TV show (even if it is a fictional representation of a real person).Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Please try to understand the objection. If I Quote seinfeld from a reliable source, but the source is a review for an episode, that doesn't netgate the source, it NECESSITATES context to put asinine claims into a realm of believable. Read the OP, there's no human being that reads that and concludes anytthing rational. By the way, being a con man is acting, but this looks like total nonsense. It begs the question if this is in the question of a radio show/ a debate, a paper, an article, or word of mouth. It's essential to ascertain what the beliefs are.Objective Reason (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
But whilst we have RS that says seinfeld is an act, and thus we can agree on that not everyone thinks Jones is an actor (and no being a conman does not make you an actor, it makes what you pretend to be an act). That is at the heart of this, the fact that it is not self evident what he is. So how then do we frame this "the Actor Jones" the conman Jones" The "might be a conman or an actor Jones". Hell maybe the claim it is an act is an act, who knows? Maybe he is a fantasist, mad, Max Headroom? The simple fact is we do not know, and cannot know. So we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm finished, I tried illustrate that we have the same opinion (Alex Jones is lying to viewers without telling them), but it's clear if you won't accept conning as acting then you will not attempt to see my objection in a objective manner. Objective Reason (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Alex Jones the Quintessential Dark tetrad
Alex animated Sadism matches well with Gen-X cartoons and Millennial memes. He uses conspiracy theories to push his audience into rabbit holes, once they are deep in he starts selling them Super Male Vitality anti-conspiracy products. ToddGrande (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"Spreading" misinformation is pointy and should be replaced
"Spreading" misinformation is pointy and polemical and should be replaced by "disseminating" or equivalent, imo. A virus also is said to "spread". I think it's a little too cute to keep this verb in the article. An encyclopedia should be more sober than double entendres. Dr.K.16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"Disseminating" is fine, but "spreading" is not in any way a "double entendre", nor is it "pointy and polemical", it's a fine Germanic word which was probably first used in connection with agriculture and spreading seeds. In fact, the definition for "disseminate" I just looked up defines it as meaning "to spread". The Latinate word may sound more "encyclopedic", but the Germanic word is just as acceptable, and just as neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Since we all seem to agree on "disseminate" I will go ahead and replace it. I will not argue the finer semantics, if you don't mind, BMK. Thank you. Dr.K.19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Dr.K., no strong views. Spreading is accurate, disseminating is a bit precious. Promoting? Publishing? Broadcasting? Spreading might be the simplest and easiest word. Guy (help!) 19:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
No strong views either, other than for spreading. If you think spreading is the best, please go ahead and change it. I don't think spending any more time on this is proportionate to its value. Dr.K.19:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've got someone trying to eliminate "far right" as a description of Jones, despite the five sources that call him that. Someone deal with this please, I'm tired of these idiots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
It's truly hilarious to be called an idiot for defending and upholding Misplaced Pages's core values by removing subjective information in favor for the objective. If Misplaced Pages was just 100% paraphrasing news articles, it would be a mess, and frankly it is especially on Alex Jones' page. This article is chock full of negative portrayals, but if the public should entertain them, which is fair, then they should also be given a neutral unbiased introduction. Honestly this page needs full protection because of all the vandalism of ignorant offended SJWs who believe everything they see on the news. I won't even begin to talk about the hypocrisy of the issue either.
Let's talk Misplaced Pages policy. :We report what reliable sources say. We do not evaluate for ourselves, that would be original research, which is not allowed. We also do not label things by our personal point of view, which is also forbidden -- see WP:NPOV.Do not revert "far right" from the article again. It's now supported by 7 references, from sources such as USA Today, Forbes magazine, Haaretz, and Bloomberg News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Jones is absolutely far right. THere should be no dispute about that. I agree with those who say that it is an accurate description and that it stays in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I will add to the chorus that Jones is far-right as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, based on many reliable sources. Nothing about this seems like an extraordinary claim, and "bias" doesn't mean false equivalence. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I invite everyone who edits this article in the future to take a look at WP:YESPOV. This Misplaced Pages policy clearly and specifically says that you cannot use what a news article says as an expression of fact in Misplaced Pages's voice, you can only address the articles' viewpoint. There are already several sections on Alex Jones' article for showing what people in the media think of him. His introductory paragraph is especially not the section for that. Therefore you cannot write in the article that " is... far-right", you must say that he is alleged to be this or that people say that he is this. However, you shouldn't do that in the introduction either as that is too specific for an introduction. There might even be a policy on that but I'm just going off of common sense for that one. So, I will revert the article and notify an admin next time someone puts "far-right" in.
Katabatic03 (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually I won't revert it in lieu of the edits made over it. I think I'm just going to notify an admin.
Katabatic03 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
We don't need yet another new talk page section for this.
Your comments about "news articles" is wrong. Misplaced Pages summarizes reliable sources, including news articles, in almost every significant article about the modern world. The YESPOV bit only applies to opinions. Few of these sources are opinions, so "far-right" is not automatically an opinion any more than "conspiracy theorist" is an opinion. In other words, your dislike of a factual description doesn't make it an opinion. However, your opinion about what is "too specific" is just your opinion. Sources decide WP:DUE, not editors. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
People like you guys who twist Misplaced Pages policies to keep an article conforming to your political agenda make me sick. You guys are literally labeling him just because sources label him. He himself has never adopted those labels. If you want to label him you have to address the labels not insert them as something purely factual. But I’ll leave the page alone since it triggers everyone when I fix it. I wonder how many celebrities are appalled when they read their Misplaced Pages pages... Katabatic03 (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "You guys are literally labeling him just because sources label him." That's almost right: we are describing him as our reliable sources describe him. Grayfell is absolutely correct, that is what we do. Because the vast majority of us aren't experts on the subjects of most of the articles we work on, we rely on reliable sources (which policy you'd be better off reading than searching around for some policy you think supports you) and report what they say. If reliable sources conflict, we report both versions. What we do not do is report what biased, one-sided, POV-agenda sources say, because they're biased, one sided, and report from a POV, nor do we make stuff up, or poll other editors and our readers as to what they think. This is the way we work, and it's going to stay the way we work, because it's been successful: it's made Misplaced Pages one of the most visited sites on the Internet, and earned us a hard-won reputation for accuracy and reliability.Of course there are people-- iike you -- who don't like how we operate for one reason or another. Most often it's because we won't report what they, in their personal experience, believe to be the "objective truth". Well, the fact of it is, we don't much care about big "t" "Truth", what we care about is the WP:verifiability of the information we report. There are a lot of competing "truths" out there -- hell, every religion has it's own version of "truth", and every political group, and every group of more than 3 people (if they can agree on one). To figure out which one of these "truths" is "objectively true" is nearly impossible.Even in our science coverage we don't look for "truth", we report what the consensus of scientists in that field say, and if there are significant wp:fringe views, we report what they say as well, but not to the extent that we do the mainstream view.A little thought will show that this is the only way an encyclopedia run by non-expert volunteers can possibly operate. There's no "hypocrisy" here, or at least very little of it, we're doing exactly what we say we will do in our policies, and the vast majority of people appear to value it. What you are asking for is something else entirely, something that does not fit in with our policies, our goals, or our philosophy. If you want that, you'll have to go somewhere else, or start your own encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, in case you think that we're BSing you, Greyfall has been here for 12 years and has over 66,000 edits to almost 22,000 pages, while I've been here just shy of 15 years and have around 250,000 edits to over 50,000 pages. That's not to pull rank on you, it's just to show you that we really do know Misplaced Pages, and its rules and policies and, most importantly, its philosphy. We could not have possibly lasted this long if we didn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
So you do not believe that the designation "far right" is an opinion? Or perhaps you do believe it's an opinion and use it because it been used by media sources. Well tell me, is it a matter of contention? Would Alex Jones himself describe his views as far right? Because he doesn't, nor has he ever as far as I know. So why do you use media sources when every single one of them has a certain political agenda. You'd be very hardpressed to find a truly neutral media source and yet you keep on using them as if they are the objective truth. I find that very interesting. I also wonder how you define a media source as a trusted one. Because you cannot have so many inherently biased articles on Misplaced Pages and claim to be a neutral and wholly objective online encyclopedia. Alekaa20025 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
A: we go with what RS say. B: North Korea says its Democratic, is it? Just because someone says something does not make it true. C: Has Jones denied it? D: We do not claim to be neutral and wholly objective, we claim to represent what RS say. Ironically I...but then we are not a wp:soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but I'm not inclined to pay much attention to the opinions of an editor who attempts to soften descriptions of what the Nazis did to the Slavic population of Eastern Europe. Pretty typical of the type of people who support Alex Jones, unfortunately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
So you aren't willing to pay attention to people because of what they have done in the past? Alright your choice but it isn't you that makes the decisions. If anything this shows that you have a certain bias against people based on their political beliefs and thus your opinion matters even less in my view. I am simply focused on objectivity, and have always claimed as such.
Regardless here is an excerpt from the Misplaced Pages reliable sources page.
"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.
As such Alex Jones has sources which define his own views. I wouldn't say they are much more unbiased than these definitions the media gives out but it's still fair sources which should be given representation. And as far as I see they are not. Alekaa20025 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Well as a claim he is not far right could be seen as unduly self-serving (as he is denying a serious accusation made by multiple RS) it would in fact violate SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Far Right" - needs altering
Alex Jones may well be far right. However, this is contentious. It has very negative connotations. Contentious material about living persons that is potentially libellous should be removed. Misplaced Pages should be objective. It doesn't matter how many citations you find for people name calling him as "far right" - many of the people cited hate him which is why they call him that (most of the sites cited are left leaning and could be biased as a result).
IF he is far right, then I think it would not be contentious if he was described more specifically in his political views eg. what type of far right is he? This wouldn't involve name calling and being potentially libellous.
Having that phrase "far right" within the first sentence of his page seems designed to brand him in a negative way. If it were written somewhere further down the page with its many attached citations that would be more acceptable because it would have less affect of the article. Also putting it like this: "he is seen by many (citation, citation, citation x1000) as far-right", that would be much more objective and would not be a smear.
I am not saying he isn't far right, I am saying that having that written at the top of his page, is a hugely defamatory, negative statement and is designed to slander him and therefore is not objective. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Aristarchos_logo_small.png){kind=link}
