Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Alex Jones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

This archive page covers approximately discussion between March 2004 and July 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

What is the Correct Spelling of Mr. Jones's Middle Name?

Is the correct spelling of Mr. Jones's middle name Emerick or Emric?

In the below Travis County, Texas document it lists an Alexander Emerick Jones:

Travis County Commissioners' Court Minutes, March 24, 1998:

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/commissioners_court/minutes/1998/03/980324vs.pdf

Alex Jones is highly active in the local politics where he lives and has been for some time, so I would be somewhat surprised if that's not a reference to him. Austin, where Alex Jones lives, is the county seat of Travis County.

I'm the one who originally put the "Emerick" spelling in the Wikipedia article, based on the fact that that was the only "Alexander Emerick/Emric/etc. Jones" that I found doing a Google search, i.e., in the above document. I've heard Alex Jones say his middle name on air, but he didn't spell it. This Wikipedia article on Alex Jones has had the "Emerick" spelling for some time now. Google still lists no other spelling variation on the name Emerick/Emric other than "Alexander Emerick Jones."

An edit was only made to the "Emric" spelling on 15:00, 27 February 2006 by 81.153.133.216 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28journalist%29&oldid=41465109 ), and of whom left no comment concerning the edit.

So which spelling is the correct one?--209.208.77.177 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

All-Being

Is anything NOT truth? Knowledge is the light revealing that which was unknown. If we are honest with ourselves, then we will be honest with the world around us, from perception to communication. We owe ourselves to face every aspect, every facet, of life, and accommodate each one, even if they do not agree. Let us learn to befriend ourselves and others, and treat our own lives as a devoted farmer would his beloved animals. All life has its place, even if some parts of it kill other parts. Even if one cannot exist in the presence of the other, both still exist. Basically, we just need to understand that we are dumb fucks, and we don't know shit about much of anything. That way at least we can look at things with a less pompous eye.

Jones has approval from a range of supporters as well:

for his ability to draw from a majority of references to mainstream sources, and relate it to a grand theme.
for being willing to stand for his rights as was the case when he was arrested after resisting a thumbprint scan.
for offering a solution to fight the patriot act by appearing in front of a council with an allotted time of 15 minutes.
for speaking out against fear, which we are all so afraid to do.

Jones can appear to be very energetic and impassioned over his alternative journalism. He appears to have a high level of vocabulary.

Either he is very intelligent and very cracked, or he is very honest and very dedicated, and these days, who the hell's gonna know the difference?

No need to apply censorship here

The fact some of us don't like what Mr. Jones says doesn't mean facts about Mr. Jones should not be put here. On that basis only good people would qualify, no Hitlers and such. Kindly let me decide if I want to read about Alex Jones.

It's not about Jones anyway, it's about us and you. Do we get to learn about things if I'm inquisitive about them? Or do we let YOU filter out what you don't like?

The criteria for these types of entries in my opinion is whether someone has had some influence on society or has been newsworthy (not that he has a great vocabulary or eloquence, etc.), but some significant enough basis to be noticed maybe not by you, but by a lot of others.

Jones clearly has changed a lot of public opinion on important current events, which is not at all easy, and in areas the regular media would not dare touch, not for intelligence but for fear or corruption. On the other hand he's rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Hey, that's life.

I suggest we who think its a good topic focus on accurate and relevant content, as a lot of it still seems missing, and keep an eye out for vandals.

-Yeah i've noticed a huge right-wing bias on this site just check out the spin on the Bush article and everything they leave out.

Anti Semitism

Some people tend to add the term "anti-semitic" to "controversial" in the first paragraph. This is f**cking bullshit. With this logic you could label anyone who talks about anything jewish an "anti-semite". It really, really hurts me, as this only helps those who are real anti-semites.... Yes, he talks about Jews, and not in favourable terms, but he doesn't talk about "The Jews", he talks about wealthy individuals who happen to be jewish. If i write "The History of Banking" and i mention Amschel Bauer Rothschild am i an anti-semite ????

Yes, you are. First of all, "Jewish bankers" is the classic anti-Semitic codeword for "Jews." Anti-Semites have been attacking the Jewish people under the guise of criticizing "Jewish bankers" for hundreds of years. Why do people like you, who claim to not be anti-Semitic, only ever attack Jewish bankers like the Rothschilds (who BTW, are not the shady people you make them out to be)? Jews are but a tiny minority in the banking industry, yet people like Alex Jones and his followers always single them out for attack. Why? Secondly, I've actually heard Alex Jones' radio show, and you're not fooling anyone. He spends half his time on the air railing against the ADL and Israel. It's obvious the man is an anti-Semite, and I strongly suspect that you are one as well. HGinsburg 06:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing the globalists with people who simply want to be free and be left the Hell alone when you speak of "codewords." The globalists have a major fetish for codewords and codephrases, e.g., "New World Order," "A bridge to the 21st century," "A thousand points of light," "New Order of the Ages," etc. HGinsburg, the previous poster which you are here responding to is speaking literally and clearly. To accuse him of using "codewords" is dishonest on your part, as the literal meaning of his words is perfectly rational and understandable. There is no need to imagine that he means something other than what he is saying, as the literal meaning of what he is saying is perfectly coherent on its own terms (unlike actual codewords and phrases, which are nonsensical unless you already understand their special meaning). It is an *actual fact* that a number of supposed "Jews" are central bankers around the globe. By your logic, HGinsburg, one could never criticize the existence of, or the system of, central banking without thereby being guilty of using "codewords" (which apparently then makes the Jewish libertarian, Murrary N. Rothbard, the king of anti-semites). Of course, this is simply dishonest, inflamatory rhetoric on your part, HGinsburg, used to provoke an emotional response and to thereby shut down rational thought on vital issues. Concerning your two examples of Alex Jones's supposed "anti-semitism": the ADL is an truly horrible, freedom-destroying organization; and the government of Israel is an utterly racist and Nazi-like, ethnic-cleansing government (but then, all governments are diabolical). To criticize these two nefarious organizations is to therein be just and righteous. And no, Alex Jones spends very little time on the ADL and Israel. Recently Alex Jones has been speaking more on the Israeli government regarding the 100,000-plus so-called "ringworm children," who were Sephardi children that, during the 1950s, the Israeli government irradiated with 35,000 times the maximum safe life-exposure dose of X-rays through their heads (i.e., all of them got this same dose). The U.S. government paid the Israeli government today's equivalent of 50 billion U.S. dollars to conduct these radiation experiments, even though the ill effects of massive doses of X-rays were well-known since the 1920s, and even though the actual radiation experiments only cost about a million dollars (in other words, the rest of the money was simply a payoff to the Israeli government by the U.S. government for it conducting these radiation tests). The Israeli government called them "ringworm children" as a pretext to massively irradiate their skulls, even though almost all of them were perfectly heathly. Many of the children died within a few days of the radiation exposer, with virtually all the rest being left with brain-damage and/or cancers. Most of the so-called "ringworm children" are now dead, having died early deaths from the lifelong complications that resulted from their massive irradiation.209.208.77.184 20:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are both incorrect; Alex Jones never talks about Jews in regard to their race or religious beliefs. He does talk about certain corrupt individuals like Kissenger and the Rothschild family as well as hundred of other people of all races and beliefs. But the idea that criticism of corrupt individuals who happen to be Jewish is somehow racist or anti-Semitic is itself one of the most racist things I’ve ever read. For a start you say the Rothschild’s aren’t as bad as they’re made out…please show me some good deeds they have done to neutralise the thousands of negative ones (like the total manipulation of the financial system of the world, which rich white men are involved in equally). Secondly the idea that Jews are a tiny minority is absurd, come on man, lets have some honesty from you. You may think your Gods chosen people but denial is still denial whatever race you are. Only 3 % of the US population are Jewish but half of US billionaires are Jewish. Which is fine, but please, people do not become billionaires by being virtuous, far from it.

What Alex Jones does talk about however is political Zionism, as a creation of bankers/ industrialists in London, which is being used essentially as a frontier for Anglo-American Imperialism (globalization) in the Middle-East. Unfortunately most Jews over-react to such ideas as being the racist ravings of right-wing ‘goyims’. But a glance at www.jewsagainstzionism.com amongst others shows that real Jews (followers of Judaism) are opposed to political Zionism and the neo-imperialism they’re promoting, exactly as Alex Jones is.

Since when has criticism of Israel and the ADL being racist or anti-Semitic? You may think that, as gods chosen people (lol), non-Jewish beings aren’t allowed to say such things, even if they’re true, but that’s only because you are the racist Jewish supremacist that is hiding the massive criminality of the state of Israel and the ADL by using censorship and the labelling of people as ‘anti-Semitic’. If you had listened to Alex Joes you would know that he vehemently opposes the idea that Jews are planning world domination, or that it is Jewish related in any way.

[Above comments unsigned, not mine.] I suggest that any serious Wikipedian simply ignore the vast majority of the above; a huge portion of it was written in bad faith. Greyscale 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

thorough explanation needed

Basically, here's what I think would be great for this article. I'd like to see a more thorough and even-handed explanation of Jones' theories, main theses, background information, and so forth. I think if it were presented in a straightforward, undramatic way, it might present him in a more informative light than the present article does. This way, readers could make some basic judgement or take away some basic understanding of the issue. For one thing, I think, as it stands, the concentration of the article on the Bohemian Grove bit just bolsters the casual reader's perception that, "Yeah, this guy's clearly a nutjob or a fraud." Whether or not the Cremation of Care bit is factual, it's easily the chunk of Jones' work that would seem most rediculous to a casual observer, especially out of the context of his other pursuits.

For the moment, I'll leave it up to someone who has maybe delved deeper or more recently seen Jones' movies and kept up with his progression, but I might give it a go if the article just sits in its present state for a while. By the way, does anyone have a citation for the bit of the article that claims that the BBC funds Jones' movies? I have never heard that tidbit, and it seems a bit far-fetched. --SamClayton 09:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That probably derives from confusion over some small connections Jones had with a group of British documentary makers when he did the Bohemian Grove film (don't know in what capacity the Brits worked for the BBC, if at all). Also, some BBC bloke (sorry) seems to have praised him on several occasions. But the BBC certainly doesn't fund his films. BarrettBrown

Dunno. Michael Ruppert points out times Jones gets the facts wrong to the point of inverted.[1] 142.177.126.57 18:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Notes

Alex's Christianity ought to be mentioned somewhere, as it molds his whole world outlook. I will second that. Even though I happen to agree with the analysis and research of Mr. Jones I totally agree with that his christianity be mentioned in the article. Often it is this naivety that leads him astray even though he does have exceptional insight. Jones knows fully well that the pyramid has many sides to climb and for that reason he ridicules the wiccan protestors outside the gates of the Bohemian Grove. It is only when we look to the top of the pyramid when Mr. Jones "refuses to see the light" which I find utterly disappointing.

Also, I think it would be relevant to note his hostile attitude toward anything/anyone of power disagreeing with his position. (He called Professor Noam Chomsky a "shill" for the NWO after interviewing him and verbally attacked him--after the telephone interview with Chomsky ended.)

You would probably be hostile too if you know someone in opposition to you is lying, or if people called you a lier when you weren't lying (by the word "lying" I mean the motive to decieve; not by being correct or incorrect in what you say), or if people lied about you in order to paint you as a lier.

Alex is hostile towards anyone trying to control him. It doesn't matter if they're trying to control his body or his mind. Well, no wait... I think he gets more upset by people trying to control his mind then he does by them trying to control his body. Though I'm sure he gets upset by both greatly.

Subversive 09:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

He is 100% right on disinfo agent Chomsky, see this article: http://www.rense.com/general67/noam.htm

I added a "Criticisms" section plus another sentence in the first paragraph to satisfy my own request.

Subversive 10:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

What the hell happened to my "Criticisms" section??? Well, I'll put up the header; some info. really needs to be added to that section.

Subversive 11:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I read the rense.com article on Chomsky and the section on fluoridation just made me giggle. If you know where the phrases "Purity of Essence" and "Our Precious Bodily Fluids" come from then you know why I was laughing. I can't take rense.com seriously as a source. - E. Nonee Moose

I'm not surprised to see Jones attacking Chomsky. In Jones' mind, I'm sure every person of Jewish descent is a "shill" for the "New World Order." HGinsburg 07:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

HGinsburg, not to insult your intelligence or research, but I've been listening to Alex Jones for about two years now and haven't heard him say anything regarding the common Jew as being the basis for evil. In fact, he attacks those who equate common Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc. as being seperatists who want to break up groups, instead of fighting globalism and the globalists who push it. Zionism does not equal Judaism, as Alex once put beautifully. Fight the real enemy, not some perceived enemy just because alot of prominent people are Jewish.Massacabre 08:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I must concur with Massacabre; I do not think that Jones can be accurately construed as an anti-Semite. With evidence to the contrary I would reverse that statement, but... I think HGinsburg's concern is misplaced. The accusation of anti-Semitism seems to me to be a generalization of philosophies that you (HGinsburg) perceive as threatening. Ironic that we'd have this accusation on the talk page of somebody accused of being a conspiracy theorist; but at any rate I think this is pretty unverifiable and does not belong in the article. Criticizing the actions of a person who happens to be Jewish does not equate to anti-Semitism; if it did, he would be guilty of being anti-[insert ethnic, political, racial, or religious group here]. That they are a Jew isn't what he's criticising. If you can provide evidence to other ends, by all means, set the record straight. The worst thing that could happen from me challenging the veracity of your claim is that I'll learn a thing or two. Greyscale 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with both of you. I don't mean to accuse HGinsburg of having a persecution complex, but that's what all his commentary seems to point to (and keep in mind that I, myself, am Jewish). The idea that the actions of a member or members of a certain ethnicity or race represent the character of that entire group is the most fundamental principle of racism and all other prejudice. Jones never makes any such assertions about Jews or any other ethnic group. The fact that Jones repeatedly rails against the wars being waged in the world as being racist in nature should be enough to tip anyone off that he does not hold any such views. Add to that the fact that he is as harsh a critic as any of the Nazi regime and its program of mass-murder (name for me an anti-semite who holds those same views) and you get a pretty clear idea that the guy holds no racial or ethnic biases. In his world view, power and money are corrupting forces, and corruption knows no race, religion or ethnicity.

I don't personally agree with everything Jones says, and find some of the conclusions he has drawn to be rather spurious and unfounded, but to suggest that the guy is in any way a racist or anti-semite is intellectually dishonest.--Baltech22 05:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Tags

I move that we delete the tags. There appears to be nothing about the article, in its present state, that is at all POV</nowiki> or not neutral. The opinions of Jones are recorded here as Jones's opinions, and whether or not he's agreeable is utterly irrelevant. Greyscale 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Mmx1 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I moved some stuff in the intro around and I think it makes it even more clear that these are this guy's opinions. As it stands now, I don't see that it needs to be tagged POV. It could maybe use a little more {{cleanup}}, though. --Deville (Talk) 04:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What is disputed?

What is disputed? Lets make this an article, instead of a stub w a header! If I don't hear an objection soon, I'm gonna remove the header ;) Sam Spade 04:21, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"He is one of the most well-supported and intense investigators in his field today." This seems to be POV (as was most of this article), and the phrase "well-supported" is vague, at best. Also, someone could easily doubt the veracity of the Bohemian Grove movie or what it purports to depict. I don't really think it merits inclusion. Unless I hear otherwise, I intend to delete or reword these bits of the article. --SamClayton 06:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Softened the language, but I think it should be revised to something more meaningful and verifiable. CHL 00:10, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I've softened the language further ("purportedly" and "allegedly"). I also am curious about the statement "Among conspiracy theorists, he's thought to be among the the most well-supported investigators in the field today." Does this mean that he is more well-supported than other conspiracy theorists or that other consipiracy theorists consider him well-supported? Furthermore, does "well-supported" mean that his allegations are well-documented, that he receives ample donations for his work, or that he has comfortable underwear? JHCC 17 May 2004

I think the "well-supported" line is clear POV. I'm sure there are even people who lend credence to other conspiracy theories that don't buy his version of events or motives. It comes off as Wikipedia endorsing his claims. Maybe something along the lines of "highly-regarded" would be a little less biased? Suggestions? I also think it would be worthwhile to include, possibly verbatim, some of his claims (ex. the Kyoto Accords outline a plan for massive concentration camps, etc.), so that readers can judge for themselves and have some context. --SamClayton 18:16, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I have read this article; as there is nothing in the article that is non-factual, I don't understand why this is under debate. The article states Jones's beliefs as that--Jones's beliefs--and correctly represents them. What it reports him as saying, he has in fact said. Therefore there is no veracity dispute, and those tags should be taken down immediately.

>> The use of the word "beliefs" is a very poor choice. Alex Jones is a journalistic researcher who relies on observation and tangible facts to challenge the activies and agendas of the corporatist elite. Give the man his due, and express the nature of his activities in the proper context. Alex Jones calls upon us not to subscribe to a belief, but to observe with our own eyes and draw upon our own abilities to see through the veritable lies and deceptions of our age. (RPC)

The argument people are having on this talk page (and it is simply that, an argument) is about whether or not Jones is right, not whether or not the article is. Wikipedia is not intended to state views about or judge those topics on which it has articles. The article for the Three Stooges is not a place to say, "I think slapstick comedy is in poor taste," and nor is this article a place to say, "I think Jones is right/wrong".

Jones is controversial, about that there is no doubt; however, that discussion, and the one that has utterly consumed this talk page, belongs on blogs and forums and not on Wikipedia.

Greyscale 02:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

conspiracy theorist

I don't like the label "conspiracy theorist." It's a euphemism for "crazy kook," and "don't believe a word this guy says." Alex Jones is about as much a conspiracy theorist as say... George W. Bush, the boys at Fox News, and just about everyone else in this country. What was the pretext for invading Iraq? A conspiracy theory; the Iraqis were a conspirin' to get us Americans, and yet nobody referred to the government officials or mainstream media people as conspiracy theorists.

While I don't agree with everything Jones says, much of what he puts on his site is drawn from other sources; often times mainstream internet sites. For example, he seems interested in the whole microchip implanted into the body as a means of control angle. But this is both well-documented as well as advertised in the mainstream media. God forbid somebody draw the conclusion that the microchips were designed for reasons other protecting children from kidnappers or old folks with alzheimers. We'll have to brand them a conspiracy theorist.

Is Noam Chomsky a conspiracy theorist? What about Howard Zinn? The best description of what Jones does is draw conclusions, some correct & some incorrect, from the news he gathers while making comparisons to known historical events. This is what everyone with an interest in history and politics does. Jones predicted 9/11 several years before it happened [assuming the video I observed was dated in 1997]. Bush predicted we'd find WMDs, that the Iraqis would greet us with flowers, and he was wrong on both counts. The people whose views aren't popular, or whose views don't have much influence get marginalized as conspiracy theorists. But consider the fact that the American public took the CIA's, the Executive Branch's, and the Senates "theories" and "views" on Iraq very seriously. They basically swallowed a bunch of hogwash... in fact many are still swallowing it. What's essentially happening is a battle for control of public perceptions. Anyway, the point is, have an open mind. Don't penalize non-mainstream info/disinfo sources when the veracity of 99.9% of everything else out there is suspect. [ATreiDeezNutz!]

Fret not, Nutz, as the interesting and telling part of Wikipedia is the Discussion/Talk -- 'twas ever thus, and ever thus will be. This is where folks come to get the real story, and what archaeologists of the future will dig for like Tut's gold.

Jones has produced a veritable treasure trove of artifacts whose value will not be understood until long after he's gone (assuming he's not high on the desaparecidos {we can speak the truer words here in "Talk}" list) -- from his investigation of the Satanic cabal of world leaders which meets annually at Bohemian Grove near Monte Rio, California in an ancient redwood grove, to the unmatched coverage of the terrorist attack on Oklahoma City, to relentless pursuit of the terrorists responsible for this and for 9/11, to expert analysis of the abominations "Patriot" Act I and II. Rick Wilson

Nutz: I've lived in Austin all my life, and I've listened and watched Jones' programs on a regular basis for years. Much of what you say is on point. He does draw most of his data from the credible old-school media, and the majority of the facts he presents are independently verifiable. In fact, I share many of his concerns about civil liberties, media compliance with government agendas, uncritical assessments of what is presented as fact, and so forth; I simply disagree with his ultimate conclusions in many cases.

What's core to this discussion is that Alex Jones is a de facto conspiracy theorist; he forms theories (more correctly, hypotheses) about conspiratorial cabals. In every sense of the phrase, the shoe fits. Simply because "conspiracy theorist" has gathered negative connotations over the years doesn't mean it is in any way an inaccurate description of Alex Jones and his M.O., nor does it discredit his work out of hand. If someone reading the article dismisses what he presents out of hand on that basis, then that is their decision. It should, however, at least be prominently noted in the article that even a large subset of his listeners, fans, and admirers would (correctly) describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and so would just about any writer for any publication.

There are qualitative differences between conspiracy theory and the theories provided by historians, Noam Chomsky, and the other groups of people that you mention. Most centrally, conspiracy theorists generally assert that history unfolds largely on the basis of hidden cabals of powerful individuals or organizations whose existence, structure, or importance are typically, by their very nature, unproven or unprovable. Once again, I'm not denigrating this line of thinking, but this would be its major difference and, in some senses, its major disadvantage in gaining mainstream credibility. There are arguably other factors, including stylistic differences, presentation, level of credulity, and so forth.

Chomsky is more a kook than Jones. Did Jones ever say the Afghanistan invasion would result in the death of millions of Afghanis in a "silent genocide"? He's also the guy who pretends Pol Pot's reign of terror never happened. Jones may make ridiculous and wildly inaccurate theories, but Chomsky lies through his teeth and ignores evidence. I don't agree with Alex Jones one bit, but he's more credible than Chomsky is, yet isn't seen that way to most people. And Rick Wilson, I hope to God you're being sarcastic. Unfortunately, the cynic in me says you're serious. GreatGatsby 04:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Putting "conspiracy theorist" in this article is akin to putting "WASP" in GWB's. While it may literally be true, it is a remark that has negative connotations, and is stated with intent to defame. Therefore this is not NPOV, and the term does not belong on Wikipedia.

"Some of his media peers believe Jones to be a conspiracy theorist," might be an exception--if, of course, you can supply verification. Greyscale 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someguy Wrote:

I think this arguement is pointless. Why can't we just say, "Some people call him a 'conspiracy theorist' because of his..." maybe even add in, "Others have argued against giving him this lable because..."

This is wikipiedia... why not express both (and all) views as much as humanily (and wikipedia-ly) possible? I don't see how anyone who doesn't like to call him a "conspiracy theorist" can object to the statement of fact that there are lots of people out there who think he is.

Saying someone 'is' a "conspiracy theorist" is a statement of opinion. However, saying that people 'say he's a conspiracy theorist' is a statement of fact. Lets stick to the facts, shall we?

P.S. I don't believe Alex Jones to be a consiracy theorist.

rhetorical style

I think Jones's biggest strength & weakness is his rhetorical style. He knows that most people are turned off by dry political debate, so he sensationalizes to get his points across. I watched one of his documentaries and found much of the footage [Oklahoma City, etc.] intriguing, however, his face-to-face speaking style could be grating. However, he's a radio personality and a shock-jock of sorts, so its to be expected. I doubt that he would convince an audience of academics or professionals, because they are used to the Ted Koppel, illusion of objectivity, style.

What "illusion of objectivity"? Ted Koppel is objective. Alex Jones is a raving lunatic. HGinsburg 06:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

His style is confrontational at best, hostile at times. By the videos I've veiwed he oftens baits, then pounces on his victim. He is a troll of the highest order. ~frankster

Attack The Messenger! He is an iconoclast and an extremely assertive journalist. He gives you the information and it is your responsibility to research if you have doubts. But most people do not care or have an agenda. --71.98.41.175 14:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Chèstér!

Why do we care if he is right or not? All that matters is that the article is factual in its representation of Jones. Our opinions of his ideas have no place on Wikipedia. Greyscale 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Someguy:

Alex's 'style' is unrefined. He's human. His style is lack of style (and I mean no offence to him in that way). I think part of his 'sensationalizing' is because he himself gets so emotional about the issue that is in the message he's trying to get across. And the other part is in that most of his documenteries are definately designed to (in my own words:) "Keep the viewer awake."

Alex gets real candid on his radio show. He reads news articals, but he doesn't read from a pre-written script for the show like the large majority of news anchers and 'personalities'. It's hard to stay calm when you feel like your country is being stolen away from you, your freedom is being stolen away from you, and ontop of that nobody seems to care. Whether or not you believe what he presents, it's very clear he does and believing what he believes is very stressful.

Many people believe that people who 'believe' in conspiracies (note that I'm not using the word theory here) 'want' to believe in the conspiracies. TV Shows and other media present anyone who believes in 'conspiracies' as a nutcase. Yet, believing the "official story" about 911 (the one by the government.. which-ever one by the government you pick) is still a "Conspiracy Theory". It's a theory that "A Group of Hijackers go onto airplanes and all together took them over and flew them into buildings, and attempted to fly them into buildings." Anyone who believes hijackers took over the planes on 9/11 and flew them into buildings believes in conspiracy. (And since the government's investigation is shotty at best, it is also IMO a theory. Especially since people said to be hijackers have been found alive. There is no way that it is all fact.)

I'm getting off my point. The fact is, people who believe the way Alex Jones believes (I know, because I believe alot [but not all] of the things he believes) wish they could take [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpill]"The Red Pill"[/url] and go back to their lives before they discovered whatever it was that took them down the rabbit hole. However, knowledge in all it's power is also a terrifying burden. It's why (I believe) most people actually rather believe in falsehoods that are happy then trueths that hurt. Most humans do not enjoy pain, and there is alot of painful knowledge. Finding out you've been lied often causes pain and anger at yourself for being 'duped'.

This is why Alex's style is so 'in your face'. He's in alot of pain and the things he knows weighs heavily on him. I'm sure he wishes he could just live in a utopia... but you can't live in a utopia if no utopia exists. So then you have to either not live at all, or try to create your own utopia. For many people they're willing to create teh utopia inside their own heads, and just believe everything is alright or will turn out alright. However for people like Alex they believe in trueth, and they want to live in a real free utopia. Not one caged up in their own heads.

He doesn't want to live in fear. He wants to remove that which indangers him so he can live in peace. I know, cause that's how I feel.

While I wholely believe Alex Jones is not a Raving Lunatic, I believe knowing what he knows can turn a person into one.

Secret cabals

As for what he puts on his site, I think the articles he collects on the implications of new technology are worthwhile. The business about secret cabals generally provokes skepticism just because it appears so ridiculous and cliched on its face, and yet consider the following: It's well documented that both presidential candidates came from the same secret society within a few years of one another at the same school. The school itself is a powerful institution; Yale graduates are at the top of U.S. power structure. For example, 30% of all law professors come from Yale Law School alone, and the vast majority of the rest are from the other Ivies and Top Tier schools like University of Chicago. But 30% from Yale alone. Yale alums try to hire as many Yale alums as possible. It is very, very, very difficult, if not impossible, for a law graduate to teach if he did not attend Yale or a few other select schools. Likewise in England, the barriers of entry to become a barrister, and then a judge are exceedingly difficult. The entire practice of law in England used to be conducted in Norman French, with documents written in Latin. This went on up until the 19th-20th centuries with a brief respite during the Puritan revolution. This made it easier to rule the commoners. Another example are the fraternal greek systems. Affluent men and women typically enter them so they can retain a social network of individuals from similar backgrounds. Upon graduation, they find it easier to find jobs in many cases. They have a network that makes life easier for them. And then let's not forget think tanks, intelligence agencies, the military, etc. I feel that cabalism is a way of life, a way of doing business, not some Hollywood plot. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it can't be avoided. Jones says that really powerful cabals exist that consist of extremely wealthy and well-established families, and that influence world events. While I've never met any of these people, we could look at royal families as examples. And in the democracies, certain families create political or industrial dynasties. Once people acquire wealth and power, they typically try to preserve it through their children, and through social networks. I could go on and on, etc. I guess the problem I have with the conspiratorial label is the same problem I have with the liberal label: it's become a devil word for mainstream rhetorice in that it automatically marginalizes the viewpoint. But like someone joked on another website, "Mainstream Media Plagued by Coincidence Theorists." :) [ATreiDeezNutz!]

Alex is great, one of the best Journalists out there. I am looking for people to help contribute to my conspiracy wiki, the links on my userpage if anyone is interested Conwiki 05:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

how can anyone say the bohemian grove is in dispute, they ADMIT he got the video of their ritual. its up to people to decide for themselves what they are watching. you guys are pretty slick.--SamClayton 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[Previous comment is unsigned and not mine.] Re: the Inside Bohemian Grove video: I believe Jones worked with a British TV documentary crew. IDK about any local journalists or controversy with them. Will research and edit if necessary, unless someone (hopefully) knows for sure and can fix. Jones seems to stand out amongst others in that he isn't just a talker, but he goes on site and confronts people (and not in a mean-spirited way) and institutions. You've got to admire his chutzpah.--Kibbitzer 06:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Alex is sorting out the wisdom from the bullshit, basically. A lot of the stuff that gets put on PrisonPlanet comes from sources of rather ill-repute, including the American Free Press [a noted White Supremacist front organization] and Counterpunch. So failing to discriminate with regard to mixing these in with more reputable sources, and internal documents from organizations he puts under suspicion, Jones, in his editorializing, sometimes reaches conclusions that don't stand on solid ground. And unfortunately, he possesses the same confirmation bias that all journalists [and really, all people in general] possess, so being caught up in his own mission as he is, he sometimes does sloppy work in pursuit of the truth.--Baltech22 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Eisnhower called Castro the Abraham Lincoln of Latin America"

http://70.84.33.210/%7Einfomedi/video/previews/220305martialpreview3.mov

is this true?

If it's true that Eisnhower said that about Castro, does it make it true about Castro that he is?

Alex's age

I'm a big fan of Alex and his site but there is no way on earth he was born in 1974 which makes him 30. I would put his age at closer to 40. I don't know where 1974 is from but it is just wrong.

No it's not wrong, he's mentioned several times in his broadcasts to how much work he puts into 'fighting the new world order' and has often been heard quoting his sleeping patterns, and how much he works compared to his ratio of sleep. He believes lack of sleep (while not chronic) has taken a toll on his body and looks making him appear older than he is. -- 02/09/06

www.infowarscom/clippings/USAtdy.JPG ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} This scan of a USA Today article on Jones' part in the rebuilding of the Branch Davidian Church from 1999 places his age at the time at 25, which would correspond to being born in 1974 or late 1973.--Lenny S., 10:46p 12 August 2005

Alex Jones said in his September 21st 2005 Weekly Report www.prisonplanet.tv ^{prisonplanet.tv is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}/articles/september2005/210905jonesreport.htm] that he is 31. That corresponds correctly with his birthday of 1974.

I met Mr. Jones in 1999. I remember I was suprised when he told me his age that he was one year younger than me. I was born in 1973. -- Lord of the Left Hand, 01/05/06

In TerrorStorm, he gives his DOB to a police officer as 2/11/1974, so the DOB on the article is exactly correct. 68.81.166.90 14:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad links removed

Sorry guys, but I've taken out links to http://www.breakfornews.com/

Whoever put them there doesn't seem to understand it is a joke site, where all the responses are written by the same people who put the site together.

the sites asserts near every alternative media outlet as CIA operatives or being fed deliberaty misinfo by the CIA:

http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm

and I think that tells you something.

If you have real credible critques of Alex Jones works and arguments by scholarly people, political or media experts then I don't think it unreasonabe they should be included but breakfornews.com does not represent credible critique by any stretch of the imagination.

Although I've left it, I also think the criticisms section is in the wrong place; it should be nearer the bottom, it kinda sticks out like a saw thumb at the moment as something put there for the sake of it. No doubt that is because this page needs some more content by those familiar with Mr. Jone's career and works.

New sections added

www.infowars.com ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} free alex jones videos. One per week you can download. I have seen most of his videos and agree with most of his reasoning. The Bohemian grove incident was film from among an audience, which leads me to believe it was just some ritualistic show without the demonic influences that Alex Jones would like us to believe. But then again, that's really the only subject he has investigated that I have ever found fault with. The Bohemian Grove video should be taken with a grain of salt, unless you think there's a problem with our leaders performing even "show" rituals to "Mammon."

In all other respects, I have found Mr Jones reporting to be fact based and compelling. In some cases disturbing. It's hard to wake up from a dream and find out that you might have woken to a nightmare.

Those Bohemian Grove rituals weren't to "Mammon". They were to Moloch. Again, the implication is that the evil "elite" like to sacrifice children to Moloch, just like the ancient Israelites did. In other words, this evil elite is composed of Jews. It's always about the Jews with Alex, isn't it? It won't shock me if in his next video he resurrects the blood libel. HGinsburg 07:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Old Testament does say that the Israelites sometimes sacrificed their children to Moloch. So did the Caananites. So did many other ancient tribes. Is the Old Testament therefore anti-semitic? As many things are in this world, it's a matter of perspective. Our way of looking at the world in many ways forms an psychological reality on the individual as well as collective levels. This is something I think is virtually impossible to eliminate from any writing. The writer will always imbue his work with a reflection of his world view. However, somebody has to be correct--there must be an objective reality otherwise all is random and therefore meaningless and there is no distinction between sanity and insanity, rationality and irrationality. Alex Jones's perspective tends to be correct. There is no universal condemnation of Judaism on any of Alex Jones' websites as far as I can see. I suggest that if you find something from one of Alex Jones' websites, documentaries, radio or TV shows that you feel is anti-semitic, that it be vetted. Instead of making claims, provide some documented evidence, otherwise it's just a subjective interpretation which, if widely publicized and given credence could open whoever spread it around up to libel and slander suits. Of course, if your interpretation of someone being an anti-semite is based on prerequisites such as not supporting the ADL or being opposed to certain policies of the government of Israel then Alex Jones fits the bill. I happen to think that the Israeli government nuking the brains of over 100,000 Jewish children happens to be Nazi behavior. Thinking that being anti-Israeli government is the equivalent to being a Jew hater is consistent with a persecution complex since there are many Jews who also don't agree with the ADL or the government of Israel. Calling him "anti-what-he-perceives-to-be-corrupt-government" would be more accurate. I wish I were like HGinsburg and had the ability to read minds and intentions through the TV screen. To me it's tortured logic.

I'll say it once. The Bush family is not Jewish. Greyscale 03:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The membership lists of the Bohemian Club are mainly white people with protestant affiliations, so where the inference of anti-semitism comes from merely from sneaking in and filming the ritualized ceremony I don't know. There's an interesting Sociology paper by Professor Peter Phillips (http://libweb.sonoma.edu/regional/faculty/phillips/bohemianindex.html) regarding the Bohemian Club that, if memory serves, statistically examines the membership along sociological lines. It should be noted that Bohemian Grove consists of over 100 different camps, each has a cabin. The camp cabins range in size from a shack to a mansion. There is camp stratification, with Mandalay being one of the most elite. So the "audience" filmed watching the Cremation of Care ritual are considered amongst the profane, in other words the ritual is most understood only by an inner circle within Bohemian Club. Externalizing the ritual to the 2000 or so members who have little to no understanding of its true significance is part of the ritual itself. There was recently a set of photographs taken in the Bohemian Grove sold on Ebay that were taken in 1916. In one of them was a man--or a figure designed to look like a man--hanging from a tree. Even the National Geographic released a 99 year old photo from inside the grove that consisted of a man in a hooded black robe with a candle looming over a man laying flat on the ground. These types of photos are already under the Wikipedia article regarding the Bohemian Club, but more could be added. There are also scans taken from offical Bohemian Club Annals available online, including at Jones' websites. I know they're valid because I also own a copy of a Bohemian Club Annals Vol. VI and there are images of the Cremation of Care ceremony in them, and they call it a "rite" and a "ritual" in their own internal publications. By this time some of their publications should be in the public domain, so they can look forward to them popping up on line. Whatever else it is, the Bohemian Club clearly has an occultic hierarchy. Sociologically speaking the centralization of power and the cementing of that bond through ritual is ancient and the historical norm, and it's verifiable not conspiracy theory. It has been the controlling influence in many civilizations, including the Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, the Aztecs, the ancient Peruvians, etc. There is not always a clear delineation between theater and ritual, in fact the two often intertwine (e.g., The Magic Flute, Cremation of Care). But again it's a matter of perspective. Jones' world view is a sociological blend of the Iron Rule of Oligarchy and C Wright Mills' Power Elite from a Christian perspective. If you think it's healthy for the world to be run by people obsessed with death and macabre ritual that symbolizes their mastery over their own consciences and the will to dominate, then of course you'd dismiss things such as Bohemian Club, Skull and Bones, the Thule Society, etc. On the other hand if you think these are negative influences on historical trends then you'll be very interested indeed. SeanC2003@msn.com 08:07 PM PST, Oct. 28, 2005.

Restored comments from 208.62.154.72

I read the rense.com article on Chomsky and the section on fluoridation just made me giggle. If you know where the phrases "Purity of Essence" and "Our Precious Bodily Fluids" come from then you know why I was laughing. I can't take rense.com seriously as a source.

 + - E. Nonee Moose

Good, keep on giggling and guzzling the fluoridated water just because it's part of the mad general's tirade in Dr. Strangelove. Ignore all the hundreds of university level studies that prove it's a neurotoxin with cumulative poisoning effects. Ignore the fact that it was first used by the Soviet Union and the Nazis to sedate their victims. Enjoy the poison...and remember to get vaccinated.

So, then, your tin-foil hat protects you against mind-controlling vaccination, too?

new world order

My opinion about Alex Jones , is a lier, nothing he says is thr truth.. i live in Austin, and sometimes I see his stupid show and I can;t believe all the lies he says!! HE IS FULL OF DOGGY POOP :) !!! LIER

-At least lern to spell and speek intelligently before you start makeing unfounded, undocumented alegations. Your more likely to be taken seriously that way.

"lern"? "speek"? "makeing"? "alegations"? "Your"? - Were you being facetious with that entry? If not, well, then, how wonderfully ironic! -- VanHammersly 01:24 EST, 27 January 2006

It seems pretty obvious to me that this person is being sarcastic in their remarks. "DOGGY POOP" seems to make that a clear indication. Lightning Jim 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignorence

- OK chill out folks, you're not coming over particularly well. I'd sugest rather than negative arbitrary assertions (which are defined as 'ignorance') if someone wants to dispute the veracity of Mr.Jones output then they should demonstrate specificly that this output is untrue. Otherwise, to any neutral observer this critisism will continue to appear intensely childish, and ignorant in a difinative way.

Jews and "The New World Order"

From reading the comments on this article as well as others, there seems to be so much gray area on the subject. There are no shortage of Jews and even Rabbis that have presented scathing condemnations of the globalist banking system and the government of Israel. How are such Jews to be categorized? To the overly conditioned liberal, conservatives and anti-racists this is quite an enigma that never clears up. After much study, let me help. A Jew is someone who is of the Jewish religion. That is simply all. They are not usually bankers or government officials. They may or may not support the State of Israel. They may or may not be racist. But then again, all human behavior applies to them because THEY ARE JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. So how did this portrayal of Jews come about? When you see Netanyahu on TV acting like the Jewish Pope, it isn't hard to see why.

Indeed. A quick examination of the Zionist movement (a movement that, like virtually all other political movements, has been compromised over time) reveals that all through its history there has been a significant number of Jews who opposed it.--Baltech22 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that was so true

Ideocentric RoyBot 69.248.43.27 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In the statement above whoever wrote it, they said: "A Jew is someone who is of the Jewish religion. That is simply all." Is incorrect. A Jew is also someone of Hebrews descent and more specificially who's heritage comes from the land of Judah. Someone from the land of Judah may not be of the religion of Judaism.

Semite |ˈsemīt| noun a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs. ORIGIN from modern Latin Semita, via late Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem,’ son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended.

Arabs (Palestinians for example) are also Semites. I don't need to point out why that is a glaring oversight. The persons of Jewish faith or heritage that criticise Jewish individuals or that support the views of others that have criticisms of Jewish individuals are often called 'self hating Jews'. If that isn't ridiculous I don't know what is. LDA.

Hoax/Slander removed

User Algore2008 had added the following to the intro paragraph: "In a stunning annoucement on December 19, 2005, he announced that he would be supporting the 2008 presidential candidacy of a Michigan man who claims to be God. [2]" The source he cited was someone's anglefire page - not exactly a reputable source. More over, the webpage didn't even mention Alex Jones's name, let alone claim an endorsement from him. At any rate, unless an announcement is posted on one of Jones's site or one of his radio or video broadcasts can be cited (or a reputable news source has reported it), then any claim that he endorsed so and so ammounts to original research, and quite likely perpetuating a hoax. Its inclusion also ammounts to slander by Wikipedia. Blackcats 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This user (Algore2008) continues to edit Alex Jones related stuff with blatant (often slanderous, sometimes superfluous) original research that borders on vandalism. He vandalized the Alex Jones (disambig page) by adding "star wars fan" to Jone's description there. Please everyone be on the look out! Blackcats 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

He does play star wars music on his radio show --69.159.62.64 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism isn't allowed

This journalist is clearly above criticism. His ideas are brilliant. He is a prophet.

Way to go wikipedians!!!!!! I surrender to thee.

Another stupendously balanced article!!!!!!11111

Congratulations on your NPOV.

I hope you enjoy it's vacuousness.--Capsela 07:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This Alex Jones entry is ridiculous and a complete embaressment to Wiki. Anybody not wrapped up in an internal fantasy world can easily debunk most of what he says. So why is it that there isn't a huge criticism entry? Just not allowed hey?

If he's so easy to refute, why has Popular Mechanics repeatedly and publicly refused to formally or informally debate him or Scholars for 9/11 Truth? I mean, they're the experts, right? They did put out a book on "debunking the 9/11 lies." 68.81.166.90 14:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above paragraph: Easy to debunk? Please enlighten me as to how one debunks these claims? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.126.144 (talk • contribs).

Prove to me that Vincente Fox can't morph into a green devil. PROVE IT!!!!!! ;-) --Mmx1 20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. You're in David Icke territory there, not alex jones.

Fortunately we are not required to prove or disprove anything. Veracity is what matters. If, as is claimed above, he can be debunked easily, quit ranting and provide a link to a reputable source that does so. I have no problem with this, and neither would any conscientious Wikipedian, regardless of personal sympathy, or lack thereof, for Jones. What it comes down to: stop attacking or defending his views; instead, report them, and if there are relevant comments by other journalists pertaining to Jones, include them. That is all this article needs to be... verifiable. Not an authoritative discussion of whether or not his claims are true, in which hardly anybody who has posted here is qualified to partake. Greyscale 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Add WikiQuotes?

Anybody feel that we should add quotes to WikiQuotes?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page Lightning Jim 00:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian Patriot needs changing

The article Christian Patriot is inherently baised, based upon looking at the references. I mean, seriously, "Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments" as a source?

Okay, it's appearntly been fixed. Lightning Jim 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jones's Original Location

On the February 6, 2006, Alex Jones Radio Show, Alex Jones said he was originally from Rockwall. -Zimbabweed 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about Neutral POV?

Okay, someone by the name of Zantastik has added a NPOV top of this page, and yet no discussion. Care to explain, sir? Lightning Jim 23:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

15:04, 15 February 2006 Zantastik (riddled with pov)

Okay, all I see is that the article is stating what Alex Jones's point of view is. It is stated that he "believes" that this is true; I don't see anywhere where any of this is being stated as fact. Also, considing it's been over eight hours since you added the "NPOV", it seems safe to assume that you aren't going to dispute this. Lightning Jim 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not assume that because it has been 8 hours since you posted a message onto a talk page which I had never visited that my silence means I agree with you. This article fails to note, on a number of occassions, that the views summerized are Jones'. Furthermore, this article suffers from stylistic problems.

POV

Originally from Rockwall, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, Jones began his fight for the truth in Austin.

That's neutral wording?

...his loud speaking style and accusations against ... nefarious multinational corporations

not "multinational corporations that Jones often characterizes as 'nefarious'"?

As an investigative journalist, he is among the best-supported investigators in the field today with nods from the likes of Ron Paul, Greg Palast and Bev Harris; all of whom he has interviewed on his daily radio broadcast.

Is that an opinion, or a fact?

It [The Globalizers ?] is a term that perhaps could be used interchangeably with The Illuminati, although this is often not too clear, and it is sometimes debatable if the executives of powerful corporations, and some political leaders are themselves figures of the Illuminati or if there is a higher tier above these levels not in public view as is often suggested.

This sentence assumes that "The Illuminati" exist. This is an opinion and needs to be presented as such. Moreover, it is very badly written.

A video by Jones that documents the 1993 Waco incident with the Branch Davidians, as well as the cover up that followed.

Was there a cover up? If it's undisuputed, cite it, if not, state that some, including Jones, believe that there was.

While in the Grove, Jones used a hidden camera to record—among other things—the Cremation of Care ritual, in which some of the most powerful men in the world gather before a 40-foot stone resembling a huge owl (Moloch), and burn a human-like dummy in effigy of "dull care." They then proceed to "read the sign" within its ashes.

Does everyone agree that this took place? This should be rewritten to reflect that Jones claims to have done this. "Jones states that he witnessed... ." "Furthermore, he claims that they read the sign of its ashes" or whatnot. That this supposed owl represents Moloch is also pure pov, and it is not identified as Jones' pov.

Everyone? Should we poll the entire planet? The video evidence of the Grove coupled with some Grovers themselves acknowledging the infiltration by Jones is enough proof.

The film documents ... government-run white slavery rings.

It does? Or does it "alledge that government-run 'white slavery' rings exist?"

This article also vers towards the speculative:

Although he was originally a conservative Republican, arguably due to his work, he has drifted to a more libertarian philosophy.

Bad Writing

..."in the film, Jones presents information about governments supposed involvement in not only September 11th.

Plural or singular possessive?

"floating around the Internet"
His movies are available free on many sites on the net, including the Internet Archive [1]. He said he doesn't mind, as long as links to his sites (for example to infowars, prisonplanet, americans against arnold etc...) aren't edited out.

folksy

Focus is often brought on the amalgam of armed forces, arms trade and commercial and political interests described as the Military-industrial complex.

Obtuse use of passive voice

In short, this article is riddled with POV, is poorly sourced and badly written. It deserves to be tagged as such. --Zantastik talk 07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

... You know, I should really learn to read more closely on things. This really does need work. 129.15.142.51 02:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is still laced throughout with POV language and assumptions -- specifically the POV of Jones' loyal viewers who ascribe to his worldview. It's fine that this worldview is communicated, giving the uninitiated reader a sense of who Jones is and the themes and tone of his work. However, the dominant and opposing worldview that regards him and his work as delusional, factually unsound, or sensationalistic is almost unrepresented. If nothing else, language should be clarified, works not published by Jones himself should be cited, and a section should be added which clearly delineates the controversial nature of his claims. At present, the article appears to be written by people who uncritically accept Jones' claims and thus parrot his POV. I am going to attempt some edits to improve neutrality and generally poor writing, but this page is clearly violates NPOV as it stands. --SamClayton 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree with most of the above comments. It seems Jones's accolytes are working overtime to avoid any kind of criticism be represented in the main article, in what looks like a poster-boy entry for "asymmetric controversy".

[The latter being a controversy between two sides, one of which is particularly interested in the issue and fanatical in defending its POV, while the other doesn't care about the issue a whole lot. Articles on such issues will inevitably be biased in favor of the fanatical side, because they put most effort into writing about it.

Thus, an asymmetric controversy can be described as any controversial idea that is popular enough to attract a band of loyal supporters to defend it on wikipedia, but not popular enough to attract critics. Paradoxically, this means that any idea widely considered too insane to be criticized will have a favorable article written about it, since its advocates are fanatical about the issue while its opponents consider it too crazy to bother with. Keep in mind that what makes these controversies asymmetric is not the number of people on each side, but the intensity with which they defend their views. One single-minded user with a lot of time on his hands can hold off many disinterested users at once.]

Indeed, that seems to describe the Alex Jones article (as well as most controversial wikipedia entries) quite well. Or so the Grand Lodge told me to post :-) 193.92.81.49 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

unfounded criticism and accusations Mr Ginsberg

In response to HGinsberg - If your points were raised to promote sense then you need to back up your bleating about anti-simetic bias. Moloch/Molech was worshipped by the people of Lavant and phoenecians. Lavant is defined in mythology as an area that has Israel on it's extreme NW, coastal boundary. It was the Canaanite culture most often associated with child sacrifice. Israel was mentioned in papers in 1975 but since this is only 1 year after Alex's birth he's hardly responsible for the finger pointing, is he? If the statement 'Israelis' sacrificed children' is based upon disputed facts that's fine they'll come out in time. I believe racism is to support an unreasonable view of different culture's or people's then you Mr Ginsberg are the racist for denying healthy debate about child sacrifices to Molech and supporting a rose-tinted view of Jewish culture. I'm from the UK I'd like to believe we're all lovely sensitive human beings but that is not our history. Also Zantastik the term Molech is the correct name for Bohemia Grove's idol owl. The source is a washington Post article from 1968 84.64.24.224 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you should cite and quote that Washington Post article and state that it is the opinion of the author's article (or someone quoted therein) that such an Owl (1.) exists and (2.) is somehow an ancient near-eastern god, if the article does in fact quote someone who holds such a view. --Zantastik talk 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Thia article should be moved to Alex Jones, and Alex Jones moved to Alex Jones (disambig). --Striver 11:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody objected for 1 month, ill be bold and do it.--Striver 02:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. --Zimbabweed 03:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Please vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie Zwicker --Striver 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Past Jones Assertions

To help everyone understand how insightful and accurate Mr. Jones is we can cite his predictions from a few years ago. I discovered Mr. Jones on shortwave shortly after 9-11. I had heard of conspiracy theorists before, but what I heard from my radio was absolutely amazing. I first thought I was hearing a BBC satire. During the next several months Mr. Jones talked about concentration camps that were being set up for use during the next emergency. He asserted that these camps were already built and stocked. After 9-11 several states did enact laws dealing with emergencies and evacuations. I was living in New Mexico at the time and there was a new law enacted dealing with evacuations and designated areas for evacuees to be sent to. New Mexico had no pre-existing, designated areas. As far as the government herding people into camps, all one has to do is examine what happened during and after the hurricane Katrina assault on New Orleans to understand that the U.S. Government does not have any ready made camps. Another one if his pet issues was his assertion that the CIA flew the planes into the World Trade Center by remote control. He seemed to forget that the morning of 9-11 was crystal clear on the East Coast, and it did not take any great navigation skill to find the towers. He was and is still claiming that the Bush Administration is bent on confiscating guns from lawful owners. George Bush has been in office nearly six years and not one single new gun control law has been enacted. (He just has slightly more than two years left.) I noticed that there was no effort whatsoever on the part of the White House to extend the Assault Weapons Ban. I do not believe that there is a single new gun control law sponsored by any Republican. Gunshows are still being held every three months where I live. The actions of a few over zealous and possibly corrupt New Orleans cops in the aftermath of Katrina does not mean that there is a national effort to disarm the populace. His other assertion during the invasion of Iraq was that the CIA was going to release an unnamed gas on our own troops to help justify the invasion. He even interviewed some guy who said that he planted some explosive cannisters. I think he was wrong on that one too. While I was living in New Mexico the German Air Force (they still call themselves Luftwaffe) was involved in joint training exercises with the USAF at Holloman AFB. This is probably what sent Mr. Jones into his "foreign powers on US soil” period. It was no secret that the Luftwaffe was in NM; it was reported everywhere. Mr. Jones always has "the documents" but we never see them. I regret that I did not tape record those old shows, but I never thought that Mr. Jones would ever be in a serious reference source of any kind. If somebody has the recordings or a log of his statements please present them. A proper discussion of Mr. Jones' accuracy and ability needs to have a record of his assertions form the past. I am not going to edit the Alex Jones entry in Wikipedia because all I have are my own recollections, and I have wasted enough time already. Calling him a "journalist" is really, really POV. Oakridgetn1947 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see our policy, Wikipedia:no original research. Basically, it bans the addition to articles of unpublished informatin or novel conclusions. Unless you can find a published account of these errors then we can't include them. For example, if Fox News has done a piece on Jones then we can quote that. -Will Beback 03:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A stirring but utterly moot speech. I concur with Beback. It does not matter, for the purposes of Wikipedia, if Jones is right or not. It matters if we report his views dutifully and accurately. Greyscale 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Father of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Alex is the father of the 9/11 truth movement. He urged Americans to call the white house prior to 9/11 and demand the government not attack us with an Osama Bin Laden. I would like to have this added to the article. HarveyB 09 March 2006

Is there a reference for this fact? If so then it shouldn't be a problem adding it. -Will Beback 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Will this do? www.infowarscom/articles/sept11/real_origins_911_truth_movement.htm ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Harvey B 14:41, 10 March 2006

Only if you want to write "Alex Jones calls himself the 'father of the 9/11 truth movement'". The reference you provided goes to his own website, and is apparently signed by him. Regardless of who does the labelling, that type of assertion will need to be attributed to an individual. -Will Beback 07:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then lets drop that title, 'Father of 9/11 Truth Movement', because Alex would reject it. But what I would like to have mentioned is that on July 25, 2001, Alex warned viewers on his cable access show of possible terror attacks from our own Government using a Bin Laden, who was a known CIA asset. He urges his viewers to call the Whitehouse, for what he calls 'Operation Expose the Government Terrorists', to inform them that if we are attacked we know exactly who to blame. And here's the link to that, also from a site ran by Alex Jones. www.prisonplanet.tv ^{prisonplanet.tv is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}/articles/august2004/082604alexwarned.htm - Harvey B 13:46 PST, 11 March 2006

People keep editing for POV?

I've noticed that people keep editing this site to a more POV status. It's really annoying because the rest of us have to go back and edit the page to fix the problem. Of course, there's also the typical vanadlism of editing the whole page to something inappropriate. So please, if you feel it necessary to say Alex is crazy, do it in the best NPOV possible. If that is not possible, than do not do it. Lightning Jim 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Interviews & Links

I'm concerned about all the external links to PrisonPlanet, especially within the list of interviews Jones has done. Other journalists' articles don't have lists and links for each individual interview. A more encyclopedic entry would be to say something like "Jones has interviewed various people, including Person A, Person B, etc, many of which can be found on his website." --mtz206 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Objection to Victor Thron and Lisa Giulani

I object to these names being mentioned. If I create my own website and accuse Alex of being a cyborg from planet Shintar do I deserve to be mentioned on his page? Clearly, there are far better people that could be mentioned who disagree with Alex.--HarveyB 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove Victor Thorn and Lisa Guiliana from article. Not notable opposition. Only purpose in attacking Alex Jones is to get thier names in print and are. Again, they are NOT notable, and probably typed this entry themselves. Attention seekers, period. WikipediaReader April 25, 2006

Juliani and Thorn's inclusion does not contribute any useful information to this article. Their attacks on Jones mostly include ad hominem personal attacks, and unverifiable hearsay that is not relevant to Jones' credibility (his credibility being the main point of interest, since he is listed as a journalist). Listing detractors of Jones in this article is fine, but only if they have something useful or interesting to bring to the debate about Jones' core issues. John Watson - April 25, 2006

Verifiability

I was alerted to this on AN/I. This appears to be a vanity article. I can't find any reliable third-party sources about this person. If there aren't any, the page should be deleted, and if there are, they need to be cited. In the meantime, I've removed most of the unencyledopic stuff and left the intro and the list of videos, but it all needs to be verified, and anything that can't be should be deleted (though we should wait a bit in case there are sources out there). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I added some third party links next to the areas you marked "citation needed". Hope that helps. Johnny Watson 10:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnny. That was very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Added the Austin Access Channel 10 schedule page as reference to his current television presence. In case there is anything still unclear, I left the first "citation needed" in place, but I think at this point the claims are pretty well cited. I've been following Jones for a while, so if there's anything still unclear in the article I'd be willing to spend the time to dig a little deeper. Johnny Watson 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is most definitely not a vanity article, and that's illustrated best by seeing just how many Wikipedians know enough about him to love him or hate him. Greyscale 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Johnny's sources have established notability, particularly the CNN one. Thank you for finding all those, Johnny. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we unflag this article now? I think the afforementioned problems have been solved. Johnny Watson 00:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's mostly fine now, though I'd like to see some evidence that he's a television host. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it until we have a cite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

He has a TV program in Austin, via Public Access Community Television. It runs several times a week, includes re-runs, sometimes goes live. Here's a link: http://www.austinpact.org/programming/channel10.php

But he's mostly a radio host. You can get all that info on infowars.com (pun was inevitable). BarrettBrown

Namemove

This was moved from Alex Jones (journalist) to Alex Jones (radio). i object to this. It should be Alex Jones, period, since he is the most known Alex Jones. See article Ali, Umar and Muhammad, we dont have Muhammad (prophet). Also, changing from "Journalist" to "Radio" is impiying he is not known as a Journalist, but rather as a radio perosnality, and that is false. A bad faith move in my view.--Striver 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Striver, he's not a journalist at all that I can see. I looked for evidence that he'd ever worked for a news organization or that he was published by any kind of news media, but there's nothing. He also refers to himself as a radio talk show host. As for him being the best known Alex Jones, there's a well-known journalist called Alex Jones that someone should write about. I may try to find the time to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

HI! I retract my statment regarding bad faith, it was undeserved. Quote from Journalism:

Journalism is a discipline of collecting, analyzing, verifying, and presenting information gathered regarding current events, including trends, issues and people.

I argue that it is self evident that Jones is doing that. I apologise for the "bad faith" line. Peace! --Striver 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and no worries. Journalism is a profession, and he has never been trained as one, worked as one, or been referred to as one by a reliable source. He hosts a radio show, and that's mostly how he refers to himself: as a radio talk show host. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout "Investigative Journalist" or something along those lines? Lenin & McCarthy 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because that's not what he is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. However, I think the other Alex is notable enough and is a journalist in the stricist sense of the word. Maybe Alex Jones (Film Maker) see below for agreement on what to call him -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Omitting info

I strongly object to this --Striver 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it is information omitted. --Striver 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Annual Financial Report accounting structure for government started in 1946 through a private group called Government Financial Officers Association, and then was Federally mandated for all local governments in the U.S. The video also includes an interview with former IRS special agent Joe Banister." Omitted certainly, but not exactly information. That, like the rest of the material recently removed, is no more than a promotional description of one of his 'documentaries.' I don't see that we should be providing him with free advertising. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

His "documentaries" are notable enough to have their own articles, regardless. Perhaps you should consider doing that, and then coming back and listing them in a section. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

They very likely shouldn't have their own articles. In any event, we shouldn't describe them unless they're notable enough for reliable third-party sources to have done so; then we can quote them. Otherwise, we're just repeating Jones's unverified claims. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unverified claims? So I guess Associated Press articles and U.S. government documents aren't verifiable? --Zimbabweed 23:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not taken directly from those sources, but rather is Jones' own somtimes dubious interpretations of other sources.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? They're certainly notable enough. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Striver: I can tell that you're an Alex Jones fan, so am I. Seperate from my appreciation for Alex's work, however, is my duty as a member of Wikipedia. I believe that the recent edits are not censorship, but the removal of unencyclopedic, POV information. I believe this comes at a particularly opportune time, since the page was recently edited to include slander from the Wing TV crowd. In order to keep this entry from becoming a POV-ridden nightmare, we should stick to the new version, and gradually add more information about Alex as it arrives from well-cited sources. With the new page, Wikipedia users can still learn the fundamentals of what Alex Jones is all about, and even get to his websites and learn about the content of his videos and radio broadcasts from there. As much as I believe in the fight against the New World Order, the purpose of this page is to provide an encyclopedic description of Alex and his work. They can be further exposed to Alex's POV if they wish to follow the links to his websites and view his movies. So, I implore you, let's stick to the leaner version of the page, and add facts about Jones along with sources cited. Thanks. Johnny Watson 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone putting his POV to one side and sticking to Wikipedia policy — what a breath of fresh air. Thank you, Johnny.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ill do as you civily sugested. Is is ok if i instead creat Alex Jones works? Im sure nobody is going to let a individual entry on each film survive, even though they easly have been seen by more than 5000 people required by books and WP:BIO. --Striver 10:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There's an entry on 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, so I don't see any reason to object to having individual entries for each of his works. With the possible exception of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Exposed, I'm sure almost all of them have exceeded 5,000 viewers (and perhaps that one too). I'd feel a bit better about it if we had some independent verification that the audience for his films is at least that big, though intuitively I'm sure it is. Maybe Google Video or Archive.org has a view counter we can use to prove that Jones has a substantial audience. You might want to take a look at the Road to Tyranny talk page and history (and perhaps the composition, talk page, and history of other controversial works) to see how you should go about putting the pages together. Be prepared to revise and defend your efforts, since the Road to Tyranny entry has been nominated for deletion in the past. Johnny Watson 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, tell me about that, i created it... Thanks for the advice. Slim, what do you say, should i think about giving them a article each? --Striver 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I, unfortunately, don't think Jones' audience is in question. Thus, I see him as a filmmaker like any other independent filmmaker, who's works should have articles on them. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Having previously AfD'd the 9-11 The Road to Tyranny and seen it go through repeated edits from several editors and independent good faith efforts to locate secondary sources for the film, we've found NONE. The article currently cites the meager IMDB entry, the archive.org user ratings, and the movie itself. As it's purportedly the most famous of his films; this does not bode well for the rest. One of the main arguments for keeping the movie page was the length of the Alex Jones page. Now that it's been edited, how about a smerge? --Mmx1 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Documentary" Label

According to Answers.com, a documentary is "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration." I know you've probably never seen more than five minutes of an Alex Jones film an probably have vendetta against him for whatever reason, Silverberg, but by that definition, Jones is as much a documentary film maker as Moore or Riefenstahl. [3] I don't care what your opinion of him is, so unless you can prove to us that his work does not fit under that definition, stop editing the article to conform to your opinion. Johnny Watson 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the burden is on you to prove that he is, not on everyone else to prove that he isn't. I've re-written it as "video producer", which is accurate. If there's a description of him in some reliable source as a "documentary film maker", then we can put that in. Maybe we could say something like "describes himself as a documantary film maker", but I think that's less than informative. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I know very little about him, the only thing I can do is judge his opinions on face value. I also know that it is quite common on wikipedia to make people like Jones seem more important than they actually are. I am just trying to make the article more neutral, which is why I agree with harrison.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know quite a bit about him and even interviewed him a couple of years back. He is indeed a documentary film maker, because he makes documentary films and people buy them. If you need a reliable source for that info, you can check out one of his websites from which he sells these. If you look elsewhere on this talkpage, you'll see he's been featured in plenty of articles in publications like Vanity Fair, appeared on Good Morning America, etc. This article definitely needs to be neutral, and calling him what he is won't make it otherwise. BarrettBrown

The argument isn't whether he makes videos that a couple of people buy, its if his videos can indeed be called documentaries since they do not make a distinction between fact, opinion, and illogical speculation. Also his website would definitley not be admissble since it is neither reputable nor reliable. Being mentioned in those magazine doesn't necessarily add any credibility, since it is prbably he was only mentioned for the sideshow values of his strange theories.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't offer an opinion regarding his website or his personal credibility; I mentioned it so that one may verify that he indeed makes and sells videos. I would also suggest that if Michael Moore can be regarded as a documentary filmmaker, so can Alex Jones. Both make documentary films. They may very well be flawed documentary films, but they are documentary films nonetheless. Furthermore, I would also suggest that since, in your own words, you "know very little about him," you might best serve wikipedia by avoid making statements like "they do not make a distinctioning between fact, opinion, and illogical speculation," particularly since you appear to have never seen any of these videos, and also because "distinctioning" is not actually a word. You might also avoid claiming that only "a couple of people buy" his videos, because they actually sell quite well, particularly for independent films. Go to amazon.com, and you can see this for yourself - not only does he have decent sales rankings there, but the figures don't even reflect the entirety of his sales, as many are conducted through his web sites and other venues. Also, there is a great difference between establishing for the purposes of an article that he is a documentary filmmaker and claiming that he is right; the former is a proper procedure for a wikipedia article, and the latter is not, but all I'm trying to do is the former. And finally, I would point out that by identifying a few of the various magazines and television programs in which he has been featured - and I left out quite a few, like CNN and MTV, particularly after Charlie Sheen came out of the closet as an Alex Jones supporter - I was clearly addressing your comments regarding Jone's "importance" as a cultural phenomenon. I do like your screen name, though. But focus, Constantine! Focus! BarrettBrown

As flawed and biased as Michael Moore is I do not think he is as bad as Alex Jones. Basically Moore mostly takes facts (with the exception of Farenheit 9/11 which I probably would not say is a real documentary) and presents them in a very POV and skewed way to serve whatever point he is trying to make. Since I have become involved on this article I have listened to some of Jones' radio shows that are somtimes linked from the article and it is seems to me that Jones really just says stuff without providing any clue to his source (or if he actually has one). Obviously this is original research so I would not include it in the actual article but it is clear that in this case "producer of videos" is just the most matter of fact title to attach to the guy.

By the way I really do not see the need to take on a condescening attitude with regard to a single mispelling in my previous post, it was clear what I meant to say, and it was equally clear that it was just a slip-up I just added an extra suffix. It seemed to me that you were just trying to feel superior to me for some reason.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to hurt any feelings; I'm just a little irritated here. But whether Alex Jones is as "bad" as Michael Moore or not, or whether Michael Moore is "better" in your opinion or not, the definition of documentary does not hinge on whether one approves of the subject matter or the conclusions. Jone's videos fall under the category of documentary nonetheless; that's how everyone else categorizes them. And, again, a definition of "documentary" has already been provided for you. Jone's work clearly fits the bill. And "video producer" just doesn't fit, because that really describes another occupation. So "documentary filmmaker" it must be. If this is going to have to be arbitrated, so be it. BarrettBrown

So, is there description of him in some reliable source as a "documentary film maker"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the way he's introduced on Coast to Coast AM, which, aside from being a silly program, may be at least depended upon to introduce their guests in an accurate fashion (except for when they introduce them as "psychics" ;)): http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/750.html. There's also the Austin Chronicle, which doesn't take Jones seriously but nonetheless gives the devil his due: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Awards/BestOfAustin_Category?seentheform=1&BOACategory=Media&Poll=Readers. Sorry, I'm a little stupid when it comes to HTML. Now, I seem to recall Vanity Fair also referred to him as such, and CNN also did, and I'll find you evidence later (I'm supposed to be working on something right now) BarrettBrown 18:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those sources really count as reputable or reliable enough. Austin Chronicle is some little alternative paper and I'm not even sure what coast to coast am is. Until you can prove that CNN and vanity fair refered to him as a documentary maker like you claim then I really don't see how we can refer to him as anything but a producer of videos. Also what I meant by "worse than Michael Moore" was not anything subjective, but the actual quality of their supposed "facts".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can claim to know that "neither of those sources really count as reputable enough" if you don't know what Coast to Coast AM is. It's the most popular radio show in the United States, and produced by a subsidiary of Clear Channel. If you're really interested in determining this, you might start by looking it up on Wikipedia. Ditto The Austin Chronicle, which claims a readership of 250,000. "Alternative" is not a technical term in the newspaper world; you can call it "alternative" because it's not run by Belo Corp or whatever, but it's still a respectable publication that makes endorsements, reports on Texas politics, etc., and which any Austinite can tell you is an important Texas medium. So, are you going to agree to the demonstrable fact that the U.S.'s most popular syndicated radio program as well as a respectable news publication have both called Alex Jones a "documentary filmmaker," or do we need to get arbitration? BarrettBrown 00:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is kinda ridiculous. Its a radio show that mainly talks about the paranormal, it isn't a reputable news organization. the same goes for the Austin Chronicle. You say that Vanity fair and CNN supports your view but have yet to provide any proof of this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I said that "I seem to recall" that they did, I haven't had a chance to find them yet, because it will take some digging, and I've been unusually busy today. You obviously know nothing about the Austin Chronicle. It has been the recipient of several awards from the AAN, as described here http://aan.org/gyrobase/Aan/AwardsView?publication=oid%3A5. It has 250,000 weekly readers. And Coast to Coast doesn't cover anything odder than does Larry King, who also unfortunately stoops to having some of the same psychics on (Sylvia Browne, for instance). Whatever the subject matter, Coast to Coast can be depended on to accurately portray what sort of occupations its guests are employed in, which is the only thing that matters in this case, since the occupation of Alex Jones is what we are trying to establish. And even aside from that, Alex Jones makes documentary films. They are sold as documentary films. He is, thus, a "documentary filmmaker." You have fought me on this despite acknowledging that you know little about Alex Jones, you have attacked the ability of Coast to Coast to identity its own guests despite admittedly knowing nothing of Coast to Coast, and you have now attacked The Austin Chronicle despite knowing little or nothing about The Austin Chronicle. Aribtration it is. BarrettBrown 03:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of their readers is completly irrelevant, it doesn't make their claims any more reliable or valid. My lack of any previous knowledge about some of these topics allows me to look at it objectively, which was something that was lacking from the article before I happened upon it. You could ask any administrator you want for arbitration but I suspect virtually all of them would agree with me here.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you're wrong, but we'll find out for sure in a couple of days. Does the fact that they've won awards for news reporting make them valid enough to identify what a man does for most of his income, and thus what his occupation is? It's not your lack of previous knowledge that's causing the problem here, but rather your lack of current knowledge regarding the Austin Chronicle. BarrettBrown 05:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Virtually every kinda of organization like this attempts to show off awards that really don't mean anything. Also this isn't a subject like math, you act like you are an acknowledged expert in a field that doesn't exist and that I am being presumtuous by even editing this article. I know enough about what constitutes reputable and reliable sources that by browsing the references to your claims I can tell you that they do not qualify.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you can tell us all what constitutes a reliable source, and why you happen to know for a fact that the Austin Chronicle does not apply. BarrettBrown 05:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I am responding to a request for mediation made by BarrettBrown here. I think there are two seperate issues here that need stepping back from and considering seperately. One side thinks the title documentary film maker is appropriate, the other thinks video producer is appropriate. In my opinion, video producer is actually only a substitute for film maker, and not for the documentary part. Therefore, the two things to be decided are - (a) does he makes documentaries, and (b) is he a producer or a film maker. To take the second point first, it seems that he is a film maker as opposed to a producer. A producer performs a very specific role in the production of a film, whereas it appears (from my brief skim search) that Alex does not fall into the producer definition, but rather is the overall maker of the films. Video maker as a title simply doesn't work, film maker does. So, a first solution to the disagreement, and what I think is a good compromise from both parties, would be to use the descriptor radio host and film maker. I think this gives a good general description of him and avoids the contentious point. The nature of his films becomes evident from the Videos section, and that section could, perhaps, be used to discuss the reasons for the argument over what his films are.

Resolving the point over whether the films are documentaries or not is going to be very difficult and will always lead to one party feeling themselves to be the "losing party". A better solution, in my opinion, is to avoid the problem as suggested above - I think its a simple, elegant, solution that doesn't lose any information and allows everyone to move on to building a better article. Kcordina ^Talk 12:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable. I just changed it to filmmaker for now; I'm assuming Moshe will agree to this as well. Thanks for your help. BarrettBrown 14:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with film maker.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I think it's a good solution. Kcordina ^Talk 07:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS THERE TO PROVE!?

The guy makes documenteries by the definition of the word. Anyone who's watched one of his documenteries can attest to that. You don't need some news artical to say it to prove it. It's looking to me like this guy who doesn't want to call Alex Jones a documentery film maker is just trying to discredit the guy.

The opinion of ONE man is going to display on a website that is supposed to be about FACTS. This is sickening. This Wikipedia Project-thingy, whatever you want to call it is a JOKE! The guy who edits is is obviously bias. He's not taking a neutral stance if he's going to say a guy isn't a documentery maker just cause there's not a newspaper he's heard of that says so!

There are plenty of people who make documenteries and never make it into the news. There are people who make documenteries that nobody buys and THEY STILL ARE Documentery makers!

Alex's videos very clearly display facts and distinguis between facts and opinion. And whether or not his conclusions are logical or not is a matter of opinion. But that doesn't change the fact that they are documenteries. A documentery is a film about history, politics, or about "something". It documents things: Hence the name. His documenteries document events, and thus they're documenteries whether you believe the events or not doesn't matter. (Your free to live in a world where you claim the sky is purple if you want to. Just don't go telling me I have to believe it is. And for that matter, your free to make a documentery about it too if you want to.)

"Alternative Newspaper"? What does that even mean? "Alternative Newspaper"... "Alternative" to what?

"including Documentary Filmmaker/Syndicated Radio Host Alex Jones," - Newswire - http://gbcode.tdctrade.com/gb/tpwebapp.tdctrade.com/prnews/info.asp?catid=5&id=1154339

"Alex Jones, a documentary filmmaker from Texas, showed up with two of his crew." -http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=358df7bd-7a54-41e4-9366-df1733597c30&k=96354

IMDB

http://university.imdb.com/title/tt0379237/

http://university.imdb.com/title/tt0462415/

http://university.imdb.com/title/tt0810752/

http://university.imdb.com/title/tt0372113/

Wikipedia ain't about someone feeling like they lost or someone feeling like they won for that matter. Feelings are not to have bearing on facts. Feelings have bearing on opinions. I thought this page was about facts? This isn't about winners or losers, we all lose if the facts are misrepresented!

Arguing over a definition of a word and comprimising on the facts so someone's feelings don't get hurt is how trueth is hidden. People rather dance around the facts then just address them head on... and that is one thing that Alex Jones is all about! He addresses the facts head on. He wouldn't stand for this implying the trueth that he makes documenteries instead of just coming right out and saying it. Alex Jones ia all about coming right out and saying it.. and dealing with it! No matter how much it hurts. Cause lies are like cancers or infections, they have to be cut out and cleaned out not matter how much it hurts or in the end they'll be worse then if we just faced them head on.

Alex Jones makes documenteries. Whether you agree with his views or his documenteries that's still what they are. And it's not a matter of my opinion that he's a documentery filmakers. Opinion doesn't come into the truth. Opion has nothing to do with it. Not my opion, not your opinion, not Alex's Opinion.

If Alex Jones is not a documentery film maker, then neither is Moore, or Pierre Rehov, Erica Soehngen, Elizabeth Barret, Albert Maysles, or anyone!

A half-truth is a half lie.

You pick any peron's point of view, someone else will disagree with it. This is a fact of life. We can not all agree when opinions are involved. So why don't we all agree to agree on the facts. If we can't agree to agree on the facts, then we can never reach an agreement at all and there will never be any progress.

Just because one of the people who happen to disagree on this topic is the person who is able to lock the page doesn't give him the moral right to do so. Sure, he has the right to, the power to, he holds the key, the switch, the power. Is he abusing the power though by inforcing his opinion on other's where they wish to express only facts? To say a word that is defined in the dictionary is incorrect?

Libertarian cat

Hi, I removed the Libertarian cat because there was no assertion made in the article that Jones is in fact a Libertarian. I'll grant that it seems quite reasonable and in fitting with the rest of his political beliefs, but if there is no assertion make of the statement in the article, it seems that we shouldn't have the category. If anyone has any sources to back it up, please add them. --Deville (Talk) 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is a self-described Libertarian; I seem to recall this from a bio on his site. However, I cannot seem locate a reference to this right now. Greyscale 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics Debunking the 9/11 Myths

Link to the Popular Mechanics debunking article has nothing to do directly with Jones (he is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and the 16 claims which are addressed in the article do not necessarily reflect his viewpoint). The article is about 16 claims popular among 9/11 conspiracy theorists, not 16 claims from Alex Jones specifically. A link to it would be more appropriate in a page specifically about 9/11 conspiracy theories in general (in fact, it's already there). Johnny Watson 22:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

... But apparently someone disagrees with me and doesn't have the courtesy to even say why. What does the Popular Mechanics article have to do with Alex Jones, Tom harrison? Most of those 16 claims he doesn't even support. I'm just trying to understand, here. How does an article that responds to claims that Jones does not make relate to Alex Jones? Johnny Watson 22:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a fair point. I've removed the link. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that link could be of use on the 9/11 conspiracy page, though, if it's not already there. BarrettBrown

And does anyone have any idea why the date and time of my posts aren't appearing all of a sudden? Did I do wrong? BarrettBrown

It's already linked on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page in the first paragraph. Think we should add that article to the "See also" section of this one? I think that would be relevant. Four ~'s should post your time and date just fine. Johnny Watson 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the tip. As mentioned above, the 16 claims don't have direct linkage to Alex Jones, but if someone can find another source that specifically refutes claims made by Alex Jones, that would definitely be worthy of addition. BarrettBrown 01:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

FEMA and Martial Law? (How about some fair and balanced coverage?)

I think the article deserves a little bit about Alex Jones and his belief that FEMA will enforce Martial Law across America in order to turn average Americans into slaves. I think the recent news criticism of FEMA's inability to do anything pretty much conflicts with his 'prophetic' statements. Although I think he has some interesting topics, such as THE GROVE we should provide some fair and balanced coverage of these statements with their counterpoints. (Simonapro 20:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Updated section. If there are problems talk here first. (88.101.172.224 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

Like it or not, Jones thinks FEMA is "trying to prepare Americans for mass slavery in prison camps." The current status of FEMA, or Michael Brown, is irrelevant to Jones's general claim. If people want context, then they can click the FEMA link. I just don't see why all this extra material is necessary in a biographical article (esp. the Michael Brown stuff). --mtz206 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I agree. It shouldn't be included in Jones' view. So I created another section which allows for these topics to be addresses outside of Jones' biography. (Simonapro 09:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Isn't this page Jones' biography? FEMA prison camps would go in New World Order (conspiracy). Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Seems as if this inclusion is meant solely to discredit Jones's view, which isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia article. It might be ok to find a brief way to say that Jones's view is unique or unpopular, but we shouldn't start listing all the blemishes of FEMA in order to illustrate that Jones's view is ridiculous.--mtz206 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well its inclusion was to show the current political view as opposed to Jones' political view. But I think also that it should go if we also exclude Jones' political view. If we start to teach politics on the biography page then we need to show the current political model of that view. Since it has been removed entirely now there appears to be no need for it.(Simonapro 14:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Once again, while the conclusion Jones draws regarding FEMA is not necessarily the correct one, the factual foundation upon which he builds that conclusion is irrefutably accurate. I suggest you take a look at Exec. Orders 11004, 11005, 11051, 11310 and 11921.--Baltech22 05:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Woho!

Go alex go! www.prisonplanetcom/articles/june2006/110606Attendees.htm ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Full list]! I gues this is not going into the bilderberg article, right? --Striver 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Being prevented from attending the meeting is (arguably) noteworthy and should be included in the article. Happening for find a list of attendees of said meeting is not noteworthy for a biographical article on Jones. Please keep it out. (and the link above is frivolous as well, IMO). --mtz206 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, List of Bilderberg attendees has existed for some while now. --mtz206 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone reverted to include a link to this list without comment. Please discuss here and provide an explanation as to why a list of attendees for this meeting is relevant to a biographical article about the the life of Alex Jones. --mtz206 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not the list itself, but the fact that he got it. If you read, the sentences focuses on Alex's acomplishment, not the list. Its like asking "what does a concentration campt have to do with a biography of Hitler?" --Striver 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your odd analogy (see Godwin's Law), obtaining a list of a attendees isn't the kind of noteworthy event in a person's life worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Besides, the names of some of the attendees wasn't all that secret: [4]. --mtz206 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I argue it is worth of inclusion in a wiki encyclopedia, remeber that its not paper. --Striver 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but WP is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it wasn't for the fact that the names of many of the attendees weren't already published in mainstream papers (link above), Jones's obtaining a copy might be noteworthy. But even then, probably more so for an article on the meeting itself, not Jones's bio. You still haven't explained why this is a big deal, just that you think it is. --mtz206 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would go better in Bilderberg group. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see List of Bilderberg attendees. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it (or a mirror) is already linked there. --mtz206 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Video links

There are a number of Jones' films on Google video, and Jones himself has said he's happy with people distributing them (I don't have a source but I've seen/heard him say it many times in his show). Would it be a good idea to link to some of his videos here?

Terrorstorm has just been released on his site, google has it here. Martial law is here. There are others, but Alex has referred to each of these has his best yet when they were first released. What do you think? We11er 10:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section on the films he has made should have links to said films if they are available on any video service. -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

They do have it --Striver 18:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkfarm

Recent edits to this article has turned it into a linkfarm. While listing common phrases by Jones might be notable, we don't need to provide links to clips for each occurrence. Similiarly, while listing guests on his show might be notable, we don't need to provide links to clips for each occurrence. See Howard Stern: similar content is provided, but not with 40 links to his websites. WP is not a repository of links. --mtz206 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bro, what you cited is only applicable to the "External links" section, not to refereces. The refereces is not there to link farm, most of the links go to the same video. The same references would be just as valid witout the links, they are only provided for convineance. The refereces are needed, otherwise, i would have to prove that he is actually saying those words a lot. As for the interviews, we all know that the entire section would have been deletred as unrefereced original reaserch if i had not provided references. I know that your comments is made in good faith, but i sometimes feel that no mater what i do, somethings "is wrong". --Striver 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that especially since "most of the links go to the same video" these multiple external links are redundant, unnecessary, and could be construed as link spamming. Why not just have one link to the video? --mtz206 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not external link spaming since its NOT in the "External links" section and they all link to the same target. If the links are so extremly bothersom, ill remove them and only keep the references, whould that defacto hardening to reach the sources make you happier? If yes, then ill remove the link and keep the referens. --Striver 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit, and if that is the extent of yourr objection, then its ok for me so far. --Striver 00:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Info Lacking

Unlike many other good Wiki articles about semi-famous people, this one does not contain any personal information about Alex Jones in the biography section. It also leaves out any information about him during the first 20 years of his life, starting with the beginning of his career in 1994 (assuming he really was born in 1974). Where did he live during this period of time? Who were his parents? Where did he go to school? What degrees did he get? Is he straight or gay (sometimes this is relevant to the person's professional career)? Did he ever get married? I'm a real novice re: Wiki, but thought I'd introduce this comment in hopes someone may be able to "fill in the blanks." He certainly didn't pop up on earth in 1994, unless he really did come from another planet, ha ha. --66.82.9.58 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Chuck Franklin

I have not found any references regarding that, so i have nothing to add... --Striver 02:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a line regarding his wife Violet Nichols--Baltech22 05:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

- I was also wondering if he has any children. I see he is married but what about kids?