Talk:Alex Jones

Critique on the Article Alex Jones

Overall, this article demonstrates a general bias towards Alex Jones because in the opening sentence labels him as a "conspiracy theorist." Despite his ideas, the article should provide a neutral point of view that may being forth his accomplishments as a radio show host/film maker. Most of the sources provided in this article which are from popular media outlets such as newspapers, and magazines criticize his research and attack him based on his ideas. Whether or not what is provided by such articles is true or not, the article relies too much on such sources and provides a defamatory point of view that gives an understanding that Jones is not credible. Based on the sources utilized, this article presents itself as believing that Jones is not credible and that he is a conspiracy theorist, thus giving that idea to the reader, rather than providing a neutral point of view. Because the author/authors of this Wikipedia article utilize sources that seek to discredit Jones, no accomplishments or positive information regarding his career, ideas or research are posted. Despite how radical one person may seem, it is not fair to overall utilize sources that attack whoever a Wikipedia article is about, the point of the Wikipedia article is to provide unbiased general information on a person, topic, event, etc. Also, this article gives vague information about his alleged conspiracy theories, not mentioning what sources Jones utilized to make such claims and does not mention if such claims were validated. According to the Wikipedia guidelines, despite how radical the person may seem, the article should provide a neutral point of view that demonstrates different stands on the topic and whoever writes such article should utilize sources that are both for and against that topic/person.

GomezH92154 (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles summarize the consensus of reliable sources. This is what it means to be unbiased on Wikipedia. In this case, the overwhelming majority of such sources say that Jones is a conspiracy theorist who is not a credible source for statements of fact. To present that assessment as being merely one side would be false balance, as it would imply that both sides are equally prominent. That's not the case. Including sources primarily based on how much they agree or disagree with Jones would be false balance and would be non-neutral, so instead the article summarizes a relatively wide range of reliable sources. That they happen to agree on this one point (that Jones is non-credible) doesn't make them less usable. If you know of reliable sources (and they must be reliable by Wikipedia's definition) which say that Jones is credible, you should present them here for discussion, but otherwise I see no actionable changes being recommended here. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Andrew Neil described Jones as the worst person he had ever interviewed, and when the camera cut away he did a mime clearly implying that Jones is insane. The only good thing is that this is so obvious that absolutely nobody would implement any kind of policy based on Jones' ramblings. There is no chance that anybody in a position of authority could claim that, to pick one of Jones' insane conspiracy theory at random, the press are systematically covering up terrorist attacks in order to protect radical Islam. That would never happen. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As others have more or less pointed out in different ways, Wikipedia does not give artificial validity to create a synthetic balance. Jones is only noteworthy for advocating ideas that can only be described as conspiracy theories -- if it is defamatory to label him as a conspiracy theorist, then it is his fault. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Truth is generally considered a defence to defamation. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I take issue with that, Guy. I think the word "generally" implies a level of vagueness that doesn't approach reality. I suggest "almost always" as a better term for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• There's no doubt that Jones is a conspiracy theorist. The reliable sources back it up. Calling a duck a duck isn't wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Indeed, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation action. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 411 (1967). Neutrality^talk 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I seem to recall some edge cases (I can't cite them, just vaguely recall them) in which somebody lost a libel suite in Britain because even though what they were saying was true, it was made very clear to the court that they said it only in order to damage the plaintiff's reputation. If I'm not mistaken, it was one of those "Technically, it's true, but the obvious implications are wrong, thing." Like pointing out that a male day-care worker spends "an inordinate amount of time" around young children. In the US, however, where the WP servers are, I'm pretty sure if what you were saying was true, you'll win the lawsuit ~100% of the time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

GomezH92154 - as others have mentioned, you're mistaken. Take some time to read our policies and guidelines, particularly on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The reliable sources amply reflect that Jones is a fringe conspiracy theorist whose entire career is based on propagating lies. Thus, our article reflects that. We follow the sources here. Neutrality^talk 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A complete bias report. I looked up michael moore and not one thing was negative about him or mentioned about him being a conspiracy theorist. How can you call one extreme left or right winger something and not the other. Deathjaquar (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Deathjaquar, please read WP:NPOV, which describes our policy on the neutral point of view, and lays out why a truly neutral POV must occasionally 'take sides'. The truth is that many controversies are only controversies besides one side is entirely or mostly wrong, and in those circumstances a neutral, factual depiction of that controversy must make it clear which side is wrong. In this case, we're not going to add content to Michael Moore or remove content from Alex Jones just because they're on opposite sides of the political isle: Michael Moore is not well known as a conspiracy theorist, whereas Alex Jones is. If you disagree with that, then I would advise you to broaden the political leanings of media outlets you get your information from. You will see that only the least reliable right-wing sources describe Moore as a conspiracy theorist, whereas reliable right-wing sources and left-wing sources of all qualities describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to argue about the content of the Michael Moore page, do it at Talk:Michael Moore.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not Right Wing

He's said many times in his radio show, he is not "right wing" and is in fact, non partisian. Yes he supports the current Republican administration, but he didn't support Bush and he criticized Republicans when need be.

Can you provide a link to him denying this?Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A good source might be enough to add that he says he's not right wing, but there's so many sources that refer to him as such that I suggest you not get your hopes up about changing the way he's described. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of right wingers didn't support Bush and criticize Republicans. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Bush was remarkably centrist (and occasionally left-wing) for a neocon and a Republican president. If the bumps to the earned income tax credit advocated (and signed into law) by Bush aren't a form of socialism, I don't know what is. Then of course, there was the increased federal spending, the increased federal taxes, increased regulation, the first appointment of an openly gay man to the administration, the first appointment of a black Secretary of State (and more)... It's pretty easy to criticize Bush from a right-wing perspective. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps if we could add some quotes from Jones on particular issues or questions, it could help confirm, or it could refute, any particular label we might use here in the article. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)theBaron0530

Alex Jones is not considered a reliable source for anything but his own opinions. As his opinion of his own politics is not necessarily factual (or even honest), we can't use that to confirm or refute anything. However, if he claims to be non-partisan, we can state that he says this. But we will still refer to him the way reliable sources do, which is "right-wing". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with much of the above. Make clear he claims to be/says he is/whatever nPOV words you want a right-winger but maybe include a cite that many describe him as such. Our job is to simply state the various viewpoints out there in a concise and viewpoint neutral way. Trumpetbum8794 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There actually already is a passage like that in the third paragraph of the introduction. That's why I would say there's no need to include an adjective for his political alignment in the opening sentence at all. But if there really has to be one, it should be "conservative" rather than "right-wing" because it better summarizes what's said about him in the "Politics" section of the article. The current "far-right" seems pretty far-fetched to me by the way. The source might be New York Times, but there's nothing in that article that actually says what would make him far-right. The author pretty much just claims he is. MugiMafin (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, more extreme than typical political analysis. Furthermore, he's been described by reliable sources as "far-right". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aren't strictly far-right. They're technically compatible with all parts of the political spectrum. As for the one source describing him as "far-right", a source's reliability isn't solely determined by its publisher, but also by its author. I checked the author's Twitter[1] and it definitely has more of a left-wing activist vibe than a neutral journalist one. For some people that might not be enough to question the neutrality of the source, but since this particular information pertains to a living person and is likely to harm their reputation, we should treat the issue with some more care. The way I see it, changing the intro description to the better sourced "conservative" and moving the "far-right" to the "has been described as" passage would be the safest option here. MugiMafin (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice bit of special pleading.

• Donald Trump still calls Alex Jones for advice, claims the InfoWars founder and far right conspiracy theorist - The Independent
• "Alex Jones, a far-right radio host who commands an online audience of millions through his Infowars media empire" -- New York Times
• "A far-right radio host, Jones had long been relegated to the fringe for promoting conspiracy theories" -- Fortune (magazine)
• "Alex Jones — a far-right conspiracy theorist infamous for calling the Sandy Hook school shooting a hoax" -- New York Daily News
• "Far-right conspiracy theorist and Donald Trump supporter Alex Jones" -- Salon (magazine)

And so on. I think it's time to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like they're really heaping up lately. I guess you could argue that all those outlets have good reason to willfully disparage the guy, but I think I'm going to follow your stick advice for now. MugiMafin (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I never said (or implied, however mildly) that conspiracy theories are exclusive to the far-right, only that conspiracy theories are a product of extreme political views. I'd love to hear a politically moderate or centrist conspiracy theory. Just one. Part of being a political moderate or centrist is that whole "not believing conspiracy theories" thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You did imply that the extreme nature of his theories would support the idea that he's far-right though. By the way, I do think you can be a political centrist and still believe in the most crazy conspiracy theories, but I guess that's subject for a different discussion. MugiMafin (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Do share. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe too that he shouldn't be labeled as far-right, as the definition from Wikipedia which is cited references qualities in a person that Alex Jones does not retain, nor supports. Herr Hermann 20:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arminius Hermann (talk • contribs)

You know, it'd be really helpful if you would actually read this section instead of simply adding to it. Not to be a dick, but you argument's already been addressed and refuted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

What would really be helpful is if you didn't use other liberal sources to back up your apparent biased opinion. It's evident by looking at your page of where you stand on politics, and that perhaps you shouldn't be the editor on a page like this. You have not been able to prove what political stances Alex Jones has that would make him Far Right. Also, your decorum, especially as how you talk to others and the language of which you use shows a lack of character. Arminius Hermann (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So you're starting off your tenure on WP by attacking other editors and trying to push a political POV. Good luck with that. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If it seems like I'm attacking you, then that's unfortunate. My intention is not to do that, especially without merit. Nothing I'm talking about is personal, but you sure are taking it that way, and to the extent that what we're no longer discussing is the article. Instead we're discussing "attacking" one another. Of course, that's probably okay with you since you have no creditable citations to prove your point, at least none that you wanted to include in your response to me. I'm going to have to start a disputed section when I get a chance. I'd like more input from you, if you don't mind. I'm also going to include the remark about "fake news website". Although I certainly would not get my news from him, I have to say that the concept of fake news is not new, we just referred to it as tabloid journalism. I'm sorry that you think I'm the one pushing a political point of view. That's interesting, since it is you that has signs of liberal leanings up and down your page. I might not have a lot accomplished on Wikipedia, but I'm certainly not new to politics, and especially BS. Thank you. Arminius Hermann (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no "seeming." Telling another editor that they lack character, or describing their comments to you as "BS" is a personal attack and is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Additionally, basing such a remark on my comments above is highly indicative of a battleground mentality, as there is nothing rude or incivil in any of my comments on this page which could warrant such an accusation. Finally, the fact that you would, so early in your editing tenure, make comments about another editor's political views (I might point out that these are extremely ignorant comments: I have defended right wing positions many times, including just yesterday when I supported sanctioning an editor for left-wing POV pushing) and suggesting this makes them unsuitable to edit political articles indicates quite strongly that you yourself are incapable of maintaining objectivity in political articles. Let me re-iterate that last: I have proven numerous times that I am capable of taking a position which undermines my own political views when that position is correct. You have assumed that it is impossible for people to do so in general, which strongly suggests it is something you are not capable of doing, yourself.

Now, I've given you a notice on your talk page that articles concerning post-1932 American politics are subject to discretionary sanctions, and now I'm going to explain to you exactly what that means with respect to your editing here.

First, you've already violated those sanctions. But as you were unaware of them, this will not be held against you per se. However, we know now that you are aware of them, so ignorance is no longer a defense. If, in the opinion of any admin (this includes NeilN, who has warned you against edit warring already), your participation at this talk page seems disruptive or likely to cause disruption, you can be blocked from editing or placed under an editing restriction. Editing restrictions generally take the form of a prohibition against editing articles related to a specific topic. In this case, that topic would be post-1932 American politics, but based on the admin's judgement, that topic can be defined however they like, really. See WP:TBAN for more information about topic bans.

So far, you haven't been overly disruptive (which is not to say you have not been disruptive at all), and I don't think it's worth my time to formally request sanctions against you, or worth the time of an admin to impose them. But the style of arguing you are engaged in is extremely similar to the style of arguing engaged in by a large number of individuals who have been blocked or banned due to their edits to political articles or talk pages. On WP, all sanctions are intended to prevent problems, not to punish editors for causing them. In addition, we quite often refer to a principle you have probably heard of before: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

As things sit, you walk like an editor who causes disruption and you talk like an editor who causes disruption. There is enough evidence on this page alone for me to request sanctions be placed on your editing. I have not yet done so because I am generally one of the less litigious editors active in American politics. But if you continue the way you have been going, by insisting that you're right and that we change the article to reflect your POV, instead of asking why the article is written the way it is, and how you can get it changed, it is just a matter of time before either a less patient editor comes along, or my own patience runs out.

I would prefer not to have another editor topic banned or blocked. I really would. So I suggest you spend some time reading about The Five Pillars of WIkipedia and our policies and guidelines before you return to editing political pages, or discussions on political talk pages. I really enjoy helping new editors out and seeing our editor base grow, and it pains me to see editors retire in disgust or get blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately, politics is one of those areas which sheds editors frequently. So I'm really hoping you will read this (admittedly very long) comment and take it to heart. I would much prefer to see another good editor join our ranks and become a great boon to the project than to deal with more drama that's only going to result in one or more fewer editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice that when I have stated I would like to take it further and start a disputed section, your tone seems to lighten quite a bit from being combative to more professional. I also notice from looking at your page, that you're plenty combative yourself. Please, if you would like to start the sanctions process, then feel free to do so. I'm not going to be a part of something that spreads disinformation or appears to be bias in nature. There's enough of that going on already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arminius Hermann (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep talking about me instead of about the issue and you're going to end up blocked. I've given you all the information you need to figure out how to comport yourself here, if you refuse to accept it, then you're only screwing yourself over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

Please remove that his website is listed as a fake news site.

• His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.

The statement suggests that there is some official compendium or government organization that determines what constitutes as a "fake news site". Furthermore, the term "fake news" is relatively new and highly subjective. Lastly, the sources references are clearly biased and not considered authoritative in the journalism industry. Thegreengoob (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done As is mentioned in the very text you quoted, reliable sources refer to it as fake news. Even if they're completely wrong, it remains a fact that reliable sources refer to it as fake news. We're not removing information to suite your political tastes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If their completely wrong, then how can they be reliable?Arminius Hermann (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arminius Hermann:Please read circular reasoning and try to figure out what's wrong with your argument here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I question mentioning “fake news” so early on. Most on the left would call Breitbart, Fox and Alex Jones “fake news,” while most on the right would describe CNN and NBC in the same manner. It’s relevant to keep, but the term is extremely subjective. It varies depending on the political leanings of the person using it. Let’s change the below section to “Controversies and Criticism,” and put it there instead. Also, describing Infowars as “a reliable outlet for pro-Russian propaganda” just seems ludicrous. The source has that exact quote, but no evidence is presented on how they came to that conclusion. I haven’t seen that anywhere else. What is pro-Russian propaganda anyway? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that, in the particular example you give, those on the left would be justified (except with Fox, which is clearly not fake), while those on the right would not. If you want an example of fake news with a left-wing bias, look at Natural News. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I’m more-or-less in agreement. I notice Natural News has a “Criticism and controversies” section where "fake news" is mentioned, and I see no reason why this article shouldn’t follow suit. We have to more effectively distinguish between neutral comments and criticism. Being called “fake news” today is a form of imprecise criticism. It’s “imprecise” not only due to the subjectivity, but because exactly how much of a site’s content is “fake” is undefined. If a site occasionally publishes a bogus story does that make them "fake news," or does it have to be over 50% of their content? Or, does merely having a bias constitute “fake news?” Right in the wiki fake news article, it states that due to back-and-forth complaints from the left and right, "the definition of fake news as used for such polemics became more vague." Tidewater 2014 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is an imprecise term, at least the way it's currently used, and I have my own issues with it. I don't think, for example, that infowars qualifies because they're focused on pushing conspiracy theories, not on faking news stories. But there is a strong consensus here to label as fake news anything which is labelled as fake news by reliable sources and only disputed by unreliable sources, and that's a very difficult position to argue against (because it's a pretty damn strong one). My advice would be to wait until "fake news" is not appearing in headlines regularly, and then try to get a community-wide discussion going about how we use the term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Far-right

That description sounds a little off to me. I suppose the guy would qualify as a radical "anti-federalist" libertarian or whatnot seeing as his shtick is about the notion that the US government and large corporations are part of a "NWO dictatorship" - but that doesn't sound "far-right" by the classical, international definitions of right and left-wing politics; for example far-right in the classical sense would imply ultra-nationalist, monarchist, or fascist; meaning one would be in favor of some type of extreme, authoritarian government a la Hitler, Mussolini, or theocratic states. While technically radical-left in the classical sense would imply anarchism, revolutionary socialism, things of that nature.--206.255.17.121 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

He's far right in two senses, the first of which only matters for explanatory power, and the second of which matters to the encyclopedia.

1. Conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, more extreme than centrist or moderate-left/right views.
2. Reliable sources refer to him as "far-right".

The reason I give both is that the second is the one which is the focal point of this project, but that's not enough by itself, IMHO. However, the fact that the reliable sources can be verified by comparing his rhetoric to more moderate rhetoric (the example given to me that convinced me Jones was far right was Bill O'Reilly) shows that he is further to the right. I'll be the first to admit that's original research and not suitable for inclusion, but it's certainly suitable as a datapoint in the decision making process over whether to include certain claims from reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I also think it's not a correct Description. Just because a person is a conspiracy theorist, doesn't mean he is "Far-right". Conspiracy theorists can be "Far-Left" as well. There is no standard for having those ideas. This link proves that. Arminius Hermann (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead. Make a case that Alex Jones is far left. I dare you. No, I double-dog dare you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories is what makes him "far". His political views is what makes him "right". Put it together and you get "far-right".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making a case that he is "far-left. I'm making the case that he is not "far-right". If you read the Wikipedia article, "List of Far-Right Political Parties", you will see that The Libertarian Party is not listed. If you also read the Wikipedia article, "Far-Right Politics", you'll see absolutely no mention of the word "conspiracy theory" or of any variation or mix of the words. They make no claim that being a conspiracy theorist is a staple of being Far-Right. In all actuality, being Libertarian means that you are conservative in some ways and liberal in others. Again, refer to the Wikipedia page, "Liberalism", for clarification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism</ref>Arminius Hermann (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not making the case that he's not far-right. You're trying, but you're not doing well at all. Please read WP:RS and the rest of this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Engaging in a war of words and insults is profoundly unprofessional. You have no legitimate source that directly defines Alex Jones as Far Right, yet you have one where he is quoted as being a self-described Libertarian. Libertarians are not "Far Right". You have violated the very policy you cited.

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."

"He's far right in two senses, the first of which only matters for explanatory power, and the second of which matters to the encyclopedia. Conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, more extreme than centrist or moderate-left/right views. Reliable sources refer to him as "far-right"

Where are your academic sources that refer to him as "Far Right"? How about a professor and not Liam Stack, a contributor to NY Times and Muckrack. He's a reporter who did this: New York Times reporter Liam Stack took an objective Pew Research Center study about religion and educational attainment around the world, and warped it into a story summarized by this mocking headline under his Tuesday story: “Christians in U.S. Are Less Educated Than Religious Minorities, Report Says.”http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2016/12/18/ny-times-twists-religion-study-mock-christians-less-educated-other

I will take this matter further up, for I believe Wikipedia must maintain integrity. Thank you. Arminius Hermann (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Gasp! A group who insists that there's a liberal bias in the media and that they're going to uncover it publishes the claim that there's a liberal bias in the media and they uncovered it! Oh noes! This proves that Alex Jones is actually a liberal! We have to re-write the whole article! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)\

You still have this notion that I was out to prove Alex Jones is liberal. I maintain that he's not "Far Right". A person can not be "Far Right" and still not be "liberal". It's apparent by your exclamations and lack of ability to track, that you don't have a clear perspective on this matter. Arminius Hermann (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

First off, you haven't done anything at all to refute any of the arguments that he's far right. Second, you haven't presented any argument that he's not far-right except for your bare assertion. Third, you haven't provided a single reliable source that indicates he's anything but far right. The only thing you're accomplishing is providing me (or whoever else is reading this) plenty of ammunition to request sanctions against you for POV pushing in this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have cited sources. °the first one is a source already on this page in which he describes himself as a Libertarian. °second is the Wikipedia page that lists Far Right groups. None which contain the Libertarian Party. °third is that your assertion that he is "Far Right" is based on the opinion of Liam Stack, an apparent left leaning journalist who has been accused for mis-characterizing a Pew Research Center study about religion and educational attainment around the world. Even if he had not done what this website suggests, he is still an apparent liberal who is giving Alex Jones the title of "Far Right", and that doesn't make it so. °fourth is the other source you cited. The Haartz, which is a "left leaning" newspaper out of Israel. The article you cited was also written by a left leaning journalist, Alexander Griffing. So, basically, all your proof that he is a "Far Right" is based on liberal view points, and yet, you're accusing me of trying to push a political point of view? If you want to request sanctions, and you feel that would help maintain a high degree of integrity for Wikipedia, then by all means. It's apparent that there are already editors that didn't quite agree with the assertion he is "Far Right". I completely agree with you that he is a conspiracy theorist and a conservative, as Libertarians are conservative on some issues, but to state he is "Far Right" with no NPOV source and claiming I am pushing a point of view is a little ridiculous. I simply request that you find other sources that have no bias. If you can't find one, then changing the word "Far Right" to "Libertarian" would be suitable in my opinion. One other point I would like to make, is that out of the sixteen top liberal talk show hosts in the country, they're all considered "progressives", and not "Far Left", so why should anyone who you consider to be on right side of the political spectrum get that moniker(Far Right), especially if they don't technically hold the beliefs that would qualify them to have it? Either way, I will start out my "tenure" as being neutral and not lopsided.Arminius Hermann (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not apingly describe subjects using the terms they use to describe themselves as they are frequently peacockish and self-serving and sometimes have no basis in reality. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The link I provided you in the bolded text outlines how we determine reliability of a source for a claim. I strongly suggest you read it. Simply because you gave links doesn't mean you have provided reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you're picking a battle you can't win here, so you might not want to put too much time into it. I agree with you that Alex Jones isn't far-right, but by now there's a strong consensus in the media that he is, or a willingness to claim it at least. Further up on this page someone else linked a few other articles that refer to him as "far-right". They're probably not reliable in that specific regard, but Wikipedia still considers them reliable, and Wikipedia is all about sources, so that's pretty much the end of the story. MugiMafin (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that by labelling Alex Jones as "far right" you are displaying bias towards the work of Alex Jones. Alex Jones' work is far more extreme and hardcore than that. The term "far right" doesn't capture the true nature of Alex Jones inciting hatred and paranoia at all. You are trying to protect and white wash Alex Jones. I think that "extreme ultra far right" or "ultra hardcore far right" are more accurate terms to describe Alex Jones. 175.156.147.183 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I've thought for many years that "extreme ultra hardcore MjolnirPants" was a more accurate description of myself. Well, if we're going to be honest, I think that "extreme ultra hardcore" is an awesome adjective that should be used more liberally in general. So we have extreme ultra hardcore reliable sources calling Alex Jones just plain "far right" so if we're going to be extremely ultra hardcore accurate we need to summarize those sources in an extremely ultra hardcore verifiable way so as to make sure we end up with an extreme ultra hardcore good article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

"His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website." Here, "been labeled" fails WP:ATTRIBUTION. So I try to add "by media outlets, such as The Washington Times and Los Angeles Times," and my edit was reverted. Second opinions? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Infowars makes just about every reputable list of fake news outlets, so picking out two outlets known to have a left-wing bias is not proper attributions, but a POV shift intended to undermine the legitimacy of the claims. So... no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So you're telling those outlets are biased.. but validating it? Why would we hide who are calling it "fake news"? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV lays it out pretty clearly: having a bias doesn't make a source wrong. Also, Infowars has been called fake news by outlets with no obvious bias, such as US News and World Report, and the L. A. Times (both of which are cited in that sentence). So unless you can provide a preponderance of reliable sources disputing the label, then we're not going to water down the attribution by naming the two liberal outlets. And the fact that you would sit here and suggest that we're hiding it when the citations are right there in the sentence does nothing but imply that you're pushing your own views rather than demonstrating any real concern for the quality of the article.

Oh, and for the record? I personally don't think Infowars is fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Far right" too tame to describe Alex Jones

I feel that "far right" is too tame a term to describe Jones. I propose "extreme ultra far right", or "ultra hardcore far right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.147.183 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

We can only say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

InfoWars

InfoWars should have a wiki page, it has over million daily views and is a top 1000 website by traffic in US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.146.164 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)