Talk:Alex Jones

Archives
Archive 1 (March 2004 to July 2006) Archive 2 (August 2007 to July 2008)

The Alex Jones Show section

I've removed the giant guest list and replaced with notable interviews only. The standard for inclusion I've applied here is if the interviews/comments made receive mentions in sources other than Jones' own websites. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes the guest list shows Alex Jones to be a relaible authorative source, this must not be allowed. The whole purpose of the page is to undermine Mr Jones authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

See the talk on the archived page. The guest list was becoming ridiculous, add more interviews you think are notable but we need some kind of standard for trimming things down. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, you don't think Rep. Dennis Kucinich was a notable guest, appearing multiple times, or Rep. Ron Paul for that matter? So if we build it back up at what point will it be cut down again. The fact is there isn't many radio show hosts with a guest list as distinguished as Alex Jones. Petermhorn (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

More bluelinked guests would be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think Kucinich was that a notable guest/interview as he's been on a bunch of times and hasn't said anything particularly notable/controversial. The point of notability is having something that puts them beyond regular occurances otherwise we'll just end up with what we had before which was an ever-growing list of people some of whom you'd need to look up to know who they were (plus possible BLP concerns).

I guess the issue people have is that it doesn't represent the kind of higher profile guests that Jones has been able to get on the show. I suggest a new paragraph to explain how he's been able to pull in many congressmen, senators, former ambassadors, etc with a few wikilined names rather than trying to achieve this through piling on a bunch of names into a giant list as was done before. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rep. Kucinich talking about his effort to bring forth articles of impeachment might be considered notable by some. Or the allegations of vote fraud he came on the show to talk about during the primaries would definitely be considered controversial. At the very least there should be a section users can choose to "show" if they want to see the full guest list.Petermhorn (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more the actions of Kucinich that have the notability though rather than the fact he was on the Alex Jones Show to talk about them (just as he was on numerous other tv/radio shows). If the story broke on the AJ show certainly that would be different. As for a full guest list the place users can choose to view that should probably be Alex's own websites. Or at a stretch - a separate wiki page for the Alex Jones Show though even there I'd question if a full list was encyclopedic material. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin Confrontation

I removed this section because I don't think it is especially newsworthy (there is no reference to a previous or ongoing feud between the two), and the "reference" is to Alex Jones' own website, Infowars, which is certainly biased. Especially given the opening paragraph reads: "Faux News darling, inveterate neocon, and internment camp advocate Michelle Malkin got more than she bargained for when she ventured out in the street in Denver to take pictures of her avowed enemies." There may be a newsworthy element here, but the original editor did not find it.207.199.243.193 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is encyclopedic but it is indeed a BLP worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored this section because it is indeed newsworthy and verifiable by a primary source. This is the section which needs to be in the article:

--Michelle Malkin Confrontation--

Jones confronted conservative political pundit, Michelle Malkin, in Denver on August 25, 2008. Jones accused Malkin of being an "evil" "monster" and a "fascist" who advocated "putting Americans in death camps" and who denies that the murder of Americans on 9/11 was an "inside job" by U.S. officials. Jones then urged followers to "Get Michelle Malkin", who fled unhurt.

This is event is supported by three different verifiable, primary sources, complete with video of the event:

1) http://www.infowars.com/?p=4156

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU42hL0T18c Chaos at Denver Mint

3) http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/26/video-mobbed-at-the-mint

Note that two of the sources are already used throughout the article, and that information about the subject of a biographic article is permissible when submitted by the subject himself WP:BLP. The site InfoWars.com is run by Alex Jones himself; he and his followers do not deny this event. Freedom Fan (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Fled unhurt" implies she was physically threatened by Mr Jones, which is not supported. I've carefully watched that video three times now and I still can't hear Jones saying "Get Michelle Malkin" or "Kill Michelle Malkin." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Jones clearly shouts "Get Michelle Malkin" in at least two of the video versions. Someone also says "Kill Michelle Malkin" and it breaks into a chant, although it is not clear that it was Jones who says this. In one segment, Jones is questioned whether he could be inciting violence upon Malkin. However, I am okay with removing "fled" as long as readers are able to witness this event for themselves.

That shout was clearly meant for his cameraman, he used similiar commands when he interviewed David Gergen. -Lapinmies 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

She walked away while he was loudly arguing with someone else. When he saw she was gone, he shouted to his camera crew, "Get Michelle Malkin! Don't let her leave!" Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the removal of information on Jones' assault on the bystander who attempted to defend Malkin to be suspect. It is absolutely clear in the Pajamas Media video and even if the police chose not to charge Jones his actions are relevant. - graball

I also find the characterization of Jones as "conservative" to be unsupported as well as obviously ludicrous. Freedom Fan (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Agreed. There's no way in hell this guy is a "Paleocon". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesScorp (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have listened his show quite a bit because of of how crazy it is and he is absolutely not a liberal, he is clearly a conservative. Hating Bush does not make you a liberal. -Lapinmies 14:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Jones has spoken at lenght on the false paradim of Left v Right politics. Anyone labeling him as left or right wing clearly knows nothing about Mr Jones.Evadinggrid (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Jones doesn't actually get to redefine reality to suit his tastes. It is for observers to determine where he falls in the political spectrum. - graball

He self-identifies as paleoconservative (note, not "left" or "right") and the article gives a source, see WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no source for the assertion of physical assault (battery or battery), and only primary sources for assault. I'm afraid it's got to go, even though I agree that Jones is a redacted redacted 2 idiot, and may have committed crimes against humanity, but there doesn't seem to be adequate evidence for this particular crime. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Pajamas media video clearly shows a physical assault and the victim talking to the police after the fact. I would think that video taken at the time would be more than adequate evidence. And if a primary source is not sufficient, it's relatively easy to find sources who characterize what Jones did as a physical assault. We could add a line like "Jones has been accused of physically assaulting a bystander who was defending Malkin based on video taken by Pajamas Media." That would be entirely accurate, and if a secondary source is needed I offer - [URL: http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/?p=1880] - graball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.14.29 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity? I think you followed the wrong link, here's the correct one: Henry Kissinger Petermhorn (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

for those who are confused by the law.. assault = an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner. No battery needs to take place to commit assault.. and battery is a different crime.. for instance the act of drawing a gun is assault where the pistol whipping someone would be battery.. just to clarify. -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so include a reference to the "battery". The fact that the whole Malkin confrontation has been removed is just one of the many examples of how this article is being policed by Jones or his supporters to keep anything unflattering out of it even when it is true and supported by massive evidence. This is a direct violation of the neutrality of Wikipedia, but I guess we're just going to let it slide? - graball

Michelle Malkin confrontation (2)

infowars and prisonplanet can be used as sources for what happened there, not as for any outside commentary or interpretation of outside commentary. I'm OK with the section being removed, pending external reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In particular, Jones's claim that a newspaper article was removed because of a libel claim he made is, itself, libelous, unless true. And that truth would have to be from a WP:RS for us to report it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there are strong BLP and reliable source worries here, so it's more helpful to keep the whole section out of the article until (or if) more reliable sources show up and editors can come to a consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is a verbatim account of the event which is verifiable and well sourced by videos recorded by at least three sources. The place was bristling with video recorders. If this is not verifiable then nothing is. The event is proudly described on Jones own website as the source shows. Per WP:BLP information from the subject's website is suitable for his biographic article. The section has been here for weeks. Please do not remove without consensus. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm ok with the settled version you restored and agree its very straightforward. If someone tries to remove detail, saying the sources aren't reliable, I'll again support deleting the whole section, since the only reliable sources on this seem to be those linked to Jones. This said, editors keep trying to add Tin foil hat to the see also section. This is not only inaccurate, it strays far from BLP and I will revert it whenever I see it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The overall writeup about the incident needs to be cleaned up. IMO the usage of 'Infowarriors' in the description of events detracts from the neutrality of the article. MackDieselX27 (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken out the word infowarriors (thanks). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not OK with the version reedited over the past 17 hours; I've reverted most of the changes. Again, we only have Jones's word why he said he was there, and as to what his words (even if they were distinguishable in other than his video) meant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree on removing his reasons for being there but the DNC needs to be mentioned to better explain the rest of the text, without it the incident could be read as being a Michelle Malkin event and the protesters protesting her, or a number of other interpretations. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin holds the record for being the most biased editor and super Troll Evadinggrid (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird. I'm trying to make sure that only reliable sources are used to defame Jones, much as he deserves it,, and Evadinggrid objects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So you admit that you defame Mr Jones. Well you must watch "Fabled Enemies" Arthur, it does a brilliant job of exposing the Israeli Connection. Evadinggrid (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't defamed Jones. I've been removing inadequately sourced material which is critical of Jones, as well as Jones's unsupported assertions about third parties. As for defamation, I seem to recall he libeled a number of Wikipedia editors, including me, on one of his web sites. I can't find it on his websites now, but I admit I haven't looked closely. I've tried to be neutral, but denying that he's a sleaze would be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I take it you still have not yet watched "Fabled Ememies". As to Mr Jones slandering Wikipedian Editors you have left a long trail of logged biased edits which would lead me to conclude your lawyer would not recommend taking it to court. Why do you not phone in to put your own viewpoint across ? Evadinggrid (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the last question, because I'm not a spin-artist as he is. If I controlled the microphone, so that my, even live, comments, were not edited out of context, I might consider it.

For the first, "biased" is too subjective for your statement to be relevant; the claims he's made that (except for clear vandalism), that false information was intentionally added to the article is clearly defamatory, and it's "libel", not "slander". Web sites are considered "fixed", although easily changable, so anything defamatory he writes on his web site is "libel". However, he hasn't said anything (that I've noticed) which is libelous "per se", so I'd have to prove actuai damages to win anything other than a retraction. Even though my online reputations does have some value, I'd have to prove it was affected negatively by Jones's rants.

On the other hand, if someone tracks me down and contacts my employer or neighbors, Jones will be high on my lawyers' summons list.

WP:NLT prevents me from discussing whether you could be sued for libel.

Perhaps the last few comments should be moved to a user talk page? It doesn't seem helpful toward improving the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing sources and building the article, which is a biography of a living person. It is not a forum, it is not meant for rants about Alex Jones, nor the expression of personal opinions of any kind about Alex Jones. Moreover, I'm now starting to see hints of legal threats on this talk page. This is not the place for any hint of a discussion about the possibility of legal action, or any response to legal action. I will block indefinitely any editor who again brings up the notion of legal action in any way on this page. Moreoever, I will likely block any editor who expresses a personal opinion about Jones on this talk page, positive or negative. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP argument

Seems to me BLP is a great tool and is used quite often on this page for the conspiracy folks to revert just about anything they don't like being said about there hero? Am I wrong? -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. In other words, if you want to say something negative about a living person, even on a talk page, you must thoroughly and spot on cite it to a reliable source. Your comment was uncited original research and highly PoV, hence it strayed far from WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Malkin confrontation completely lacking balance

The issue of the intimidation is completely overlooked.

Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYJQThLFQY&feature=related

After the incident, Jones calls her a 'bitch', and says 'we ran her off, she looked like a demon'.

In this video, he repeatedly screams at her, calling her a 'monster'. He follows her for several minutes, yeling at her, interrupting interviews she is trying to have with other camera people, by yelling that she is a 'dirty anti-american', and yelling 'infowars.com' repeatedly.

When someone asks 'what if someone harms michelle malkin because of what you are saying', jones says 'i dont care, its my first amendment'.

All of this clearly shows the intimidation alex jones intended. he did not intend harm, but he obviously intended to 'run her off', which he is successfull in doing.

The idea that this is some how 'point of view', to mention these things, is simply unbelievable. the article , as it stands, is highly over-focused on the green shirted person and his cohort , the 'black beret' man (the 'agent provocateurs', supposedly.. ). it does not mention in any way, or present anything resembling a realistic picture of what jones did, or what he said.

it is simply inexcusable for wikipedia to behave in this manner. i am a total liberal, malkin's ideas make me rather ill. but i watched the video, i know what i saw, i am not blind, and he intimidated her. it was not, primarily, some case of jones being 'framed by the system', unless you are some kind of nutball conspiracy theorist. just watch the video, and forget who malkin is and who jones is. there is a large man screaming at a tiny women for several minutes, interrupting her repeatedly, following her, and then saying 'bitch' and 'we ran her off'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.5.239.52 (talk • contribs) 02:18, September 7, 2008

You can't use YouTube or blog videos as sources because the uploads are unmoderated and hence, not at all easy to verifiy for reliablity. Moreover, your above interpretation of the video does seem to be strongly worded as original research. Since Wikipedia's policy regarding the biographies of living persons stresses the need for utmost care in bringing neutrality and reliable sources to these articles, your edits have been reverted. Please stop edit warring over this. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Pajamas video, although not a reliable source, shows she was not intimidated, and that she walked away. I think the two anons are watching videos from different realities. This also shows why we cannot use YouTube videos as sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 or 4 videos out there. one is from pajamas media, several are from other sources. It is completely baffling to say that, somehow, 4 different videos of the same event, showing the same thing, is somehow 'not reliable'. Now, maybe it is just my 'opinion' that she was intimidated. But it is just others 'opinion' that the men in the green shirt and black shirt were 'agent provocateurs', and yet there is an entire paragraph written on them. There is nothing, in the article saying that alex jones followed her for several minutes, screamed at her, called her a bitch, and said 'we ran her off'. Now ,maybe that is not 'intimidation'. But it is defintely something worth mentioning, dont you think?

now, regardless of how you want to interpret the facts, they are still facts. they happened, there are several independent videos to verify what happened, and there is no 'original research' required to say that those are facts. Furthermore, if you cannot use 'youtube' videos as sources, even when they have printed on them who produced them, how can you use alex jones videos as a source? They are of the same exact event, just from different camera angles. They are primary sources, not secondary sources.

the aricle, in fact, links to a video that alex jones made, which claims that the large man with the beard 'elbowed' alex jones. If you watch some of the several videos floating around on the internet, you would see the same exact incident from another angle, which clearly shows that there was no 'elbowing' involved. And yet, the alex jones linked video remains, but the alternative videos are not allowed, because they are 'not reliable'? or 'pov'? This i do not understand.

In fact, calling those two clown men 'agent provocateurs' is not only 'original research', it is pure speculation, is it not? Maybe they were, maybe they werent. The article allows room for interpretation on those facts. But the artile apparently allows no room for interpretation on the facts that Jones followed her, screamed at her, shook his finger in her face, called her a 'bitch', and said 'we ran her off'.

Regardless of how you interpret those facts, those are the facts. The article, lacking those facts, presents an incorrect picture of what happened..... The article as it stands is not 'neutral' in any meaningful sense of the word. Especially when you add in the numerous links and references to Alex Jones reaction, the article becomes very unbalanced indeed.

If he had called her a racial slur, would you have allowed that fact to be pubished in the article? I wager there are entire sub-sections of some articles on wikipedia devoted to public figures using racial slurs, ie George Allen. But if someone calls someone a 'bitch', is that somehow not as important?

99.207.26.235 (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "provocateurs" the person claiming that his Jones himself. Try actually reading the paragraph and/or comprehending it. Far from being Original Research, speculation, interpretation etc it's closer to being the most reliable text in that whole section as it's merely what Jones himself says/believes about the incident - no claims of fact are made there. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As for your attempted "reporting" of the incident all you have done is cherry-picked everything Jones has supposedly said/done and further made POV language/assertions to describe it ("intimidated"). I think with proper care some of what you've written could be edited into the main paragraph where there's already text of what was said.

Regards the "clown men" and their mentions in the description 1) Deaths threats/calls for violence are a damn sight more noteworthy that calling someone "new world order trash" or whatever nonsense, 2) Trolls have repeatadly tried to source those chants to Jones and 3) Jones' main response to this incident has been to complain about media reporting and those two guys.

To be honest I question why this section is included at all but as long as it is here we need to keep it balanced and to the closest it's become notable for (such as that notability is) which is that media reporting of the incident has focused on the "Kill Michelle Malkin" chants in some cases attributing those to Alex (which he's mad about, criticises the media, blames on provocateurs, etc, hence that paragraph). - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

i did post some basic quotes. then someone deleted, saying it was too much. so i trimmed it down, reposted. again too much. i did not use any word like 'intimidate'. all i did was quote alex jones. it is hard to 'cherry pick' what he said, since he says the same thing about 10 times in a row, at the top of his lungs :'she wants to put people in camps', 'shes a monster', 'war criminal', 'dirty anti american', 'enemy of free speech', 'adolph eichmann', 'your soul is lost'. should i post all of that, or just choose a few representative samples? i chose the latter option, since id already gotten the wikipedia smackdown for pparently putting too much into the section.

that got deleted too. fine, i figured i can cut it down some more. i thought that at least i can add a very short quote to the end of the paragraph that has alex's 'get her' quote. so i did. i believe my edit was something like 'he follows her for several minutes, yelling at her and interrupting her interviews with others. afterwards, he calls her a bitch and says 'we ran her off' . now, that small edit was also deleted. twice. with no apparent reason listed as to why it was deleted.

as for notability, well, i hadnt thought about that question very much. to me, a large man screaming at a smaller woman, following her, interrupting her so she cant even talk to other people by yelling, calling her a bitch, and saying 'we ran her off' is notable in and of itself, when the man is a public figure who is constantly decrying others for violating his freedom of speech. god help me if i agree with something said on fox news, but even a broken clock is right twie a day. i have seen a multitude of wikipedia articles where something that might not be considered 'notable' by the media might still receive, at least, a sentence or two in the article. and what 'media' do you mean? newspapers? tv shows? cable tv shows? blogs? what about web tv shows? what about blogs that are run by newspapers? i do not get it.

As for notability, almost this entire talk section is devoted to this sordid event. There is little doubt that this event was what introduced most people to Alex Jones for the first time; it's the first time I ever heard of him. A Google search of "Alex Jones" & "Michelle Malkin" currently receives 45,000 hits. Michelle Malkin is a prominent pundit on radio, blogs and TV, and you can bet that all of her followers know about this. I support the current version of this event; if anything it gives too much weight to the jesters shouting "Kill Michelle Malkin". Alex Jones wanted notoriety -- he's got it. So yeah, I think this section is kinda notable. It is also extremely well sourced; it would be hard to fake a dozen simultaneous video camera recordings, not to mention Jones' personal blog and public statements. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, despite all the video and all this discussion, the reference to Jones assaulting a bystander is still getting edited out. It's a significant part of the event. It shows Jones' proclivity to violence. It's confirmed by the videos. Why is it not allowed to be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.14.29 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

unless it is a POSITIVE statement for alex jones..then no matter how well sourced it is or the fact there are tons of cameras filming it. it will not be allowed in or severly watered down in the article. I figured that out when I first came upon this article. its sad as 90% of the articles on wikipedia are not policed to this degree. the discussion page is also well policed. with BLP being the excuse for everything.. even if its well sourced and filmed by numerous cameras. so folks, the question is what can we do about this? continue to allow this to be an alex jones advertisement or is there another option? I guess Im not familiar enough with wike rules to answer that. what do you think?-24.60.8.8 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, mr. anon opposed to the other anon. There's very little sourced here, positive or negative. The fact that Jones can (sometimes) be used as sources of information about Jones, although a known liar, doesn't mean we can add information from non-reliable sources for or against Jones, even if filmed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section on Malkin under our policy about biographies of living people. Jones' websites are not a reliable source that can be used for material about Malkin. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about Aron Russo for the same reason. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Evadinggrid restored the Russo material, so I have protected the page to provent further blp violations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I have never seen more strongly sourced material. The event is recorded simultaneously by at least a half dozen video cameras. In addition, the event is confirmed in detail on Jones' own blog. WP:BLP policy states:

Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

The Michelle Malkin Confrontation needs to be restored. Perhaps we need to solicit comments from the Administrators' Notice Board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Fan (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, someone removed the entire confrontion now.. yeah cause.. something filmed from multiple angles, that was on the news, that the person admits too.. is all violation of BLP... -Tracer9999 (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yup, it certainly is - right up until we have some reliable independent sources on which to base it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find those reliable independent sources. This message will self-destruct in fifteen seconds. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Likewise, I'm ok with it having been removed altogether, following BLP worries and all the edit warring over all these very weak sources and original research. Moreover, although I was startled by the full protection, I'm ok with that too: Less is more when it comes to biographies of living persons. If a negative/controversial assertion therein is not supported by an overwhelmingly reliable source, it must go and be kept gone, much more so given the steady edit warring we've seen here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

An anon on my talk page has helpfully informed me that Aaron Russo is dead, which I confirmed by checking an online encyclopedia, so I have no objection based on blp to that paragraph being restored. Sorry, Evadinggrid, my mistake. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to know why it is acceptable for this page to be edited in such a way that well supported facts about Jones, if negative, disappear eventually and nothing but a whitewash is left? -- graball —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graball (talk • contribs) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, look. I think Jones is a loon. (Sorry, acts like a loon.) But that doesn't mean that we can publish contraversial things about him without a reliable source. Videos are not reliable. Unfortunately, he can be used as a source for some things about him, even though nothing he says should be trusted. But we have to have standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

court jester coustume?

uhm.. one guy has a maybe court jesture type hat.. the other guy is wearing nothing court jesterish.. and the one with the hat is wearing just a t-shirt and sunglasses.. I dont think one hat represents a costume or "people" dressed a court jesters.. shouldn't the article just state two people without the exaggeration? -24.60.8.8 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

agree, always thought it looked odd that it was wiki-linked as well - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

good of you to remove the inaccurate statement about court jester outfits... but of course it was added back again and the page protected.. what a shock.. -71.232.179.236 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

At least one of the sources describes the costumes that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:UNDUE why dwell on the court jester detail? Is there a special significance to the court jester get up? Or is it just simply a colourful detail? In this case we can just ignore it. Dr.K. (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how they were shouting "Kill MM" it seems meaningful to many. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess I didn't bring myself to see the video. Regardless, court jesters are supposed to be involved in funny situations. From the description this looks like "the attack of the killer court jesters". Pretty bizarre. Dr.K. (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is bizarre, that's why it's in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If these people consciously dress as court jesters they must have a pretty clear picture as to their role in their court/organisation and the message they want to convey. It gets more bizarre by the minute. Thanks for the clarification. Dr.K. (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

At the very least should be changed to "hats" rather than costumes. I just don't see the specific relevence to what they were wearing (and IMO currently inaccurately described) although their inclusion is fundamental ("kill MM" is significant, further that it was falsely attributed to Jones). The fact that it's wiki-linked adds further undue weight - it makes it seems like the court jester costume has some special significance to a protest group, movement, etc, at least to my reading. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't say hats, it says costumes. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't find any mention of "costumes" in the cited sources. But regardless, should we include it on wiki when we know it to be erroneous? - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the nudge IP. Costumes was supported by a cite when this section was first written, maybe the source got taken out of the article or the source text itself was changed but either way, it's hats now. I've made the change and added another source. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To 88.212.144.188; it sounded like Jones shouting "kill MM" to me. But I could go either way on that issue. (And we should include at least some reference to "it" on Wikipedia, even if erroneous, if suggested by a reliable source.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be your own original research, which is not allowed. Also please note this warning, which I have posted above. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I said, "sounds like". But even I could edit his voice into the video, and I'm not that technically literate. So, unless one of the videos is from a trustworthy source.... But we don't have a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We can disagree about the lack of a reliable source for this. The pith is, because reliable coverage was thin, if we can't come to a consensus on sourcing, following WP:BLP by far the most helpful thing to do is leave it out altogether, as has been done. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jone's Family

I removed the section for Alex Jones spouse and children, because there was no reference, and it is not relevant, and likely false. There's been some wacko neo-nazis out there who are claiming Alex Jones is a Jew, and has a Jewish wife. There's no evidence to support this from anywhere (except ramblings on neo-nazi web forums), and as no citation was given, it is inappropriate to include on Wikipedia. I suspect the neo-nazis will vandalize the page again with false info about his family, so I'd ask everyone here to keep an eye on unsourced claims regarding their identities and remove them.98.209.242.99 (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

paleoconservative

~ub0r Please post a source where Alex Jones states he is a or it isnt a FACT that he is (so I am removing the label of "PaleoConservative" It would appear that Wikipedia is becoming what I/WE think-a-pedia more and more with relation to the Alex Jones article its quite clear. I will no longer look to wikipedia for any factual information, until wikipedia stops being a cess pool of lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ub0r (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Labeling Alex Jones as a paleoConservative is absolute nonesense, please get a grip on REAL ity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ub0r (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jones identifies as a paleoconservative in the cited interview, Dark days, the Alex Jones interview Gwen Gale (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who actualy listens to Alex Jones would know the answer. This is an example of why every now and then he moans on air about his Wikipedia entry. Week after week he states on air that he does not belive in "the false left right paradigm".

It is not the case that I have not read the cited source. All that "proves" is a text book example of how to defame a character by using the wikipedia rule book.

If you insist on giving Jones a label it would be paleo-libertatian, but that is never going to be allowed. We can sit here and argue for days about this point and others, but it is a total waste of time. The only thing usefull that could be derived from such a debate is a list of idiots and the malicious trolls. Evadinggrid (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interview cited in the article and above, he self-identifies as a paleo-conservative. His notion of what that means is likely not the same as your own. This is one reason why Wikipedia is not about "truth" but about reliable, verifiable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable (agree) BUT since it is not true it ceases to be a reliable source. Evadinggrid (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an interview with Jones, it quotes Jones. You can't say it's unreliable only because you don't like it. As I said earlier, his notion of paleoconservative is likely not the same as yours. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think paleoconservative is fine, especially as that's what he said. If a source could be found, then a mention of his Libertarian ideas could be added too, although in a way, paleoconservative under some definitions includes a streak of libertarianism mixed with conservatism.

On the question of the "false left-right paradigm" I think you may misunderstand him a little, his ideas on that are why he would say paleoconservative/libertarian or such, rather than republican. It seems to be the parties he is angry with, he still sees ideas/people as being conservative/liberal/libertarian/etc, just he feels that the parties no longer really follow those ideals (obviously due to them being corrupt satanic elite controlled etc). He often talks about the "fake conservatives" of the Republican party in this regard. Ceasefyred (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments on the page.

I have some suggestions I wanted to swing by people.

In the part on his infiltration of the grove, perhaps some mention of the part Jon Ronson played in this? Ronson infiltrated with Jones, and quite humorously, whilst Jones and Hanson climbed through the woods, and over rough terrain to get in, Ronson just walked in through the front entrance. This became part of a book by Ronson (Them: Adventures with extremists), and also a tv show (I forget the name, I think it was part of crazy rulers of the world/satanic shadowy elite), for Channel 4 in the UK (A major station).

A quote from a cspan interview with Ronson may well be of interest here

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1668

"And I remember at the time -- because I'm -- you know, Alex is an intelligent man, and I remember at the time saying to him, "Alex," you know, "you know that what you're saying about Bohemian Grove isn't true. Now, you're playing with fire here." And Alex said, "Yeah, I'm not going to tell my listeners that." And it's kind of come back to haunt him now."

Perhaps a mention of his confrontation with David Gergen about this too might be of interest?

Other suggestions I have, the part about his network of sites, do we really need the list in the middle of the article? We already have the links at the end, can't we just say he has a network of sites at that point? it seems redundant to have it twice, the list at the end should suffice.

I see the list of guests has been slimmed a bit, which I think is good. Mentioning some other minor figures in the 'truth movement' seems a little pointless, and most people won't know them anyway. I think Mike Rivero should definitely go, as he isn't even linked, so wiki obviously doesn't even count him as notable. I think it would be better to mention some guests that people might be more likely to recognize, such as Noam Chomsky and Richard Stallman.

In the film section, I see some of the language has been changed ie, "Exposes the secret Bohemian Grove retreat of global corporatists". Some seem a bit more POV than they used to, can't we preface with "Jones claims to expose.." or such? In the case of the grove, he didn't actually expose it, it was known a long time before, just he got the first film AFAIK.

Also, in "Matrix of Evil: Exposed (2003) (Video): Experts including U.S. Reps. Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul, Lt. Col. Craig Roberts", is that Paul Craig Roberts? If so, it would be nice to link to him.

In all though, many areas of the page seem to have improved since I was last here, well done whoever worked on it.

I'm sure someone will tell me be bold, but this is a controversial page, so I prefer to discuss first, and I'm not a good writer so I prefer to leave the actual editing to others when I can help it. Ceasefyred (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think mentioning Ronson and Gergen would be too much info unless placed under their own new sections. Likely problems with Reliable Sources as well. Regards the guest list I've no objection to names being added but we do have to avoid slipping into simply a big list as before. I still favor my suggestion in the section at the top of this page - "I guess the issue people have is that it doesn't represent the kind of higher profile guests that Jones has been able to get on the show. I suggest a new paragraph to explain how he's been able to pull in many congressmen, senators, former ambassadors, etc with a few wikilined names rather than trying to achieve this through piling on a bunch of names into a giant list as was done before"

So we basically would have two short lists - the first being comma-separated paragraph of high profile guests and the second being a bulleted list of notable interviews (the standard for notable being if it gets reported/commented on elsewhere afterwards, ie the interview itself became newsworthy)- 88.212.144.188 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

He's known for supporting Conspiracy theories. If some of them were accurate, that wouldn't effect anything. He's not known for supporting civil rights. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not known for anti-globalism, exactly, but I'd accept that in the infobox. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that 'Civil Rights' is not a very good tag. His line is far more about a particular interpretation of the constitution, and some Libertarian ideals, which includes supporting and defending many rights, but that's not quite the same as being a civil rights activist in my opinion. When people talk of civil rights, I tend to think more of equality for all races and genders, which Jones supports, but he seems to concentrate more on free speech, gun rights, and freedom from government intrusion, where some of his opinions will be at odds with many classic civil rights campaigners who want guns banned, like government intrusion in many areas, and like free speech only up to a certain point. Terrorlistforlife (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Bilderberg attendees

in fis movie Endgame he makes several remarks as to the secrecy of the attendees of the bildergroup meetings,however they are always made public and at least two journalists are always present at the public meetings;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.48.110 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's only the past one or two lists that have been made public by the group themselves, after increasing scrutiny from mainstream media. Prior to this, I know for certain that they were not, and special thanks were made to people from the major news groups who attended for not revealing attendees names and topics discussed, as it makes their work more difficult, in a similar way to the Grove. (Not that I accept the conspiracy explanation, I dislike the secrecy involved, but generally accept the statements from persons such as Denis Healy, that they want to be private in order to get their work done.)

Looking at the list page you show, it's a very poor quality article, barely any references for the names are given, and the sources for the 2006/2007 lists are very poor by wiki standards. One, the americanfreepress, is a conspiracy related newspaper, where 'Big' Jim Tucker works. Tucker has worked with Jones in the past on getting information on attendees (He appears in Endgame). This source is not acceptable by wiki standards, at least not in an instance such as this. Terrorlistforlife (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Alex Jones has repeatedly peddled antisemitic conspiracies about the "New World Order" often siting prominent Jewish business men as a shadow elite controlling world events. I think a good amount of what Alex Jones says can fall under the category of antisemitic, as you may know Jews have been persecuted through history and I think antisemitism has no place in todays society.--Davidzim (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever listened to him? He never denigrates Jewish people, he mentions over and over that he has no problem with Jewish people, because people constantly make this accusation against him. He does have some problems with elements of Zionism, and the actions of the state of Israel. Are you a subscriber to the "New Anti-Semitism" school? Alex has on guests regularly from groups like "Jews for Gun Rights" and other Jewish groups. In your comment you mention "prominent Jewish business men", I assume you mean Rothschilds? If you'd actually listened to him, you'd know this again is an area he makes pains to say it's not a Jewish conspiracy, a few of the top people in his theory do happen to be Jewish, but many others are Christian, or non-religious. In his view it's not their religion/race that defines them, it's their actions (You shall know them by their fruit). Terrorlistforlife (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Russia Today

If you listen to the interview its clear that they just call him a journalist because he's useful to them as an American who was willing to come on the show and badmouth America during the South Ossetia war. It isn't a news story about Alex Jones. What are they going to do, introduce him as a conspiracy theorist? Its not a reliable or neutral source.71.182.211.157 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually sir, I think you'll find it was Georgia that sneak-attacked South Ossetia, not Russia that sneak-attacked Georgia. The so-impartial US media deliberately lied about that as well, and it was your lovely country (America) and Israel that conveniently coordinated it, and Israel (Mossad in particular) that trained and built Georgia's army. Haaretz even brags about it, no point in denying it. I know in your eyes the US can do nothing wrong and your country is an open society - well, that kind of delusion is the price you pay for having to drink fluoridated water everyday. I don't blame you for that - over here in some European countries, they don't do that so we can think a little clearer.

Also, it clearly shows partiality on your behalf by claiming that Russia Today isn't a reliable source - I'm not saying it is either. Every country promotes propaganda useful to its state. But let's be serious here, all the news sources in the US are paid propagandists, and have been funded for years by several non-governmental organizations and institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation and others. They know very well when they need to keep their mouth shut, and they know very well not to discuss any topics of real significant worth (such as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. So, please - THERE IS NO US PAPER/MAGAZINE THAT IS A RELIABLE SOURCE. Your entire country has long since been taken over by money interests - you're at the position now in your country where you are essentially a Soviet that has to distrust everything the media tells him. New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, it's all Pravda. It's THAT BAD. Look at Operation Mockingbird someday or army generals posing as independent analysists on TV.84.28.82.149 (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC

"...over here in some European countries, they don't do that so we can think a little clearer." But some must be leaking in or you would know that discussion tab is for discussing edits to the article not to be used as a chat forum or to post things totally unrelated to the point in question, which is, it cannot be used as a source to say that Jones is NOT a conspiracy theorist. The7thdr (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Films

Wasn't he in Slacker? AusJeb (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Media Appearnces

having looked at his I really can't see it's relevance. Does this article really need a list of some of a no doubt a small number, of appearance Jones has made in the "media? He is after all a media entertainer; this is something he does every day.

I really can't see how this is justified. However, I thought i would add this for discussion before doing anything with it. The7thdr (talk) 09:13,1 March 2009 (UTc)

Actually, reconsidering I have checked the articles for those media people that he share common interests with: William Cooper and David Icke Their articles, rightly, do not contain sections like this. This confirms my initial thoughts that this section is clearly unnecessary. Featuring, as himself in A Scanner Darkly, is noteworthy of course, but is already included in the article. On this basis I will remove media appearances section. Please discuss here if you think that this section is warranted and should be reinserted in some form. The7thdr (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cooper

It seems like Milton William Cooper is not a reliable source for criticism of any living person. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not much of a discussion really is it? And rather derogatory of a specialist in the same field as Jones. Especially from a moderator :). He is clearly Jones contemporary, Jones has based much of his "style" on him - although taken it to an even greater extreme. Jones considered him important enough to not only discuss his research on many occasions but invite Cooper onto his show to be interviewed. His argument on 3 sets of radio shows shows Cooper at his most rational. Cooper is an expert in his field, the same area of expertise that Jones states he too is an expert in. Cooper is a published author. The7thdr (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it under our policy on biographies of living people, pending discussion. Please do not restore it. I will if necessary use admin tools to enforce the policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion - you have simply removed it. left a facetious comment and threaten to ban me. "Discuss" or i will take to aberration. Yes, I can see form your editing history this means nothing to you, but I am far more determined and resourceful than the usual tin Foil hatters you edit, You repeatledly apply biographies of living people without explaintion as to how this applies to William Coopers analysis of Alex Jones and his Y2K show.: I include the text below, plus a link to the analysis itself. (The orginal, as you know, was correctly edited. I assume form your tone you are also "sane" moderator at Alex Jones' Priosn Planet forum - if that is the case you should already be familere with the analysis anyway.

"Milton William Cooper, fellow radio host and conspiracy theorist, stated that Alex Jones was a "fear-monger" and "made other patriots fighting for truth look bad". Shortly before his death Cooper dedicated an entire radio show analyzing Jones' "infamous" December 31 1999 show in which Jones claimed that a number of nuclear power stations had been "attacked", Martial law had been declared in mainland USA, food was running out, water had run out, shortwave radio was no longer functioning, multiple explosions had taken place in France, cash-machines had stopped working in England, certain USA airports had been turned into "FEMA camps" and the Russians had, or were about to attack, mainland USA with nuclear weapons. He concluded by saying that Jones was not only fear-mongering but seemed to be trying to be have "whipped up hysteria". The7thdr (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Copied from talk page regarding Cooper so that this maybe discussed here

I am somewhat lazy so shall just cut and past another editors comments to you above - this time relating to this article:

   You've reverted without any real explanation. The terse statement "Cooper is not a fit person to use" (to paraphrase) certainly qualifies as an opinion, but without actual substance vis-a-vis an argument, your edit, while destructive, is also exactly useless. We Wikipedians can't give it any serious value, unless you follow tedious tradition and explain yourself. The7thdr 

If you refuse to answer I will take this to arbitration. I know, "wow" etc. I will certainly do so if you threaten once more to block me without reason. The7thdr 20:53, 5

   If it's necessary to enforce WP:BLP, I certainly will block you. The way to avoid that is read and follow the policy. Tom Harrison T

       I am aware of the policy, and have yet to see how you think it applies in this case. Again, discuss on the Alex Jones Discussion page, per my recent reply or I will seek arbitration. I am sure that there are many, including Admin, who would be interested in looking at this. I am attempting to assume good faith but it is difficult in the the blatant threats, miss use of your admin rights, and your rather rude comments about William Cooper. The7thdr 

           Tell whomever you like. Jones is not a reliable source for material about, for example, Larry Silverstein. The late Mister Cooper's writings are not a reliable source for material about Jones. Tom Harrison 

           Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr 

"I assume form your tone you are also "sane" moderator at Alex Jones' Prison Planet forum." Wow, I'm stupefied. Do you suppose Jones knows Wikiedia has a man on the inside? Or that Wikipedia knows Jones has an admin here to do his bidding? Tom Harrison

       Do you think that this sort of childish comment instills confidence in the maturity of WIKI's admin staff? At least you remind me why I automatically fail students who reference WIKI articles. The7thdr 

           Says the man who wants to cite the works of Milton William Cooper. Not even his published work, but his radio show. Tom Harrison 

It's up to you to show that Cooper is a reliable source that satisfies the policy, not to me to prove that he isn't. But briefly, the source you are citing is self-published, and Cooper did not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Tom Harrison

Trying this again The7thdr (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure Tom that as an admin you can rectify the style problems above

To answer your questions. Starting with your first point:

"The source you are citing is self-published" I think you will find that self published refers to websites, books, etc. What we are discussing here is a national shortwave radio show, of a "journalist" who was independently published and made many media appearances - including on the Alex Jones. Even if it did refer to self published items these are not always disallowed under WIKI referencing guidelines. Whether you believe or not in the "paraniod fantasies" of people like David Icke, Willaim Cooper or indeed Alex Jones, is unimportant to the fact that Cooper WAS an expert (a published expert I might add) in his "field" This is the same "field" of expertise as Alex Jones. If you look at the TM article for example, the website - self published - # ^ www.TruthAboutTM.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMaCult/index.cfm is used as a reference cited by the editors that the webhost is an expert in his field. Should this also be removed? The7thdr (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood the policy on biographies of living people, or the other content standards like Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'll largely repeat what I said: You want to cite Milton William Cooper's radio show for a criticism section in the biography of living person. That's just daft, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it. I'll temporarily suspend your editing rights if you restore the material without reliable sourcing. Report me to whomever you like. Sanity checks from others are welcome. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They are indeed, I will always assume good faith, why not simply answer my points, point by point rather than going down the silly "reporting you" route, which I would not like to to do to be honest. I am familiar with the guidelines you have presented. Again, Cooper does not "break" any. If I am missing something then please, as an admin, explain in detail. It would be easier if you simply answered my questions however :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm not gonna step in the hornets nest here and change anything, but I read the critisism section and the statement that he had challenged a blind man to a fight struck me as odd, so I checked the cited source 22 for that and found that that article did not support the claim. Some editor may want to look at this and edit as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.155.42 (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Source 22 links to a web page that gave Shelly Tumbelson's fuller account, which contained the statement that the man Jones originally challenged to a fight was blind. That website is now offline. However, its text is fully and exactly reproduced elsewhere, including in the Blogspot link(http://anti-cointelpro.blogspot.com/2006/07/alex-jones-and-jarhead-chronicles.html) cited in an earlier version of the text, before it was reverted and deemed insufficiently authoritative. Since the text of the entry clearly states that their are differing accounts of the incident, and presents a factual account of them as divergent personal opinions, I fail to see why an article written by a person is deemed to be an insufficiently authoritative source for that person's own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Given all these difficulties and concomitant uncertainties as well as WP:BLP considerations I think the best way forward is to just omit the "blind" term. Dr.K. logos 15:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This section needs to be rewritten as it's based on info NOT contained in the quoted source but rather a link found on the source page (which isn't RS and doesn't even work). It also contains Original Research (refs to Jones' claims and mentioning it in broadcasts)- 78.86.76.37 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited this for some of the problems, namely

- saying that it is "known" as The Parking Lot Incident is OR, nothing about that in the article they merely use that as a heading

- saying Jones has referenced this on air is OR; even though he most likely indeed has there's nothing about that in the article

- mentioning Tumbleson by name is potentially libelous also if you read the source closely it doesn't seem to say that he is the source of those claims but rather the host of them

- it says Jones' claims have been challenged but doesn't actually tell people what those claims are

78.86.76.37 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it following WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT, given the single cited source says it's not even clear what happened, it's nothing but a non-notable, second-hand anecdote about what may or may not have been a parking lot brawl. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the removal actually, I just knew it would create a big fuss so wasn't bold enough :) The attacks on the page seem to have ramped up significantly since Jones started being heavily critical of Obama (ie more sophisticated than the usual "tinfoil hat" vandalism). - 78.86.76.37 (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're an information vandal, the kind of person who makes me feel that participating in Wikipedia is a waste of time. The incident is notable. As is evident from the extensive discussion of it in forums and blogs, it calls into question Jones' honesty fundamentally and raises questions about whether he has unusual ties to law enforcement and establishment institutions, something clearly pertinent to the ongoing debate about whether Jones himself is a COINTELPRO-style disinformation operative. I read Tumbelson's account when it was online. The material is still duplicated elsewhere. I know that Tumbelson backed up the statements made and would go further. Everytime a website goes down, does information which references it have to be deleted? Every time a book goes out of print, do other books which reference it have to be deleted? Jones' claims are, by implication, obviously the opposite of those described. The reference source does not go into much detail about them. An earlier version of the article does go into more detail but objections were raised that it went beyond the cited source. It seems to be a Heads-I-Win/Tails-You-Lose proposition. The article does say that Jones mentioned the incident on-air. Try reading it more carefully next time before you gratuitously delete what someone else has spent time and effort on. "The most solid link is Jones' claim, made on one of his ACAC shows, that "I've got the FBI and the Austin Police Department" investigating the fight." If the incident is not significant, why is it discussed in a major print source? Clearly, in contrast to what you think, other people do consider it significant. That the incident occurred is not in dispute by anyone. Therefore your cited grounds for deleting it are invalid. You're an information vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

78.86.76.37 is clearly one of Jones' British minions. He consistently raises infinitely trivial, even absurd, objections, some of which are downright false, with the clear purpose of having this section deleted, a goal he now seems to have succeeded in. 1/ Saying it is known as the Parking Lot Incident. I'd say that fact that is called the Parking Lot Incident in a paragraph heading sufficiently establishes that. An elementary google search would establish that it is referenced elsewhere as The Parking Lot Incident. Calling that OR is stretching the meaning of that restriction too far. Not everything has to be validated to an infinite level of triviality. Do we need to cite a reference to prove that motorized vehicles exist and that they are stored temporarily in places called Parking Lots? No. 2/ You say it is not established that Jones mentioned it on air. False. The article specifically mentions that he described in on one of his ACAC shows. 3/ It is absurd to say it is libellous. Why would he host them if he didn't agree with them? I read Tumbelson's web page when it was online and he was in full agreement with it. If necessary, Tumbelson's name could be omitted as it is not highly significant. 4/ You say Jones' claims are not described. So what? If you think that they should be described, describe them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think these IP posts further show, reliable sources on this are wholly lacking. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your posts show that you're not fit to be doing the job you're doing - whether you appointed yourself to it or whether someone else did. The Austin Chronicle is a credible publication. It has more credibility than you do. There was nothing in the existing text which went beyond the information contained in the Austin Chronicle article. Therefore there are no grounds for deleting it except your personal judgement about its significance, something you are not equipped to make a judgement on, and something on which others disagree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The grounds (as you put it) are WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The text did not infringe the BLP in any way. It fairly represented a persistent strain of criticism about Alex Jones, did not assume a partisan tone, fairly depicted the broad range of views of the incident, and was based upon a reliable neutral source. You don't know what you're talking about in citing the BLP. That the incident occurred is not in dispute. By your yardstick, anything about which there was any uncertainty whatsoever - global warming, evolution, whether OJ killed his wife - could not be discussed on Wikipedia. That is not the policy. The policy is that where uncertainty exists, its scope and extent are fairly represented. That was done in the case. It was an unjustified deletion. This matter is going further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to re-read what I said about the source, both above and in the edit summary. Moreover, I don't think you've carefully read WP:BLP (given that you've brought up non-BLP topics such as global warming and evolution). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than trying to be coy and clever, something you're not very good at, how about you say specifically which parts of the BLP are violated? Under your interpretation of the BLP, the fact that some people still think OJ killed his wife could not be mentioned, because it involves uncertainty. That is clearly an absurd interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. I most humbly suggest you stop posting here until you learn a lot more about Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just answer the question. Which parts of the BLP were violated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:CIVIL. You may answer back by saying I'm playing games with you, but I've already said why WP:BLP has sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your patronising little references are insulting. It would have been much easier if you simply answered the question in a sensible way by quoting the specific passages of the BLP which you believe apply here. You are refusing to answer the question because you cannot answer the question. You yourself have violated the policy on deletion specifically laid out in the BLP. I ask you again to quote the specific parts of the BLP which you believe the existing text violated. Many people contributed to creating that text. It was discussed in the Talk section and responsible edits were made by a number of people in response to those comments and suggestions. Then you simply breeze in and delete everything. The BLP says "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." It also says "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by summary deletion." By engaging in summary deletion without allowing any opportunity for discussion or rectification, you have clearly violated these guidelines and abused your power as an administrator. Other people who feel that way should contribute to this discussion so that further action against you can then be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The page has not been deleted. As I said, you might want to read up more about Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, you seize on a triviality as an excuse to avoid answering the question. Some of the text quoted applies to the policy on deleting material generally and the spirit is the same in each case. The summary explanation you provided for your deletion earlier contains terms and concepts which are not part of the BLP. That is why clarification is required. I ask you again to quote the specific passages of the BLP which you believe the text violated. In refusing repeated requests to do this, you are also violating the passages of the BLP which obligate you to engage in sensible discussion of deleted material in an attempt to achieve resolution of disputes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. For the third time, even the single cited source says it's unclear what happened in that parking lot, WP:V and moreover it doesn't carry WP:WEIGHT as to Jones' notability or career. Also for the third and last time, I suggest you read up more about this website. Lastly, you won't get far here if you don't learn to be civil. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So now after banging the BLP drum for hours, you've realised that one isn't really going to fly and desperately flail around for some other pretexts to justify your abuse of power? What is indisputably clear from the single cited source is that there was a fight in the parking lot which gave rise to tensions and allegations that Jones was dishonest. The text did not go beyond that. Anyone acquainted with the subculture milieu of which Jones is a part would know that the Parking Lot Incident is deemed to be highly significant. The fact that it has broken through from the subculture of blogs and made it into a mainstream newspaper is additional clear evidence of that. As I have said before, the notion of something being "unclear" which you present is utterly absurd, and would prohibit the mentioning of many significant things, for example that some people believe OJ may, in fact, have killed his wife. This notion of "unclear" would only make sense if a specific claim was being made by the Wikipedia text. Since that was not the case, and all the text did was delimit the scope of the dispute and the uncertainty surrounding it in a completely neutral way, your objection is without foundation.

I ask you once again to quote the specific passages of the BLP which you believe were violated. Once we have fully discussed those, we can then move onto whatever other objections you then contrive to raise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already answered all of this. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No you have not. You have simply said "single cited source says it's not even clear what happened, it's nothing but a non-notable, second-hand anecdote" - terms which are not used in the BLP. You have then made blithe references to multi-thousand word policies as if that was an adequate defence of your action. It is not. It should be an extremely simple matter for you to quote specific passages of the BLP which you believe have been violated. If you need an example of how that can be done, you can simply look up and see the way in which I quoted specific passages from the BLP to show how your action was improper. You are refusing to enagage in a proper discussion of your action and therefore have clearly abused your power, which should now be taken away from you. In any case, the discussion should have taken place beforehand, not post facto. Once again, I ask you to quote the specific passages of the BLP which you believe were violated, or to admit that you cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a follow-up criticism of Gwen Gale's improper deletion of the Alex Jones criticism section. I have tried to have this discussed in a responsible way on her Talk page but she has outrageously deleted all the critiques I have posted there. In my view, Gwen Gale's actions and judgement are seriously called into question by her conduct apparent in this thread and subsequent attempts to discuss it. I will post the text of the complaint I made below. If you agree that she has acted improperly, please respond saying so. Two people of this opinion (one other) are required before a Request for Comment on her actions can be made.

This is a complaint relating to the conduct of Administrator Gwen Gale with specific reference to her summary deletion of the section labelled “Criticism” in the Alex Jones Talk Show Host page on 15 March 2009.

Her most substantive comments relating to the summary deletion were as follows : “single source cited says it's not clear what even happened” I've removed it following WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT, given the single cited source says it's not even clear what happened, it's nothing but a non-notable, second-hand anecdote about what may or may not have been a parking lot brawl. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The grounds (as you put it) are WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The complaint is based on five points : 1/ Gwen Gale failed to follow proper policy with regard to deleting biographical material on living persons, viz. discussing it beforehand. The section had existed for some time, had been discussed and commented on extensively, and had been edited by several persons. As far as I am aware, Gwen Gale had no prior involvement in the page or the section concerned. Certainly, I had never seen her name in any of the page history. Unless it constituted a grave breach of some other policy, which not even Gwen Gale has claimed, any possible deletion should have been discussed beforehand and not executed summarily. To quote the BLP policy : “Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed.”

No complaint about the nature of the material was made beforehand; no opportunity for improvement or rectification was offered.

2/ Having failed to discuss it properly beforehand, Gwen Gale also failed to discuss it properly afterwards. She made a few general remarks, using terms which, as will be discussed later, do not form part of any Wikipedia policy, viz. “single sourced, anecdotal”, and breezily referred those who wanted to discuss the matter with her to general Wikipedia policy documents, such as Biography of Living Persons or Verifiability. As will be shown in what follows the text did not violate either of these policy documents. Gwen Gale refused multiple specific requests to quote the exact passages of the Biography on Living Persons or Verifiability policies which she claimed had been violated. This refusal to properly discuss a summary deletion is against Wikipedia conduct guidelines and not acceptable behaviour in an Administator.

3/ Gwen Gale’s comments on the summary deletion reveal that she does not understand the core Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.

4/ Gwen Gale’s comments indicate that she does not understand the proper scope of Wikipedia’s policy on Verifiability.

5/ Gwen Gale’s comments reveal that she does not understand Wikipedia’s Biography on Living Persons policy.

The only serious grounds on which deletion of the deleted text could be justified is Weight. This is not the ground on which Gwen Gale chose to defend it. She repeatedly cited BLP and V as the core defence of her actions, demonstrating that her judgement is massively flawed and that her administrative powers should be revoked. The core issue here is not the content. The core issue is Gwen Gale’s conduct and judgement. The Weight issue will, however, be discussed at the end.

Gwen Gale’s Misunderstanding of the Wikipedia’s Guidelines on Reliable Sourcing

It is clear that Gwen Gale does not understand Wikipedia’s policy on sourcing. In stating that the claims embodied in the deleted text were “anecdotal”, she is effectively second-guessing the judgement of the original reliable source, viz. The Austin Chronicle. She is implicitly expressing the view that the Austin Chronicle’s assembled journalists, editors, sub-editors and lawyers made an error in judgement in publishing the article in the first place. This is completely unacceptable and represents a FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN JUDGEMENT. It is in no way appropriate for Wikipedia editors to make their own subjective judgements about the editorial standards of highly reputable and professional publications. It is the equivalent of an editor disputing a reference to a professional academic journal on the basis that “the author is only a professor at a low-grade university, therefore his opinion doesn’t count for much.” Those judgements must be made by the editorial staff of the publication concerned; anything else opens up a veritable Pandora’s box of subjectivity. The only basis on which such a contentious judgement could be made would be one which included an impeachment of the general quality of the source publication, The Austin Chronicle, and the assertion of a claim that it should no longer be regarded as a reputable high-quality source. No one, including Gwen Gale, has seriously advanced that claim. In any case, the article makes it clear that the journalist author of the article consulted numerous sources in compiling it. Therefore the dismissal of it as merely “anecdotal” is not justified as a matter of fact. That, however, is beside the point, as it is not Gwen Gale’s job to be making those judgements about reliable source publications.

Gwen Gale’s Misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s Policy on Verifiability

In using the term “single source” in her explanation of her summary deletion, she betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy. The notion of single sourcing does not form any part of this policy. This is a pseudo-journalistic notion. It is employed by journalists when writing stories. Wikipedia hinges on the concept of “reliable sources”. As long as a source is reliable, it makes no difference whether the claim is also repeated elsewhere. This is a grave error in judgement on Gwen Gale’s part.

Gwen Gale’s Failure to Understand the Proper Scope of Wikipedia’s Policy on Verifiability

It is also clear that Gwen Gale does not understand the proper scope of Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability. Gwen Gale made the comment that “even the single cited source says it’s unclear what happened”. Every claim made in the deleted text was verifiable, however. The text described an incident about which there was a dispute; varying accounts of exactly what had happened existed and the scope and nature of those varying accounts was significant. The existence of the incident and its essential nature was not in dispute, however. The deleted text properly represented the scope and nature of the uncertainty from a neutral point of view. Insofar as the deleted text made factual assertions, it only made factual assertions which were verifiably true, backed up by the article in the reliable source, and agreed by all concerned.

The policy on verifiability relates only to specific factual assertions made by the text. Whether those specific factual assertions happen to describe states of uncertainty or dispute is not relevant. The notion of verifiability should not be extended from a strict concern with the factual assertions made to the nature of the topic itself.

To illustrate, this policy on something being “unclear” having to be omitted from Wikipedia would be a massive constraint in relation to biographical material. To give a few examples : it would be impossible to mention the fact that some people believe OJ actually did kill his wife; it would be impossible to mention the claims that Clinton had affairs with Gennifer Flowers et al.

All of these possibilities are, to some extent, “unclear”. The controversies and uncertainties surrounding them are significant, however. Omitting any mention of them is not the right approach and not the approach advocated by Wikipedia policies. Properly and neutrally describing the controversial claims, and delimiting the scope of the uncertainty in each case, is the correct approach. It is also the approach which was followed in the deleted text. Failing to understand the nature of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy, and failing to understand its proper scope, are grave errors in judgement. If the misjudgement made in this instance were to be rigorously applied across all of Wikipedia’s content, a significant percentage of it would be eradicated. In conclusion, it should be overwhelmingly clear that Gwen Gale lacks both the humility and the judgement required to be an administrator on Wikipedia. She blunders into subject areas she does not understand, summarily deletes material which has been carefully refined by groups of people over extended periods, refuses to properly discuss her judgements before or afterwards, and betrays a grievous misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s core policies. A power-happy person with flawed judgement should not be wielding administrative powers.

Gwen Gale’s Failure to Understand the Biographies of Living Persons Policy

Gwen Gale repeatedly cited the BLP in defence of her action, without specifying which clauses she believed had been violated. The BLP’s section “critisicism” reads as follows :

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The deleted text did not violate a single one of the guidelines quoted above. The section was written in a neutral tone and was fully backed up by a reliable source. Moreover, all of the assertions made by the text were completely undisputed. All parties quoted in the source article admitted that an altercation had taken place in the parking lot and that Jones had made complaints about those he had been having a dispute with, getting them into trouble with the authorities.

Addendum :

As has been demonstrated, there are no grounds whatsoever for justifying the summary deletion on the basis of Verifiability or Biography of Living Persons policies. The only grounds on which the matter could even be seriously debated is Weight. It is not clear to what, if any, extent Gwen Gale is knowledgeable about the Alex Jones and the sub-culture of conspiracising of which he is a part. Anyone acquainted with this subculture knows that the Parking Lot Incident is deemed to be highly significant. Jones’ critics feel that some essential truths about Jones – his honesty, his tendency to fantasise conspiracies, and his possible unusually intimate connections with law enforcement authorities – are revealed by it. A simple Google search on “Alex Jones Parking Lot Incident” reveals this to be true. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=alex+jones+parking+lot+incident&meta=

There is extensive discussion of the incident on other websites, blogs and forums. Jones has achievement fame for his strongly anti-establishment opinions; his claims that the government and its various agencies, including law enforcement agencies, are responsible for all kinds of nefarious actions; and his defence of free speech. The fact that Jones himself has attempted to set the forces of officialdom upon his critics (as he himself admits in the cited source) in an attempt to suppress their free speech is clearly of direct relevance to his notability in that it reveals possible hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has been editing this article at least since 22:08, 26 August 2008. Proper policy with regard to questionable blp material is to delete first, and then discuss, not the other way around. She doesn't have to justify removing it; you have to justify including it. Gwen Gale is a long-time contributor, especially to contentious biographies. She understands our core policies (and wiki markup) very well. If you disrupt this talk page by posting more of these long screeds, I will suspend your editing rights. You can sign your posts with ~~~~. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is absurd for you to call this disruption. This is an attempt at serious discussion. I previously posted it on her Talk page but she deleted it there. Where else am I supposed to post a concern I have about someone's conduct? The length of the post is a measure of the seriousness with which I approach this. Rather than simply brushing it aside, I would appreciate you or anyone else responding to my points about her comments on sourcing, verifiability, etc. 90.213.182.228 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Flimography merge

Alex Jones (radio host) Filmography does not appear to meet WP:SAL, as the content only applies to a single person and seems like nothing more than a cut and paste that really doesn't need it's own article. Everything could be pared down and merged here.Vulture19 (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also, there have been a lot of Alex Jones forks over the time and they've all beeen deleted. I'll go ahead and redirect it.--Sloane (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've restored the filmography to the article. Whoever redirected the filmography back here should have done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the Filmography. In the article it makes look even more cluttered. The comment: does not appear to meet WP:SAL, as the content only applies to a single person . Sorry, but simply silly in the context of a filmography. The same could be said of George Lucus filmography. Cut and paste? Well, I am sure that the jones fans will "improve" it.

The target article was (1) misnamed (should be "filmography", rather than "Filmography"), and (2) misformatted. Leave it here unless someone (else) can convert it into a proper filmography. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, restructuring an article while it's under AfD, no matter how silly an AfD it is, may be considered disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jones' beating

I disagree with the removal of the fight in which Jones was involved. [1] It's properly sourced and there's no real reason to remove it. There's still plenty of room in this article and it doesn't violate any NPOV policies.--Sloane (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The "real reason to remove it" is in the edit summary that you helpfully link us to. The source speculates that this poorly-documented fight may be the cause of some "bad blood" between Jones and some fellow, who may or may not have gotten in trouble as a result of a complaint that Jones had filed, who happens to be a programmer for (finally!) the ACAC, which has collectively voiced criticism of Jones's radio-related activities. If only there were a Pulitzer for going off on tangents! This sort of digressive, speculative scandal-mongering appears to be quite at odds with WP:BLP, which states that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Article length might be able to relativize the merit of WP:DUE, but certainly not that of BLP. If BLP's are to be written conservatively, then a succinct but unrevealing one is preferable to an exhaustive but potentially libellous one. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the decision to remove it, too. The source articles states, rather than speculates, that the "bad blood" goes back to the fight in the parking lot. The core facts of the case are clear. All of the claims made in the deleted Wikipedia text were undisputed by all parties concerned in the incident. You're exaggerating the "speculative" aspects of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)