Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Sandy Hook Parents Sue Alex Jones for Defamation

Law suit against Alex Jones again. Should be added in article.

"Sandy Hook Parents Sue Alex Jones for Defamation" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html

175.156.169.183 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I would rather say no, I suspect we will start to see more of this, and this then just becomes a catalogue of his law suites, better to just have a "and has been sued multiple times" comment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree. Merely being sued isn't an indicator of anything except being sued. If there's a significant judgment against him later, it may be worth including. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Families of Sandy Hook victims sue Infowars’ Alex Jones"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/families-of-sandy-hook-victims-sue-infowars-alex-jones/2018/05/23/f5593e38-5ea1-11e8-b656-236c6214ef01_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d8bc807a321 175.156.21.10 (talk)

• You merely provided another link. Nobody disputes that he is being sued. You've provided no response to the reasons presented for not adding it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't realize that someone had added it without participating in this discussion. Another lawsuit was also added, pretty much what @Slatersteven: predicted. I've removed it pending discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think "and has been sued multiple times" is a lousy idea. Readers are just going to think "Oh yeah? Who by?" Stu (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps that isn't sufficient, but I think adding these suits is premature. Right now, he is just being sued. There's been no finding of any wrong-doing, no award of damages, no significant settlement. We all know that anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. Merely being sued means little. I'm no supporter of Jones, but I've made this same case in BLP's about other people, so I think it should apply here too. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

Add Alex Jones Net worth, it's $10 million dollars (2018). 50.101.129.130 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - All content related to living persons must be referenced to a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 22:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] [2] Good enough? --2.104.86.226 (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, celebrity gossip sites like Celebrity Net Worth are not reliable sources Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Broken archive?

FlightTime I see you attempted to archive some stuff from this page on the 24th May but I can't see the stuff in the archives? Do you know where they went? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

@Emir of Wikipedia and BD2412: Please see [3]. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking for the bit about the middle name as I remembered having a discussion about it. Restored the middle name variants I have but not sure if other important discussions have gone. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alex Jones (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018

Change "Charlottesville, North Carolina" to "Charlottesville, Virginia." Charlottesville, Virginia is where the Unite the Right rally was held, not Charlotte, North Carolina. Learner4life18 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you- MrX 🖋 01:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added?

There is a clear consensus that the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook should be added.

The specific wording of the addition is being discussed in the open RfC at #Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Cunard (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lawsuits regarding Sandy Hook be added? Jim1138 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The suits seems quite notable and is on many major news sources.There appear to be numerous lawsuits and plaintiffs involved Google search: "infowars lawsuit" Google search: "alex jones lawsuit I will add this to the talk:InfoWars article as well.
What should be added? One suggestion:

• A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation.

Pinging most recent editors. Many more, should all be pinged? @Niteshift36, StuHarris, Underneaththesun, Khiam40, Bueller 007, Wumbolo, Ian.thomson, Lionelt, Anticitizen 98, DrFleischman, Rhian2040, Cagliost, Volunteer Marek, Clester07, LivinRealGüd, and Doug Weller: Jim1138 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why would you not ping the editor who first opposed it: @Slatersteven: 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• A few sentences are warranted. The New York Times. However, I don't think this RfC has a good construction. RfC's should be specific, and What should be added? doesn't look like a good RfC question to me. I would suggest withdrawing this RfC. wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Wumbolo. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm in favour of adding these, briefly. Stu (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support including as it seems relevant, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• What you're proposing is much different than what was added, but still not ideal. And why was there a RfC started before almost no discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Question: For those supporting inclusion; have any of the lawsuits moved beyond merely being filed? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think this is more of a case of weight rather than inclusion. I see no issue with adding a sentence under the section that talks about the shooting, but going into any depth about it would be too much. Would be nice to have an RfC that proposes wording as that would make it easier for people to decide what should/shouldn't be added. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The exact content can be tinkered with, but no one has given any content basis to keep this material out altogether, so I think we can go ahead and add a few sentences now. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more sensible to determine the wording here before adding it? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As no one has suggested anything else, I would presume the "suggestion" above would be added. Jim1138 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

At least 3 editors have expressed issues with how the RfC (which includes that suggestion) is worded. And the RfC is only 5 days old. Typically a RfC runs much longer unless there is a clear consensus. I'm not necessarily opposing the sentence, but I wish you hadn't jumped straight to a RfC with no discussion and now want to short circuit the process. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support a brief mention (1-2 sentence max) at this point, until there is further coverage in sources, for example when the lawsuit is settled or decided at trial. Due weight has been established by the number of sources currently available and the fact that it has been reported internationally.- MrX 🖋 22:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as listed in the RfC (2 sentence) + more could be added. My impression is that this is, in part, what Jones is known for, so more than two sentences would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. He's notable for this. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support His comments on Sandy Hook are one of his more notable controversies.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support some mention of the lawsuits. Covered by numerous secondary sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support With due weight and proper sources. Dryfee (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support brief coverage (Summoned by bot) ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as an uninvolved editor summoned by the bot, I can't see how they would not be notable. Since there dors seem to be some disagreement, additional RfCs may be needed to work out weight and wording, but there is no question in my mind that multiple lawsuits=notable.Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Observation: I'm still not opposing the addition, but can't we do better on this wording? "A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation" A number? Some associates? We say "Sandy Hook families" as if it were all of them. I doubt we'd be ok with this weasle wording if this wasn't a guy that we have distaste for. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I would rather wait until we see where (and how far) they go. But will not oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support and suggest simple wording sourced to USA Today story cited above and parallel to other discussion of lawsuits: "In May, 2018, "six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack" filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors." (Ref USATodaySH) (uninvolved editor summoned by Legobot) HouseOfChange (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support summoned by bot. His talk show career is built on a bombastic style and limited adherance to facts, and the lawsuit is a direct result of that. It adds necessary context. Plus it is notable - I’m aware of it, and it will continue to be notable because it will be held up as a free-speech challenge. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: at least a line, given its notability: see, for instance, a New York Times article in April of this year, and another in May. The wording use some work, though, but I can't think of a good alternative quite yet. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 19:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support here, not at Infowars - this seems to have coverage weight, but use a different line than that shown and not much as it's just a suit at the moment. Not at Infowars article mentioned above as RS stories are about suing him, but think it would be good to mention all those sued here in passing, e.g. 'Alex Jones, Infowars.com,...' for the affiliates named if that can be found. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Notable per sources. Chris vLS (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. The lawsuits have significant media coverage. AlanS^talk 07:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alex Jones/Bill Hicks

Since Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, just like Albert Einstein was a Gravity Theorist. Someone who knows how to wiki should add a conspiracy tab about him really being the comedian Bill Hicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.12.154 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done WP:BLP violation against Einstein. (He's still alive -- just not in this dimension.) O3000 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

antisemitic book

@Gamaliel: I'm pretty ambivalent about this edit's content changes, but I'd really like to see a better source than an LA Times opinion piece to characterize the book as antisemitic (calling Allen a conspiracy theorist is well-sourced enough at Allen's article). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, so went a loooking [4] was the best I found, and still not sure about this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The JTA has been found to be an RS at RSN before, so I think that's good enough. This isn't a BLP issue; we're referring to a book. The BLP issue involved (calling Allen a CSist) is, as I mentioned, resolved via the sourcing at Gary Allan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Never been sure with the "I am not calling him an Nerk I am calling what he said a Nerk" style of argument. But as I said I am not sure, either way over this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I can understand that, but I think these descriptors help characterize and explain the subject (Jones' early life). Besides, good people can say or do bad things. So while that sort of statement is a red flag, it's not necessarily a problem. Lord knows I've said a few racist things, but I'd hardly consider myself a racist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I also do not think this is enough to put it in Wikipedia voice, this is the opinion of (what) 2 people (which given the accusation means it is a pretty fringe viewpoint). This (even if included, and my last point about undue makes me even less happy with it) means it needs attibutation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with attribution. Do you have a proposed wording? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not having much luck it all boils down to ""which according to...is antisemitic" (it does not help that as far as I can tell the JTA sources seems to be "by a staff writer".).Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, JTA didn't attribute text written in the 70's. It's odd, but their various appearances at RSN are pretty conclusive.

That wording is about the only possible way to attribute, I think. I was thinking we break off the Jones quote into a separate sentence and add something like that. So the proposed wording would be:

As a teenager, he read conservative journalist and conspiracy theorist Gary Allen's anti-Semitic book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which had a profound influence on him and which "revives the anti-Jewish propaganda campaigns of the 1920s" according to Harvey B. Schecter, the Anti-Defamation League’s Western states former fact-finding director. Jones called the book "the easiest-to-read primer on The New World Order".

Look good to you? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

NO we still say it is antisemitic based upon a fringe theory. We cannot say that based on the sourcing we have.

As a teenager, he read conservative journalist and conspiracy theorist Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which had a profound influence on him and which has been said "revives the anti-Jewish propaganda campaigns of the 1920s" by the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Jones called the book "the easiest-to-read primer on The New World Order".

I think fits the situation better.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The quote there is actually from Schecter, who was being quoted by the JTA, so we need to attribute it to him. Other than that, I'm not seeing a difference between your proposal and mine.

What fringe theory are you referring to? It sounds like you're saying that the notion that the book is antisemitic is a fringe theory, but I don't think that's true. At the least, you would need to show me a trustworthy reference defending the book as not antisemitic for me to accept that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First one may not have been closed or anything, but it's clear enough that something is going to be included. This RfC is based on the results of both Talk:Alex_Jones#Should_the_lawsuits_regarding_Sandy_Hook_be_added? and Talk:InfoWars#Should_the_lawsuits_regarding_Sandy_Hook_be_added?, in case you see something referenced here that's not on this page.

• Which phrasing should be used?

A) A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation.

B) In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors.

C) In March 2018, six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting.

D) A number of defamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.

E) In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax.

F) Something you should have suggested during the previous RfC... >:/

Reasoning behind this RfC

Initial suggestion was: A number of lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones and some of his associates for defamation. However, there were issues raised with phrasing as well as to what extent WP:NOTNEWS applies. With regard to phrasing: The particular points raised were regarding "number of" and the unqualified "Sandy Hook families." The alternate phrasing brought up was: In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against Jones based on his claim that the 2012 slaying of 20 first-graders was a hoax being promoted by paid actors. The last part ("claim that the 2012 slaying... paid actors") should probably be a link to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories if it's not already linked in the article before that point. I kinda feel (per WP:GEVAL and WP:PROFRINGE) like we should emphasize that the 'paid actors' claim is utter bullshit, so I'd suggest In March 2018, six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. A number of dafamation lawsuits have been filed by Sandy Hook families and an FBI agent against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax. was also suggested. Combining that with the other suggestion that's not mine, we get In March 2018, six families affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a lawsuit against InfoWars, Alex Jones, and some of his associates for claiming the 2012 elementary school shooting there was a hoax. With regards to NOTNEWS: Filling in the gaps in the implied reasons given on both sides, I'm vaguely seeing the suggestion that the "routine news reporting" and "breaking news" parts of NOTNEWS applies if this is is presented as yet another lawsuit against Jones, but that it qualifies as the "recent developments" part of NOTNEWS (i.e. not NOTNEWS) if presented as a continuation of his claims regarding Sandy Hook. The consensus of the last RfC almost unanimously to include it, which would mean that it'd have to go in the School Shootings section (the only place to include it in the InfoWars article anyway). Refs involved: References Additionally, this New York Times piece has been suggested as a possible source. At the very least, it'd be useful to bludgeon any InfoWars fans who want to argue that the lawsuit is fake news or something. There was additionally a single suggestion for a Times of Israel piece to try to frame this as part of Jones going after people, but this would seem to fall under WP:SYNTH with the sources given and no one responded to this suggestion.

Pinging everyone who participated in the last RfC on either page: @Atlantic306, Bennv3771, BullRangifer, CNMall41, DrFleischman, Dryfee, Elinruby, EllenCT, Grayfell, HouseOfChange, Jim1138, Jojalozzo, K.e.coffman, L3X1, LivinRealGüd, LM2000, Meatsgains, MrX, Niteshift36, PeterTheFourth, Pythoncoder, Slatersteven, StuHarris, and Wumbolo:

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Weak C or E - I'm not caffeinated enough to care but I think C probably the most complete phrasing, followed by E. Mostly !voting to just get this started. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• C, but I would not Wikilink the Sandy Hook shooting. I hate feeling like I'm leading anyone to read that trash. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Both C and E combined including wikilink and all details of both, and include long-term pattern and practice of targeted harassment elsewhere in article. EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Close RfC. I don't see any reason why this RfC is necessary as there's been no significant dispute over what should be added. It would only seem to delay implementation of the previous RfC. I suggest Ian.thomson withdraw the RfC, be bold, and add something to the article. There already appears to be consensus for Option A so that could be a good starting point. If other editors think it can be improved, then they can improve it through the normal editing practices. Requiring 2 RfCs before adding some pretty straightforward content to the article seems like gross overkill and inhibits article development. Just add something goddammit. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• More work - liking the list of who is sued in A/D, but those are a bit vague. Think this may be better as 3 lines - a line of overview 'Defamation lawsuits have been brought'; then a separate line 'In date-who-what' detail. And think needs mention of placement and text for the February lawsuits in Texas from two families needs to be added. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• C (Summoned by bot) Seems to be the best as includes the "march 2018" part. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• C is the best wording, and I favor wikilinking to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• B As I understand it, there is no controversy as to the facts of what the exact allegations were, so I don't see any principled reason to avoid the most specifically worded option. But as C has garnered quite a lot of support, I will note (just in case there ends up being a close call) that it seems also within the span of reasonable options. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Close RfC. What Dr. Fleischman said. Dryfee (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• A or B or C or D or E - As above. O3000 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• C Let's close this and move on. 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs)
• C, or B as a second choice. - MrX 🖋 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• C, and I agree we should close this and move on per DrF. Neutrality^talk 00:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• A This is a developing situation so we should not get into specifics as to the reason for the suit or the number of families. e.g. July 2 development:

  ... Trial lawyers from Bridgeport, Connecticut-based Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder filed another lawsuit Monday against media personality Alex Jones, this one on behalf of William Sherlach, whose wife Mary Sherlach was a school psychologist killed in the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “This is a civil action for damages ... https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2018/07/02/new-suit-filed-against-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theorist-infowars-host-alex-jones/?slreturn=20180603130201

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• C as I'm highly supportive of the inclusion of the specific number of families and the explanatory wikilink. Nanophosis (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
C looks best to me, and per Cullen328 I would definitely wikilink the Sandy Hook article. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) How about adding about the Time magazine fake cover which was correctly singled out as fake by Jones? [5] This looks incomplete to me otherwise. wumbolo ^^^ 16:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC) @Wumbolo: This is the wrong discussion for that proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I'm going to try to stay out of these discussions in the future where possible, so as to avoid feeding the troll(s). It's fine to take me off the ping list. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Will do so if this doesn't settle the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please don't start a second RfC when the first - on pretty much the same matter - is still open. Even if it wasn't, starting two identically-worded RfCs here and at Talk:InfoWars#Sandy Hook RfC 2: Electric Boogaloo is a clear contravention of WP:MULTI. Also, the opening statement is far from neutral and brief - just look at how it appears at the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Upcoming school shooting news

This is just a heads up: looks like we are a week away from the next hearing on the defamation case:

From the New York Times:

July 31, 2018

AUSTIN, Tex. — In the five years since Noah Pozner was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., death threats and online harassment have forced his parents, Veronique De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner, to relocate seven times. They now live in a high-security community hundreds of miles from where their 6-year-old is buried.

“I would love to go see my son’s grave and I don’t get to do that, but we made the right decision,” Ms. De La Rosa said in a recent interview. Each time they have moved, online fabulists stalking the family have published their whereabouts.

“With the speed of light,” she said. “They have their own community, and they have the ear of some very powerful people.”

On Wednesday in an Austin courtroom, the struggle of the Sandy Hook families to hold to account Alex Jones, a powerful leader of this online community, will reach a crossroads. Lawyers for Noah Pozner’s parents will seek to convince a Texas judge that they — and by extension the families of eight other victims in the 2012 shooting that killed 20 first graders and six adults — have a valid defamation claim against Mr. Jones, whose Austin-based Infowars media operation spread false claims that the shooting was an elaborate hoax.

The Pozner hearing is a bellwether in three cases, including another in Texas and one in Connecticut, filed by relatives of nine Sandy Hook victims. It comes as the social media platforms Mr. Jones relies upon to spread incendiary claims initiate efforts to curb him.

The day after the Pozner case, in the same courthouse, is a hearing in a separate defamation case against Mr. Jones brought by Marcel Fontaine, who was falsely identified on Infowars’ website as the gunman in the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February. Mr. Fontaine, who lives in Massachusetts, has never visited Florida. The Pozner family and Mr. Fontaine are being represented by Mark Bankston of Farrar & Ball, a law firm based in Houston."

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Property Theft

@Intellectual Property Theft: Once reverted you are expected per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS to first form consensus for your changes on the article's talk page before reinstating your edits. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

First Sentence Issues

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (Warning- I'm new to Wikipedia, so I hope this goes correctly.) Anyway, there seem to be some biases in the article. Particularly, one in the first sentence that labels him as a conspiracy theorist. Do I think he is a conspiracy theorist? Yes, I do. But, that is a term that he does not use, and is generally with a bad implication. I think it's fair to say "Alex Jones is an American libertarian radio host, often regarded as a conspiracy theorist", instead of just dogmatically saying "..is a conspiracy theorist. Wiki should stay neutral. Is it alright if I make that change? I tried before, but it kept getting removed. I couldn't understand why. I guess I needed to discuss it here first(?).--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Welcome. Although a person’s self-description can be meaningful, we cannot rely on their own words. For example, most terrorists don’t call themselves terrorists. They are more likely to call themselves freedom fighters. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. Several are cited by the article identifying him as a conspiracy theorist. O3000 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC) BTW, near the top of this page you will find the talk archives. You can enter conspiracy in the search box and click search to see past discussions. O3000 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC) I could find just as many sources calling him not a conspiracy theorist. The fact is that all articles cited that statement are not reliable. On top of that, they are all affiliated with the Democrat party. Let's be real. Whoever put that there just wanted to instill a liberal point of view in readers' minds. WP should let readers decide. Many people support Jones. If you want me to delve deeper, I would argue that the reason we would not rely on ones own words is if they are objectively malicious, i.e. have been convicted of something. Conspiracy theorist is a very broadly defined word. By most definitions of conspiracy theorist, technically everyone who thinks the government is doing something against them is one. When the majority of Republicans believed they and their businesses were being targeted by the IRS, were they "conspiracy theorists"? It depends on how negative of an implication you want. Most Dems would say yes. Most Republicans would say no. It's also important to realize Jones' fan base is about the same size of Anderson Cooper's or Lawrence O'donenll's, whom most conservatives would call conspiracy theorists, or fake news. Finally, and this is the most objective argument I think there is, is that a terrorist would have two words to describe him. Terrorist, or "freedom fighter", as you mentioned. Both are biased. There is no choice. By saying that Alex Jones is a libertarian talk show host, no one can disagree with that. He is registered with the Libertarian party, voted for Johnson in 2012, etc. And, he is a talk show host. None of these can be disputed by anyone. So, let's use those terms. If we then put "widely regarded as a conspiracy theorist", then we are stating what many people think of him. But, we are still allowing readers to make up there own minds. Why don't we meet in between? How about I change it to "...is an American Libertarian talk show host, widely regarded as a conspiracy theorist? There is also a part where it says infowars is "devoted to fake news". Easily 50% of people would agree with most of the content. It should be changed to "often regarded as fake news", or maybe just removed. It's just ridiculous. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC) " they are all affiliated with the Democrat party. Let's be real. Whoever put that there just wanted to instill a liberal point of view " - and this is where others stop taking you seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Often?, pretty much every RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Fortunately, we don’t have to think that hard or worry about our own opinions on the meanings of words. We just follow the preponderance of reliable secondary sources. This is how WP satisfies verifiability. We also avoid weasely wording in favor of more direct wording when it is used by WP:RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC) My point is that the sources provided are not reliable. What some users are attempting to do is engage in an argument, something that is forbidden by the NPOV policy. It depends how strict you are about RS's, but to be really strict, you would be hard pressed to try to find a source that defines him that way, as well as use the term fake news.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellectual Property Theft (talk • contribs) 13:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Pretty sure we need consensus and not a single person's agenda for questionable changes. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] O3000 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Well the community has deemed them RS, and thus they are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC) What some users are attempting to do is engage in an argument, something that is forbidden by the NPOV policy. Hmm already WP:WIKILAWYERING... NPOV does not mean choosing neutral sources, only those generally considered reliable. This also means that the article will reflect those sources (what we call neutrality on Wikipedia). —PaleoNeonate – 14:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Adding: because the initial post was about the lead, per WP:LEAD it should be a summary of the important points of the article's body. More information and sources are usually found in the body to support it. —PaleoNeonate – 14:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC) I left a better link on my talk that supports my removal. Wikipedia requires users to be neutral. See this article on bin Laden. Please don't accuse me of wikilawyering. –– I agree that my reasoning for removal is not tremendously strong, but even much less is the reason for undoing. With regards to most famous people with similar controversy to Alex Jones, articles are typically written much more neutrally. The truth is that many people hate Alex Jones, but that is no reason to add bias. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC) I fear that you don’t have a full understanding of NPOV. You have made accusations of hate and bias against other editors. (Please read WP:AGF.) We just use reliable sources. And, it’s pretty damn hard to argue with them considering he has accused dead children of being actors and their parents as complicit in fraud. Just one of the well documented conspiracy theories. In any case, we just use reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Intellectual Property Theft, you are correct that "Wikipedia requires users to be neutral". That is the essence of NPOV. Let me clarify that it does not apply to bias or neutrality of sources or content. They need not be neutral. If a RS contains bias, then editors must remain neutral by including that bias in their edit (if the part of the source relevant for use contains the bias). They should not censor the bias or neuter the source by hiding its bias. That is the type of content that is often most interesting and worthy of inclusion. Reality is rarely unbiased, and sources with no bias tend to be rather blah, but of course we also need straight up, boring, documentation of facts. If the bias is a strong opinion, then we usually attribute the bias to the author. If the bias is a simple and obvious fact, such as that Trump is habitually untruthful (his supporters consider that bias, even though its undeniable fact, so the mistaken bias is actually their own), then it may be okay to just state it and cite the source. Each situation must be handled on its own merits. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I clearly made no accusations of actual hate. That is simply false. I accused whatever original editor(s) who put that there a long time ago to be biased. People are free to "hate" whoever they want. It's not necessarily a bad thing. NPOV is not the main reference I'm trying to make. Referencing Alex Jones' belief to try to win this argument is invalid. 55% of Americans believe Hillary Clinton committed felonies in the State Department. That doesn't mean it's true. And how can a dead child act? I don't want to defend Alex Jones, but he has never accused specifically dead children of acting. He has accused living people of acting. If you read main stream articles about Parkland, including Fox News, you will see that many of the shooting survivors have accused CNN of editing the children's scripts with intention to politically deceive. Here is a link.. Many things Alex Jones has said are incontrovertibly true. There are also videos involving David Hogg that do suggest he was likely not in the shooting while it was happening. You and other users may disagree, but the amount of people that support these particular claims by Alex Jones are about the same amount that believe that Trump committed treason with Russia. I don't understand why you can't agree that the page should say "...widely regarded as a conspiracy theorist" and "...widely regarded as fake news" instead of making it appear the WP has it's own personal beliefs.--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, it's true that he and InfoWars are "...widely regarded as a conspiracy theorist" and "...widely regarded as fake news", but it's also true that he IS a conspiracy theorist and InfoWars IS a purveyor of fake news. RS make that point, and since that is not just a matter of opinion, we state the fact, based on RS. We don't include weasel words which leave any doubt, just as we wouldn't write "some people doubt that the moon landing was real" as the main conclusion. Yes, we write that because it's true, but we also write quite clearly that it WAS real. Period. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. When things are undeniable facts, we don't give primacy to the denials coming from unreasonable people. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, but it does side with RS and mainstream conclusions. It does not side with the fringe. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Here: Biographies of living persons. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC) To answer previous posts here arguing in favor of using those sources and keeping these contentious edits in, just because most WP editors believe one thing doesn't give us the authority to be dogmatic. I think we should instead use the average viewers' points of view. And WP policy agrees with me (and gives everyone the authority to remove contentious edits such as the one claiming Infowars is inarguably an exhibitor of the neologism "fake news", without consensus. It's common knowledge that WP editors are predominately liberal (which I'm not complaining about), but not all viewers will share the same point of view. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Since you're new to Wikipedia, as you state above, how do you know that "WP policy agrees with me"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC) I became active on WP a few days ago, and this is my first controversial article. Just because I'm new doesn't mean I didn't read things for a few hours. If you see my link above to Biographies on living persons, you will see. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC) User:Intellectual Property Theft may find my essay at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC) OK, here's my two cents. First of all: "conspiracy theorist" can (and I would argue sometimes, like in this case, must) have a neutral meaning. Here is what Wikipedia says about conspiracy theories: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is often a derogatory one." Does Alex Jones explain events/situations as unwarranted conspiracies involving harmful acts by the government/"deep state"? You bet your ass he does. Reliable sources are using that term for a reason. That it's often (often, not always) used with derogatory intentions is, quite frankly, not Wikipedia's problem. Second of all: I only bring this up because you have mentioned David Hogg in this very talk, speaking about "videos that suggest" and "people that support claims", but I know for a fact that you believe Hogg is, or at least could be, a crisis actor, which is a fringe belief supported by absolutely no reliable source whatsoever. And I know that is the reason why you tried to delete the part about statements made in favour of the theory having been proven false, disguising it as "removing unimportant claims that were not backed by the citations provided" despite the Snopes source that I added backing said claim perfectly. Pointing out that defamation against an innocent victim is based on false statements is, at least in my book, the opposite of unimportant. Just wanted to say that you didn't fool me, and that I hope to God that you don't fool anyone else. (LahmacunKebab (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add in citations for "dietary supplements" in opening sentence

"Dietary supplements" in opening sentence needs citations. I suggest below sources:

Alex Jones’s Media Empire Is a Machine Built to Sell Snake-Oil Diet Supplements

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/how-does-alex-jones-make-money.html

We Sent Alex Jones' Infowars Supplements To A Lab. Here's What's In Them.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-infowars-supplements-to-a-lab-heres

Alex Jones Just Can't Help Himself

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/alex-jones-will-never-stop-being-alex-jones

175.156.11.223 (talk)

• I added the citation for you. I added a different source. I woudn't mind if you add your own too.--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Huh. It's the lead, which doesn't require immediate attribution; it's properly verified later on in the article. Nevertheless, thanks for adding the citation, and thanks to PaleoNeonate for this edit. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the "dietary supplements" part from the first para of the lead. It's based on a simple confusion. Infowars.com is a news site (of bad quality). It's not a site for selling supplements; selling supplements (and other stuff) is how the site funds itself. It's as if one described Buzzfeed.com in the lead as a "site devoted to native advertising". That's where Buzzfeed makes its money; but that's not what the site is about: it's about news and viral content.

If you want to discuss Infowars business model, do it properly. There is a section in the article devoted to Infowars' business model. Summarize it in the lead in WP:DUE proportion if you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian, would you mind giving a third opinion on the thread below regarding "radio show host"? Thanks, -GDP⇧ 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Infowars is not a news site. There are no sources saying that it is news site. It is a conspiracy and fake news website.175.156.14.72 (talk)

That's what it says in the lead already. So it's not clear to me what or who you're complaining about. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2018

Can someone please insert this video into the article? --2.104.86.226 (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

He's pretty infamous because of his work with InfoWars. Adding an episode seems appropriate. --2.104.86.226 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Infamy would be a reason to not add a whole episode. There's also copyright issues you need to address. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is a copyright issue with the video, shouldn't it be removed from Wikimedia? --Trade (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need the video, rather then just a mention of this person?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk show host instead of radio show host? / "Republican" is lacking a citation.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. At the beginning, isn't it better to say "talk show host"? It's broader. He does both internet talk shows and radio shows. It seems most of the internet prefers that term. I know it's a minor edit, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway. HERE --GDP (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I fail to see how the medium he operates in is less broad then as specific type of show.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Thinking about it why not "media personalty"?15:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC) That's not what I said. I said it's more broad. He does internet shows. I also noticed that his vitamins don't seem to be sold under his name. They're sold under Infowars' name. Check the source provided. --GDP⇧ 03:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I guess I will go ahead and make the edit regarding the supplement name. If anyone objects, please let me know. I don't want to appear tendentious.🙂 -GDP⇧ 05:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I said that "talk show host" is less broad then "radio host". I fail to see where I misunderstood what you said.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Broad -GDP⇧ 22:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Neither "talk show" nor "radio show" are subsets of each other; you can have radio shows which are not talk shows, and you can have talk shows which are not radio shows. So "broad" isn't applied properly, and it's mostly irrelevant. I would prefer "talk show" myself, because it's more accurate and more typical of what Jones does, and his show is described that way frequently. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks @Kingsindian, since you said you prefer talk show host, I guess (?) I should make the edit. If you would also like to give an opinion on my below proposal, that would be great! -GDP⇧ 07:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC) You can make the edit, and someone can revert if they disagree. Don't edit war though. As for whether Jones is a Republican or not, I don't know. Is he registered as one? I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant on the matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC) That is not how it works, as long as there is disagreement there is not consensus. The issue it is not all he does, hence why I suggested media personality.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC) And [12], so both descriptions can be sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC) This might be better "multiplatform host" [https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/meet-alex-jones-175845/}.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC) I have noticed the "Political party: Republican" needs a citation. I looked but could not find one. Could someone please help out? If not, maybe it should be removed? -GDP⇧ 01:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC) WP:WHATISCONSENSUS - "Consensus is not what everyone agrees to". WP:DRR/3 is for edit disputes. I decided to do the same thing without going to the noticeboard by asking Kingsindian. I'm not sure "media personality" is the best choice. It seems okay, but almost no sources use it. So, I'd be afraid to. If you can find more, then I'll give consensus. I guess I will remove "Republican", since no one is finding sources. If you can find sources for that, Slatersteven, that would be nice. -GDP⇧ 10:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC) [13], [14], [15], [16] all call him a media personality.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC) We should take out the Republican bit if it's not supported by the source: we can add it back in later if we find a source. As for how to describe him: I personally don't care. "Media personality" is just as good as "talk show host" which is just as good as "radio host". They're all true. Just pick the one with the best sources and go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the input. Yes, like I mentioned, the vast majority of sources use "talk show host". I reverted Slatersteven's revert, as it appears the consensus is with me, as per WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. Slatersteven also removed a RS I'd put in, so I reverted that to. -GDP⇧ 00:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I have reverted the lead sentence to the last stable version before the recent edit war. See WP:STATUSQUO. Please discuss this here on the talk page instead of further edit warring. Note that this does not imply that I do or do not prefer the status quo version; this is what we do when there is an ongoing edit war. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I have never watched/listened to anything from Jones (feel free to offer congratulations) but I recently read a lot of sources when I updated the sources talking about him being banned from Facebook, iTunes, YouTube, Spotify, Vimeo, Pinterest, MailChimp, Stitcher and LinkedIn. -- and him still being on Instagram and Twitter. From this I gathered that his most notable method of communication with his audience are videos with him talking at the audience. Could somebody who is willing to watch/listen to this sort of thing please give me some estimates as to [A] how often he interviews guests vs. just him talking, and [B] How many new radio shows (on actual radio stations) TV shows (on actual TV stations), audio podcasts, video blogs, webpage updates, tweets, etc, etc. he creates each week? That would helop us decide what to call him. BTW, I just had to share the following with everyone:[17][18] :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC) (The following comment was moved from my talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Hi Guy Macon, There is no edit war. I have gained consensus on the edit to the lead in Alex Jones regarding "talk show host". You left a comment on my thread. Please take time to review the thread. As you can see, there has been a discussion. Slatersteven was the only user that disagreed. He reverted my edit once, incorrectly stating "as long as there is disagreement, there is not consensus". It's important to realize that before he reverted my edit, I already resolved the dispute him and I had by getting a third opinion. This is evident in the thread. I corrected him and reverted back to "talk show host". If this is not enough, I could formally get it resolved via the notice board. But, I'm pretty sure that all consensus policy agrees with me. Would you mind reverting your revert? Thanks, -GDP⇧ 02:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I count two editors taking the "talk show host" position and one taking the status quo "radio show host" position. That's not enough for you to claim that you have consensus. Plus there is an implied strong preference for "radio show host" from whoever first added that description and a possible weak preference from the dozens of editors who have read the status quo version and not changed it. see WP:STATUSQUO. You might be able to convince me and make it 3 to 1 by answering the questions I posted above. Also, it isn't "your thread", I don't comment without first reviewing the thread I am commenting on, and yes there was an edit war.[19][20][21][22] See WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC) And one user who has said they have no preference. I would also point out that one source has been provided for talk show host, it is hard to see that as a majority of sources. As Mpantts seems to suggest I am going to say that none of them are going to be in the majority (or at least not enough to be significant). This is why the broadest (media personality) might be best, it covers everything he does.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I prefer media personality over any of the alternatives discussed so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Just looked through sources. One said InfoWars broadcaster, one said right-wing media personality, one said conspiracy theorist and radio host, one said far-right talk-show host, four just said conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorist is the clear favorite. If we must also add something else, I’d prefer media personality as the most general. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] O3000 (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC) To clarify another point to GDP Growth, "third opinions" are informal and non-binding. Mine certainly was. If people disagree, it's better to talk a bit more than to keep editing. If there's an impasse, more formal channels, like an RfC, can be used. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I've never considered 3O valuable on heavily trafficked pages. Better suited to bringing someone into a quiet article. O3000 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚, O3000 (talk), thank you for your kind help. As a new user, I really appreciate it. For some reason, two other users are deciding to attack me. Guy Macon, for a reason I cannot understand, said "I don't comment without first reviewing the thread I am commenting on". But, he did not appear to read this thread, as he didn't know I already had a 3-1 favor. And after making one edit and one revert as I mentioned earlier, I got this lecture on my own TP. Even though I did not "engage", and he knows that, and he knows I know that. You can check the links Macon provided. Anyway, I do want to get along with these two users in the future. I am just frustrated. I was not expecting things like this to happen after joining WP. I'm leaving nice comments and getting WP:AGF and continuous harassment. Feel free to check my recent history. It's ridiculous. I don't care what happens as far as this edit. -GDP⇧ 13:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC) "For a reason I cannot understand"???? So did someone hack into your account and post the words "you left a comment on my thread. Please take time to review the thread" without your permission? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC) (Nevermind what I posted on this line. I misread something and it's irrelevant.---GDP⇧ 13:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Realize that consensus can take a long time to form. An RfC can last 30 days. Don’t jump too quickly to declare consensus. WP:NOHURRY. O3000 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I counted 2 for 1 neutral and 1 against, that is not 3 to 1.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Just put me down as supporting "radio show host", call this "no consensus" and let's move on. This is not worth edit warring over, or even a thread anywhere near this length. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Facebook suspension?

I am not sure what the media is talking about, as of right now, Jones's Facebook page is still up and posting as you can see here:

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/

The "social media restrictions" section may need to be rewritten to clarify exactly what the facts are.Underneaththesun (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Right now, as I type this, Alex Jones’s Facebook page is down Samboy (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Up, down, around. Wait for WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Done: Jack Nicas. "Apple, Facebook and YouTube Remove Content From Alex Jones and Infowars". The New York Times. Samboy (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

YouTube page is still up:

The Alex Jones Channel (unofficial copyvio url redacted)

175.156.30.195 (talk)

Well what do you know, think my post had anything to do with them banning him? Underneaththesun (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Weather weapons section

The Weather weapons section of Jones's views seems to be written from the point of view that weather weapons themselves are a conspiracy theory. Weather weapons and weather warfare are well documented, even on Wikipedia as one can see from the following articles:

Weather warfare
Cloud seeding
Operation Popeye
Weather modification
Environmental Modification Convention

Here is a recent news article documenting possible use of weather warfare:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5910359/Iranian-commander-accuses-Israel-stealing-Irans-CLOUDS-order-cause-drought.html

It would probably be best if the weather weapons section was rewritten to focus more on exactly what Jones said, or perhaps even removed altogether. Underneaththesun (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It is similar to chemtrail conspiracy theory: while contrails, cloud seeding and crop dusting exist, it doesn't prevent conspiracy theories to be formed and promoted. Another example is morgellons (parasites exist, but in this case it's delusional). Nonlethal sonic weapons and the microwave auditory effect exist, but there's no evidence for the claims of those who believe they're used systematically for electronic harassment. Weather modification research and applications exist but there's no evidence that it's being used the way conspiracy theorists claim. For the above example, The DailyMail is not considered a reliable source here, but if it's notable other news likely covered it (these are also only accusations). —PaleoNeonate – 07:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with much of the above. I exist, I was not (however) born in the highlands of Scotland 300 years ago (despite what my mates say), I have never even been to Scotland.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

To my recollection, no-one's ever tried to cut my head off to steal my power. Just, you know, for the usual reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There can be only one. O3000 (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right / far-right in the lead

Hey there! The sentence in the lead that reads "He has been described by others as conservative, right-wing, alt-right,[26] and far-right.[27][28]" should be removed. Here's why:

• WP:BLP certainly should be used as caution here - alt-right is a contentious term, Jones describes himself as disavowing the alt-right, and the source listed is secondary to Hillary Clinton saying that Mr. Jones is "alt-right." This is an obviously biased source. Additionally, although frustrating, the article is from two years ago and the term "alt-right" has morphed since then by Wikipedia's own definition. Whereas the term was previously voluntarily used by many conservatives viewing themselves as estranged from the GOP, it has changed to have white nationalist and racist connotations.

Remove the intermediary step of the "alt-right" term, and you are plainly calling someone a white nationalist, racist, Nazi, or some other such horrid term. I am no huge fan of Jones, but this is dishonest.

• As far as the term far-right goes, I am not necessarily saying that it is not a fair assessment in the common sense of the term, the official definition of far-right on Wikipedia includes ideologies that are outside the realm of common sense to associate with Mr. Jones - especially authoritarianism, as libertarianism and less-government is his entire shtick.

The sources for this are also doubtful, as the Haaretz source includes the term "far-right" only once in the lead, with no citation or explanation. The NYT source is definitely more qualified, but again this butts heads with WT:BLP and given that Jones and the NYT frequently attack one another, I can't see how either of them would be a reliable source about one another. Far-right conflicts with Jones in definition, and although it seems fair to use the term given Jones' location on the political compass, I don't believe it's proper in this circumstance.

I welcome your input! -Dmezh (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The source for alt-right provided in the lede is not Hillary; it is The Independent. Hillary isn’t relevant. In the body of the article, Newsweek is also given as a source. The sources for far right in the lede are NYTimes two years ago, and Haaretz two weeks ago. You may have point about Haarretz using the term only in the title. I don’t believe the fact that the NYTimes has written negative articles about Jones and vice-versa as being relevant. If we excluded every source about which Jones (or Trump) has said something negative, we’d have no sources. Fortune calls him both alt-right and far-right [31]. There are other sources using ultra right-wing.[32] If there is a source that Jones has disavowed the alt-right label, that can be added. O3000 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

In principle, we don't care if a term is contentious. If RS use it, we document it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

For even more contentious content which really strikes a BLP nerve, IOW things that can be actual libel and completely false, we still document it here, without censorship, but carefully following the guidance at BLP found here: WP:PUBLICFIGURE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Note also that we do not use the terms in WikiVoice, but say he has been described as such. The fact that we list multiple labels further mitigates as we are not even making an attributed statement that he is one of these. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right, Objective3000 and BullRangifer. In context, it is probably clear enough that the associations are made by third parties and not WikiVoice. If I can find an appropriate response from Jones, I will add and cite it. Thank you. -01:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theories are his shtick, not libertarianism.
• I have no idea why you're claiming that Hillary Clinton has anything to do with this beyond the usual right-wing hatred of her.
• The term "alt-right" has always been associated with white supremacy and nazism. Yes, there was a brief period where numerous far-right figures adopted the label, but white nationalists and others of that ilk have been using it since the get go.
• Alex Jones is not exactly innocent of racism. Just listen to anything he has to say about the Black Lives Matter movement.
• Appealing to common sense when discussing Alex Jones' views is almost as nonsensical as his views. Remember: he believes that NASA is shipping children to a slave colony on Mars, that lizard people control the government, and that the Democrat party (and a pizza restaurant) is a front for satanic child molesters.
• The terms are never stated as facts (despite the fact that they are, factually true). They are attributed, so WP is not saying anything about Jones' political views.
• The sourcing provided is more than enough to overcome any BLP issues.
• It is not libel or defamatory to describe a person's political views, even if their political views are extreme. If Jones has a problem with us documenting the fact that he's called "far-right", then the best solution is for him to stop being far-right. There's nothing we can do about it.
• We don't EVER lie or omit valid, relevant, verifiable information in order to present someone in a different light than the sources do, and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting we do that here. Please read WP:5P and the pages linked to on that page, so that you can develop a better understanding of our purpose and policies. The suggestion you just made runs exactly contrary to our core values. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: It is unfortunate that I have to dignify you even with this response, but you clearly have some personal things to work on if you think it is appropriate to behave yourself in the way you did in the reply above. You clearly have a COI here; please refrain from posting such ad hominem attacks and unproductive rants on this page in the future. -Dmezh (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Really? You're the one posting ad hominem attacks, Dmezh. Warned. Bishonen | talk 01:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants said above, and I can assure you (Dmezh) from long experience working with him on multiple pages that he (and, I hope, I as well) always puts the basic Wikipedia principle of making the article follow the sources above making the article agree with his politics. He provided you with multiple reliable sources describing Jones as alt-right. Do you have any sources that describe him as either not being alt-right or as being something that is incompatible with being alt-right? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Dmezh (talk), welcome to WP. First of all, MPants' defense of BLM doesn't help. I tried a similar argument as yours. Although the policy can be complicated to analyze, WP:NPOV, etc., suggest that sources should be fairly apportioned. Although I think sources calling him alt-right, etc, should obviously be noted, the vast majority don't use that term. I agree that WP should not state it in it's own voice for that reason. Same with "fake news". You can see that the Infowars page has similar attributes. There is, however, no getting around other derogatory terms like "conspiracy theorist", as almost all the RS (reliable sources) refer to him that way. We also cannot call him a Libertarian, even though it is true, because no sources say it. WP is supposed to be a reflection of RS's regardless of whether they are true. They other users you see here didn't give me consensus. They are, however, nicer when they are more cooled off. -GDP⇧ 09:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for studying our policies -- they can be confusing at times, but they work. One minor correction: The argument "the vast majority [of sources] don't use that term" is an invalid argument. The vast majority of sources also don't mention that Jones has three children or that Jones' dietary supplement 'Survival Shield' contains only iodine. What is important is that some high-quality sources say those things and no high-quality sources say that those claims are not true.

A more valid argument would be something along the lines of "I did a web search, doing my very best to avoid cherry picking sources that agree with me. The following sources call him "conservative" (list). The following sources call him "far right" (list). The following sources call him "alt right" (list). The following sources call him "bleeding heart liberal" (very short list).   :)   Given the above sources, in my opinion we should call him X." Needless to say, things like sources that can him a conspiracy theorist don't help, there are liberal conspiracy theorists, conservative conspiracy theorists, and alt right conspiracy theorists. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@GDP Growth: ...MPants' defense of BLM... Could you point me to that? Because in re-reading my comment, I don't see anything that could even remotely be construed as a defense of BLM. And even if there were, I'm surprised you seem to think that's a bad thing. Are you of the opinion that Black lives don't matter? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, GDP Growth has been indeffed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Oh well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the magic hat video. Watch the hat at 1:49, 1:58, 2:01, 2:05, 2:11, 2:23, and 3:08. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL Despite having seen that video ~200 times, this is the very first time I noticed that hat. Thank you, sir. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That's hilarious! Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Blue, white, and yellow! -Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2018

Please change "devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news" to "devoted to conspiracy theories.", because the infowars website makes no mention of providing fake news or being devoted to such, and the opinion of the veracity of the site (particularly in the current media culture) is immaterial. 2600:1700:23D0:CA0:48C8:D405:61A2:EBCF (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources are referenced for the fake news statement. Greyjoy ^talk 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Surely, you're joking. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 15:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify why you think they are not reliable sources.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How are the LA Times and USNews not reliable sources? Greyjoy ^talk 05:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A fake news site would obviously not state that they issue fake news and are unreliable for their claims anyway, including about them. —PaleoNeonate – 21:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the original request that a rewording may be necessary to maintain neutrality on the subject. I suggest that "devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news" be changed to "devoted to conspiracy theories, and considered by some to be fake news." is more accurate given the sources and the fact that "fake news" is a largely subjective term. It also stands to reason that conspiracy theories, by their nature, may challenge the accepted truth on a subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:F397:6C00:4052:FB27:2471:D1BD (talk • contribs)

You completely failed to address that reliable sources are referenced.

At any rate, claiming that kids who were shot at are just "crisis actors" is peddling fake news. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with the original argument. And those sources are heavily partisan. I will go ahead and amend it. If someone repeatedly changes it back, please note that you are probably violating wikipedias neutral point of view policy. You can refer to the NPOV FAQ if you're uncertain about what a NPOV is. It clearly states that users should not engage in debates while writing WP pages. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see recent discussions at Talk:InfoWars which reassessed consensus. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

My question is, how come his website is considered to be "fake news," but, was only considered to be so from November 2016 and after? (Re: the three links.) Are the people who are claiming he's dishing out "fake news," only claiming he started with the fake news after November 2016, and that before that time, it was real news? If that is not the case and they are claiming he had, previous to that date, purveyed in "fake news," how come nobody mentioned it by name? No, the term "fake news" is just a buzzword that has been created recently as a way to make a person who holds an opinion other than your own to look bad. I think that term should not be used here in this article. HaarFager (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's what "they"^[Humor] would like you to believe, but there definitely are various reporting and information standards. WP:IRS may be a start... —PaleoNeonate – 05:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Cut the political squabbling and make this a neutral entry, k? TruthHurtz76 (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@TruthHurtz76: why don't you offer a solution instead of assuming that telling others to "cut the political squabbling" will solve everyone's problems, k? Dmezh (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I've read everyone's perspective on this talk page and I have a proposed solution. Greyjoy has noted that reliable sources have called Infowars a fake news website, and I don't find anyone disagreeing with this. However, the article as it's presently written uses religious language (i.e. "devoted") to convey factual reporting by reputable news outlets. Since the LA Times and U.S. News don't use religious language to describe Infowars, it does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia to use this regligious language to describe what should be a factual encylopedia article. Does anyone take issue with the removal of this religious language? If not, then let's proceed with removing "devoted" with something more appropriate for a Wikipedia article describing non-religious facts.

Secondly, there is clearly some disagreement about what constitutes a Wikipedia:NPOV, so my recommendation is that we tailor the article specifically to the NPOV guidelines. Does anyone have any objection to this?

Thirdly, assuming that we all agree with NPOV as our guide, let's discuss how we're going to write this sentence to reach consensus. The NPOV FAQ says that articles "should report what people have said about it rather than what is so." Does anyone take issue with tailoring the sentence in question to this particular NPOV guideline?

Fourthly, assuming we're still all on the same page, what should be the wording for this sentence so that it meets all of the above agreed upon criteria? My proposed wording is as follows, but please improve as needed: "Jones runs a website called Infowars.com that publishes news stories laced with conspiracy theories. Mainstream media news outlets have deemed Infowars.com a fake news website." Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems an unusually specific use of the word "devoted" to assume it has a fundamentally religious character. In addition, I don't believe it a WP:NPOV violation for the wikipedia voice to describe Inforwars.com as a fake news website. After all. The sky is blue. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 if you go to Merriam Webster's definition of "devotion", you'll see that "religious fervor" is the first definition. Is your point about "devoted" simply for the sake of argument, or do you take strong issue with removing "devoted" from the current sentence? If so, can you please state why you think that this word (which has clear religious connotations as documented in Merriam Webster definition link presented above) is the correct word for this Wikipedia article, taking into account the primary sources referenced. Also, please include reasoning as to why a word with less religious basis would not work in place of "devoted", thank you. Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

While I don't find the proposed sentence particularly problematic, the current formulation is better because the new one implies that it's the opinion of mainstream sources. Since mainstream sources are what we consider reliable, this would result in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: also relevant: WP:YESPOV. —PaleoNeonate – 00:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Paleo please correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I don't think WP:FALSEBALANCE applies, because we're not talking about giving "undue weight to minor aspects of our subject" (e.g. writing about the actual news that appears on Infowars), but instead are providing the Wikipedia reader with a sense of how Infowars has come to be deemed "fake news." Given that the term is extremely new, highly politicized (see: Trump), and even reliable sources can't seem to agree on an exact definition of what constitutes fake news, (and more importantly in this particular case, what constitutes a fake news outlet), it seems to me that providing readers with a sense of where such a proclamation comes from will be helpful to Wikipedia readers. "Fake news" is also problematic in that it is a term that is widely used in an opinionated manner (again, See: Trump). This creates a blurry experience for readers trying to discern whether the Wikipedia voice is speaking as an opinionated Donald Trump, or is actually based in factual news sources. When it comes to opinions, WP:YESPOV makes it clear that "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources." When it comes to facts, WP:YESPOV says that it depends, and that "factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion." In this case though, even if all editors agree that there is a factual basis for describing Infowars as peddling "fake news", the term is one that is used in decidedly opinionated and politicized contexts, hurting Wikipedia's voice. If it were solely my own interpretation of this sentence, I wouldn't be spending the time to push on this, but the fact that multiple other editors have taken to this talk page to express that the wording of this sentence could achieve a greater clarity and greater NPOV leads me to push for this sentence to be changed so that "fake news" is attributed to the sources. When Wikipedia's voice sounds like Donald Trump's, it worries me. Is there anyone who takes strong issue with attributing "fake news"? Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The extra context you are talking about can also be provided in other sentences. Various editors who complained here seemed unaware of our policies and believed that the article content was the opinion of specific editors. "Factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice" is indeed relevant, with "avoid stating facts as opinions" (foo said/claims bar vs bar), and "does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity" (i.e. mainstream media says this and fringe source says that). —PaleoNeonate – 21:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

While it is true that Trump has attempted to co-opt the term fake news (and largely has among his base), I don’t think that means we should stop using the term or treat it differently. We do Wikilink it allowing us to provide a detailed explanation in two words in the lede. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, we don't need to fall into that trap; articles about reliable sources will never claim that they're fake news (and if notable, it'll be attributed if Trump leveled an accusation about it and it's mentioned). —PaleoNeonate – 21:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying about "trap": someone who acts dishonestly may believe and claim that everyone else also does; someone who justifies views using select quote mining may believe and claim that everyone else does; someone who bases their views on faith may believe and claim that science is faith, etc. It's also convenient for them to avoid legitimate debate and play that game, no matter how fallacious. Describing mainstream journalism as fake news is of that nature and only adds fuel to conflict. —PaleoNeonate – 22:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that "people who lie through their teeth about what is and isn't fake news" is a group that now includes the president doesn't change that "lie through their teeth" part one bit. We're not going to give weight to demonstrably inaccurate claims just because they're popular. Also "Stuff that pretends to be news but is fake" is a definition of fake news that every single reliable source sticks to, without exception. Whether they quibble over whether that includes satire, excludes obvious satire or excludes anything that might be considered satire is beside the point, because no matter which definition you use: InfoWars is still fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

nydailynews

@Somedifferentstuff: The source appears to be http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/alex-jones-accused-sexual-harassment-racism-anti-semitism-article-1.3848193 (will let you and others decide if it should be restored). —PaleoNeonate – 01:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If it traces back to the Daily Mail, we can't use it. O3000 (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point: "according to documents obtained by the Daily Mail". —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

YouPorn

It appears that YouPorn, which some sources say is the new home for makers of gun videos moving there because of youtube restrictions,[33] has banned Jones.[34]

Related question: is YouPorn really where the makers of gun videos are going, or is it PornHub, as reported by the BBC?[35] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC) Modified 00:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You should have linked BBC to avoid confusion. Since we're talking about porn websites, their usage of "BBC" refers to the virtues of a man who is dark skinned and well endowed. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I appear to be completely out of the loop when it comes to porn websites. Added the wikilink. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hah —PaleoNeonate – 02:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Transgender statements

Whether you call them "tbabe" or "transgirl" or "transgendered woman" some media have reported on his statements regarding them. For example:

• "YouTube, Facebook, and Apple's ban on Alex Jones, explained". Vox. 6 August 2018. using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender

I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Especially if more particulars are available for what sort of language Jones used describing transgendered people. "Dehumanizing" sounds naughty. -Marissa— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.193.44 (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Added, please audit/improve, —PaleoNeonate – 08:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

For those of us who don't watch Alex Jones videos, could someone please tell us exactly what Jones said about transgender people? The Vox article simply quotes Facebook as saying "...using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies".

A google search also shows a lack of specifics by multiple news outlets. The closest I found to a desription of what Jones actually said was NBC News: "Two of the videos featured anti-Muslim content, including one in which Jones claimed that Muslims had invaded Europe. Another was flagged for anti-transgender content in which Jones appeared to threaten transgender people. The fourth showed an adult man and a young boy engaged in a physical altercation under the title 'How To Prevent Liberalism.' "[36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 09:43, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

I haven't had time lately to pay attention to what he's doing. Besides, I'm suspicious when certain editors show their true commitment to NPOV by the constant attention they give to this article while allowing other problematic content to languish forever in a problematic state. When I was following Jones on a regular basis, I recall that he regularly mocked "transgender" by insisting on calling himself "transhuman". I'm not sure he really ever explained it as a concept or even tried to draw parallels to the accepted concept found at our article Transhuman, which is why I would describe it as mockery. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides, I'm suspicious when certain editors show their true commitment to NPOV by the constant attention they give to this article while allowing other problematic content to languish forever in a problematic state. Then go fix it your own damn self and stop whining about us not doing it for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The mention of transhumanism reminded me of this. But yeah, "you didn't fix this other article" is a bad way to accuse someone of POV-pushing. I'm not a site-wide AI yet, I'm still localized in my meat computer and I have to interface using the meat probes to activate the digital switches necessary to send info to this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This is only routine patrolling and maintenance for me: the article needed urgent attention and gathered it, had to be protected, and still needs editors to manage the talk page. The daily views spike seems to be mostly over though, things may hopefully calm down... —PaleoNeonate – 02:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuit updates

Might fall under WP:RECENTISM which is why I'm putting the info here rather than editing the page directly, but there was progress in the Sandy Hook defamation lawsuit. Many refs. Here's the first I came upon. [37] Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

lets leave it until something actually meaningful happens.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

NYT Article

From th New York Times: Alex Jones Said Bans Would Strengthen Him. He Was Wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Who is this Jones guy, again? Oh wait, I remember now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones banned from Twitter for life

Needs an update on that. 175.156.157.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see the end of the "Social media restrictions" section. —PaleoNeonate – 04:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Another ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/technology/twitter-alex-jones-infowars.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes --Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Another ref on Apple App removal:

Conspiracy Theories Made Alex Jones Very Rich. They May Bring Him Down. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/us/politics/alex-jones-business-infowars-conspiracy.html 175.156.164.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Consumer products - NYT article

Short discussion here as well as perhaps other information that might be useful. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Full Protect (Gold Lock)

Given the nature of the individual, this article may need a Gold Lock indefinitely at this point. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sleyece: Full protection, which stops everybody except admins from editing the page, is normally only applied temporarily and briefly, for the purpose of coming to consensus about some specific point. There are a few, rare, exceptions to this rule, which are specified here. Alex Jones doesn't qualify, as you can see. Indefinite semiprotection, which the page is under, is actually itself fairly rare. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

Not notable - can we delete Alex from Wikipedia?

He does not exist on Youtube, Twitter, Facebook or the Apple App Store. How can he be classified as a notable person when he doesn't exist anywhere mainstream? How does one organize a vote to get his page deleted from Wikipedia for non-notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.243.109 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Neither does Einstein. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• And many people are on all those sites but non-notable. —PaleoNeonate – 03:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• None of these are reliable sources, hence do not affect notability. But your comment seems ironic. TFD (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• IP190, it doesn't work that way. What counts is the ability to document notability at the time of creation of the article. Were there enough RS available at that time to establish notability? Yes, there were, and they don't have to be current sources. They can be sources from 1566 or 457 B.C. We don't really care about the age of the source, as long as it's reliable.

After the article is created, the person or subject can be forgotten and never mentioned again, but we still keep the article, because it's part of history, and we don't censor history. We preserve it. Wikipedia never "forgets", just because people do. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability cannot be lost, he was once on these, ergo he was (and therefore still is) notable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the fake-news

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The 'sources' that are supposed to be evidence to back up the statement of Info Wars being a fake news website are false. The first source does not have any proof that it is fake news, and when you scroll down you see that it is listed as propaganda, again with nothing to back it up. The first source seems entirely opinionated, and is mostly based out of New York which is a Democrat state. The second source is based out of California, a Democrat state as well. It describes how there is a list that a university professor wrote that contains InfoWars, and this list says that InfoWars is a conspiracy site, not 'fake' which is a category other sites fall under in this list. Finally, the third source is not known to be reliable, and makes no statements or evidence as to why InfoWars publishes fake news, other than saying something about how they often publish fake news. With that being said, I strongly advise that "devoted to conspiracy theories and fake news" be changed to "devoted to conspiracy theories." The top of this talk page says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article" and what I have just explain shows that the fake news statement is POORLY SOURCED, and should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamRanchCowboy (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

An "us and them" attitude is not what determines if a source is reliable or not. WP:RSN and its searchable archives may be used to assess the quality of a source. Please also see Identifying reliable sources. —PaleoNeonate – 09:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As the five largest US publishing houses are all in NY, and the sixth is in California, I guess we should stop using books as sources. O3000 (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

[38], [39].Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Note (after closure): OP was blocked as a troll. Name's a meme reference, only other activity was vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instagram Ban

The Infowars account on Instagram appears to have been removed, see https://www.instagram.com/infowars_crew. I can't find any WP:RS documenting its removal, however. - Scarpy (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly a fake account. I went to Infowars ( specifically https:/ /www.infowars.com/spread-the-truth-infowars-instagram-contest/ ) and then to the Instagram account that infowars lists. It appears to still be up.

[ https://www.instagram.com/real_alexjones/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. the infowars_crew account was last archived by the wayback machine in April 2018 https://web.archive.org/web/20180405011514/https://www.instagram.com/infowars_crew. It appears to be affiliated, but it hard to know for sure. - Scarpy (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Checking the wayback machine to see if infowars.com ever sent people to that page?

How could we possibly exist without content like this?

• https://www.instagram.com/p/BhHVllojlk2/?taken-by=real_alexjones
• https://www.instagram.com/p/BXQhcrMjleb/?taken-by=real_alexjones
• https://www.instagram.com/p/BhHVllojlk2/?taken-by=real_alexjones

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The last RS I could find was from a month ago: [Alex Jones' Infowars Still Not Banned On App Stores, Instagram And Twitter]

Seeing as how every other Jones ban made national news, (and my OR showing that he is still on Instagram), I would say that he hasn't been banned from Instagram since the HuffPost article. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Creator of Pepe the Frog gets trial date in case against Alex Jones

New lawsuit against Alex Jones; needs an update.

Creator of Pepe the Frog gets trial date in case against Alex Jones

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/13/creator-pepe-frog-gets-trial-date-case-against-alex-jones 175.156.15.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not convinced this is notable, or that it should be considered notable at the moment. Can't find any sources other than SPLC. DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 10:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, we should not make this a list of every court case against him.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

PayPal bans Infowars for promoting hate

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/21/17887138/paypal-infowars-ban-alex-jones-hate-speech-deplatform

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I would add the PayPal ban. Seems significant.Toronto2005! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Moon landing

Alex Jones never claimed that the moon landing was staged, but rather that the footage was "doctored". Shouldn't we make that distinction?Toronto2005! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No. We don't rely on your own thoughts on the subject. We rely on reliable sources which accuse him of claiming the moon landings were faked. You are making a lot of changes to this article, some of which are just unambiguously bad. I suggest you stop, copy the source text into your sandbox and work on it there. When you are done, you can link it here and other editors will give their thoughts on your proposed changes. And please use four (4) tildes to sign your comments. Using three as you are doing excludes the timestamp. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Alt Right? Far right?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seems like Alex Jones would fall under the category of Alt-light or Neo-nationalism. I would argue that the terms "alt right" and "far right" should be left for the likes of Richard Spencer of David Duke. Tell me what you think.Toronto2005! (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Right wing populism would be another good term for Alex Jones's political beliefs.Toronto2005! (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

We accurately summarize what high quality reliable sources say. End of story. Do you have any such sources to discuss? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought that the term “far right” applies to fascists, neo-nazis and the like. From what I know about him, he has not endorsed or supported those views. Do you agree with what I am saying?Toronto2005! (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. I’m just debating this through, but for I now I dont think it should be changed.Toronto2005! (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Pleases read wp:notaforum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sletartsteven. I don't violate any of those terms, and you yourself know it.Toronto2005! (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Thus if you are not now suggesting any change what is this about?Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Toronto2005!: You just came off a block for edit warring over original research in an attempt to get "far-right" removed from a different figure, and now you are coming here to do the same thing? Have you ever heard the aphorism, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." ? Engaging in the same behavior on this article will do nothing except get you blocked again. Especially with some of the other edits you have made, which defy the norms of English grammar. Please understand that the focus of WP is on the encyclopedia and there is no bill of rights for editors. Editors who don't help improve the project, regardless of how good their intentions can and will be indefinitely blocked from editing the project. If you want to avoid that, I would strongly suggest you avoid editing any articles about alt-right or far-right individuals, find another subject you can edit, and quietly make small changes in that topic until you have gained enough experience to grasp how WP works. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn’t read my comment did you? I never said I was going to change the label. What are you so upset about?Toronto2005! (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think that's what upset looks like, you are seriously lacking in the ability to engage collaboratively with others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to change anything. How is that not a good enough answer?Toronto2005! (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Then why are we discussing this? What purpose does this thread serve?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"without giving any specific examples"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The above quote was edded with this edit:[40]

The "without giving any specific examples" language comes from infowars, and has been parroted by sites such as stormfront. Most media outlets rely on this page for the details:

h t t p s : / / w w w . i n f o w a r s . c o m /bombshell-paypal-bans-infowars-after-lobbying-by-soros-funded-group/

The Verge, on the other hand, contacted PayPal.[41]

Paypal told them:

"Our values are the foundation for the decision we made this week. We undertook an extensive review of the Infowars sites, and found instances that promoted hate or discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions, which run counter to our core value of inclusion."

So, should we allow the "without giving any specific examples" language? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I was perfectly fine with it until you pointed this out. Now I'm not really sure: It's accurate enough from the sources used, and didn't look to be too problematic. But I'm leery of allowing any inroads to syncing our article up with the lunatic narrative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I could go either way. On the one hand, it's true (I looked and could not find any ref where PayPal cited which specific videos, etc. they based their decision on) but on the other hand, pretty much nobody gives specifics any more. If I say that I banned X for saying Y and they sue me, I just have to prove that X said Y somewhere. If I say that I banned X for saying Y in Video Z and they sue me, I just have to prove that X said Y in video Z. You get this in business a lot; firing people without telling them the specific reason is pretty standard. (Wikipedia is different; our rules say that we generally need to show diff of the behavior before blocking someone.) Perhaps the best thing is to fall back on WP:WEIGHT; and ask what reliable sources make a point of there being no specific examples.

BTW, it was just changed from "without giving any specific examples" to "without citing any specific examples", which is better wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Good catch. In addition to the reasons you already describe, it would be incredibly reckless of Paypal to repeat content it has identified as unacceptable, especially when harassment and doxing are in the picture. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not at all surprised by it. Aside from noting that the editor who made this change has been blocked for right-wing POV pushing just last month, and then tried the exact same tactic at this talk page right after it expired, it's quite an unremarkable statement. So unremarkable that it might not even be WP:DUE. I'm starting to lean towards reverting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you for real? The company did not give specific examples to why they banned him. How is that not neutral? It's a fact and I'm not defending or supporting Alex Jones as you seem to be implying.Toronto2005! (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Facts can't be neutral. Highlighting unimportant facts in order to create the impression of wrongdoing is the furthest thing from neutral. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

PayPal did not cite a specific example to why he was banned. That is fact, not opinion. Where did I imply wrongdoing? PayPal can do whatever it likes.Toronto2005! (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing whether PP cited specific examples to Infowars and PP is under no obligation to make such public. I certainly wouldn’t take anything claimed by Infowars or Stormfront and state it in Wikivoice. Anyhow, claiming they didn’t cite any examples because we couldn’t find them would be WP:SYNTH. 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

Where did I imply wrongdoing? When you added the claim that PayPal did not cite any examples. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not take anything for Infowars or “Stormfront”. I didn’t even know what “Stormfront” was until you mentioned it. PayPal did not give any examples to what specifically led to the termination. By the way, I don’t appreciate you accusing me of being a white supremacist.Toronto2005! (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

“Without citing any specific examples publically” would be a better edit.Toronto2005! (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Does a reliable source mention this? If not, it's unnecessary. —PaleoNeonate – 22:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Toronto2005! has been blocked for sock puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

InfoWars Banned As Wikipedia Sources

Breitbart, InfoWars Banned As Wikipedia Sources https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/325971/brietbart-infowars-banned-as-wikipedia-source.html 175.156.36.255 (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Who lobbied Facebook to ban Infowars for spreading fake news

@Toronto2005!: That's not what the source says: "Mr. Jones also broadcast video on Periscope of himself on Wednesday insulting the CNN reporter Oliver Darcy. Mr. Darcy had previously reported on tweets by Mr. Jones that appeared to violate Twitter’s policies." —PaleoNeonate – 17:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Check this link: https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/media/facebook-infowars/index.html. Maybe "pressured" is a better word than "lobby".Toronto2005! (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Interpreting this CNN article from July to apply to events in September is WP:SYNTH. Reporting on something is not pressuring or lobbying unless the source spells it out for us. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Toronto2005! has been blocked as a sock puppet. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Social Media Restrictions?

Restriction (even the secondary definition of that word) does not honestly describe the fact of this matter.

Exclusion from, Banned from, Censorship by,

Also, he was systematically stripped of business infrastructure

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/infowars-is-not-just-being-censored-basic-business-infrastructure-now-being-stripped-as-mailchimp-bans-their-email/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.16.238 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, "rhetoric" as a business is not adequately covered; something that can be quantified easily. Dunn and Bradstreet has both Free Speech Systems, Llc3005 S Lamar Blvd. #D109-393Austin, TX - 78704 and Infowars registered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.16.238 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We go wit what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Correcting

While I can't get him by radio, I just listened online, I'm not sure what it was, perhaps it was a podcast, or perhaps it was his show, but it was not: "Alexander Emric (or Emerick) Jones (born February 11, 1974)[1][2][3] is an American radio show host and conspiracy theorist.[4][5][6][7][8][9]"
  —He was mostly begging for money and selling merch. Waz up? Article may need correcting. —Cheers! --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8A2:C7BE:2556:7899 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

What, exactly, are you proposing? Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up to consider looking around. I'm too busy taking showers to go back. I will note that a sounds-alike show to Coast to Coast AM, (fooled me, first time) probably affiliated with Coast to coast, that runs ~7-15 min. of show? to 50 min. commercials is listed by KMJ in Fresno in print online as simply: "infomercial." Who knows, possibly I was listening to a Jones version of that, not his show???? Sorry, needs work, —not me. —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8A2:C7BE:2556:7899 (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Is Alex Jones & Co going belly up?

Isn't Alex Jones going belly up? I understand he's lost many of his advertisers in the last months or so. PayPal and much of social media has banned in whole or in part? Obviously he's moved into hocking merch almost full time, but what else is he doing? That should all be in the lede section. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

"The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects."
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
"While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should nevertheless not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs,..."

"Alex Jones banned from Facebook? His videos are still there — and ...Washington Post-Nov 5, 2018"

"Alex Jones and InfoWars Are Still on Twitter, Despite 'Ban' - Daily Beast-Oct 18, 2018 - Alex Jones and his InfoWars outlet were permanently banned from Twitter in September, after years of promoting conspiracy theories about ..."

"Twitter removes more accounts affiliated with Infowars - CNBC-Oct 23, 2018 - Last month, Twitter permanently banned Jones and Infowars from its platform, saying in a tweet that the accounts had violated its behavior ..."

"Infowars admits its store contained card-skimming malware - Fast Company-Nov 14, 2018 - A Dutch security researcher found malware on the Infowars store ... was banned from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Apple, Spotify, PayPal, ..."

"Card skimming malware removed from Infowars online store - ZDNet-Nov 13, 2018 - De Groot spotted the malware infection on the Infowars online store using a ... Alex Jones sues PayPal after InfoWars banned for 'hate and ..."

—Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8A2:C7BE:2556:7899 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

If Jones is going "belly up" at least we know it's not from vitamin deficiency...

InfoWars was split off from this article less than a year ago, and this article doesn't do a great job of differentiating between the individual and his company. To be fair, neither do sources, which treat the line between the two as blurry, for obvious reasons.

Information on InfoWars' social media woes are already documented there, where it belongs. The card skimming thing would, potentially, belong at that article also, but judging by coverage in sources, it seems like a minor problem. It might turn out to be a big deal, but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, so we'll just have to wait and see. Again, Talk:InfoWars would be the place to discuss that.

As for this article, content in the body should be summarize in the lede in proportion to WP:DUE. Since this does seem to be a defining issue for Jones according to sources, it should be mentioned in the lede, but figuring out exactly how to do that is not so simple. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies. "...the line between the two as blurry, for obvious reasons...." Yes, to my ignorant eyes, that line seems artificial. —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8A2:C7BE:2556:7899 (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

OK, I just saw this at infowars:

"InfoWars earns revenue from the sale of products pitched by Jones during the show. It has been called as much "an online store that uses Mr. Jones's commentary to move merchandise", as a media outlet.[29]"

My vague impression from ~5 years ago, he was a talk show host. If what I heard was his "show," he no longer is. In the case of the faux Coast to Coast, yes it seemed a sleazy rip-off, but at least KMJ presented it honestly if one hunted around. I'm also guessing it gets fair ratings for time of day. So now I wonder if their is a legal def of infomercial, and if that matters? —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8A2:C7BE:2556:7899 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Can you link to some RS saying he is in financial trouble now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex Jones Shows Archive link

A searchable archive of past and present Alex Jones shows in mp3 format for streaming or downloading, would this be suitable to be included in the link section of this page?

http://alexjonespodcast.com

Henkri (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That site does not appear to be affiliated with Alex Jones. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section

WP style is to avoid controversy sections. Since Jones' whole career is controversial, this section should just be folded into a section on the history of his career. Ashmoo (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, it can be argued this is the whole point of his "career".Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)