Talk:Alex Jones

Let's review, shall we?

Let's review for our newly-arrived Infowars/Newswars/Prison Planet minions, shall we? Alex Jones claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Coronavirus is a hoax, that 5G networks create Coronavirus within human cells (no explanation about the conflict between those last two), that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps, that the US is being invaded by South American walruses... Sounds legit to me! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

To be entirely correct, the frogs turning gay is (how funny it is) true.

But not tap water, a type of water with a specific chemical in it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/

https://niche-canada.org/2020/06/09/chemical-castration-white-genocide-and-male-extinction-in-rhetoric-of-endocrine-disruption/

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/885705

https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs

Frogs turning gay with a special type of water isn't as far out as you say it to be. (If there is any mention of this in the article I encourage an editor to edit this for misinformation.) 15038623asd (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You have not read the article then? Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments / questions

• Q: Isn't Jones just an actor playing a role without actually believing all of that?

A: It doesn't matter. Millions of people read his webpage, some believe it, and a tiny percentage go to Wikipedia to set us straight. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Q: Why doesn't this page cover the bit about gay frogs?

A: We only cover those things Alex Jones says that have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Q: OK, all that other stuff is just silly, but the bit about South American walruses is real!

A: No it isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

But the gay frogs is pretty funny, you have to admit. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Here it is for anyone who has not experienced this special moment: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVrntKgdN0 ]

It's like a turd sandwich with Wikipedia's Gay bomb page at the start, The Daily Mail[1] at the end, and Infowars in the middle! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvf6gz58xnI Guy (help! - typo?) 21:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG and Guy Macon: On the subject of YouTube, we have a small bit about John Oliver's take on him with regard to his product shilling on-air, we do have some secondary sources, but would we want to have the primary source as well? [2] —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not possible to argue that the article is written from a neutral point of view. IndySteve (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible X reinstatement

Thought I'd check on whether my recent edit [3] on Jones' possible X reinstatement announcement makes the article worse as per WP:DOREVERT or whether this is a case of WP:BADREVERT? Personally I think such an announcement is a relevant development to his bans/suspensions, that may or may not receive a further update in the near future, but otherwise would pass the test of time. If there are further updates, then obviously the line can be modified or removed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, this is just musk saying he might do it, not that he will. When he does we can say so. If musk does not reinstate him what relevance does this even have? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Good question. I've added a after However Musk denied that Alex Jones will be unbanned criticizing Jones as a person that "would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame" to clarify the relevance here, as is now outdated, as per edit ref. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

How is that outdated, until he is reinstated it remains true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

We document what happens or is planned to happen, not what could happen. And Musk changes his mind with the wind. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

And Musk changes his mind with the wind. Agreed. So I'm not sure why However Musk denied that Alex Jones will be unbanned is still in there. It's outdated at best, misleading at worst, based on Musk now considering reinstatement. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, he definitively said no a year ago and that has held. Now he may very well change his mind about anything. But I don't think his musings on X about future possible changes are enough to change the current text and the current text is not incorrect. If he changes his mind, we will change the text. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion has become redundant, in 12 hours there will no doubt be a more significant update covered by RS. [4] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't believe you had me read that sick thread. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have you read that thread? I was only referencing the post. You chose to read the thread, that's a conscious choice, an obvious mistake. Thought you would have known better than to read the thread, I was obviously mistaken. Either way I apologise, in hindsight, I was assuming too much WP:COMPETENCE when I clearly shouldn't be assuming it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

1. I always look for the context. 2. I suggest you strike your snarky personal attack. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

How is Can't believe you had me read that sick thread not WP:PA here? You're either trying to gaslight me into thinking I'm responsible for what you read (I'm not), and/or there is a competence issue here based on ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Look for context sure, but reading the comments?! CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to gaslight anyone and I'm pretty sure I'm not incompetent. How can I look for the context without reading the context? Stop digging. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

HAs any announcement been made yet? If not can we close this (and people ned to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-poll-shows-x-users-want-us-conspiracy-theorist-jones-account-back-2023-12-10/ I think we an now add "but he has now been reinstated". Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Now we can say he reversed himself. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I like "reversed himself". I am totally going to use that as an obscene euphemism at some point in the future. ;-) Seriously though, I see that it has been updated now and the wording looks OK to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"reversed himself" I hate when I do that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

==

==

Under the first sentence for the section called "Early Life and Influences", "od" should be "of". "Jones was born on February 11, 1974, in Dallas, Texas, and was raised in Rockwall, 25 miles east od Dallas." Please change "east od Dallas" to "east of Dallas. 66.44.244.32 (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Fake News

I got that the person above has shown many reasons as to why it is fake news, but calling Alex Jones an entirely fake news source is the BIGGEST BIAS I have ever seen, Wikipedia is here to show from all perspectives, for example when they're talking about the US they tell us about the good side and the bad, but over at this Wikipedia page Alex Jones is plainly called a liar? Because that's what I read, you're telling people that EVERY SINGLE BIT OF NEWS Alex Jones has ever spread is fake, I propose to change it to something a bit more, unbiased, for example: [ Alex Jones is rumored to be spreading a fair amount of fake news.] We can remove some of the bias AND keep the same reasoning in there. Now I'm not here to convert you all to Alex Jones Servants but I'm also not here to start Impaling him, there must be some balance to this topic. Alex Jones True News Predictions: https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html (9/11 Prediction, Scarily Accurate) https://twitter.com/mandystadt/status/1497959083298672641 ( Please don't scream in my ear that my source is twitter, he's been banned everywhere I can't find one good news source that includes this.) Also don't you find it weird that almost all news sources are against this guy? Almost seems like they're ordered to do it. 15038623asd (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

In the lead, the actual description is Jones's website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news, which is accurate. In the InfoWars section, the reference describing it as a fake news website is well sourced. As a side note, yes his 9/11 prediction was accurate, which is unsurprising given he's made thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of incorrect predictions over the decades. There is a phrase for this type of phenomenon: even a stopped clock is right twice a day. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not 100% accurate and … isn’t that supposed to be the trusted definition of “accurate”? That something is 100% true not partially? 166.181.251.153 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that was the point being made, that Infowars is not accurate 100% of the time, or even 50% of the time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes this. Or even 0.5% accurate for that matter. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Also don't you find it weird that almost all news sources are against this guy? Of course not. They are against him because it is easy to see that he is wrong about nearly everything. Only people who use screwed-up logic like Almost seems like they're ordered to do it do not see that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hard to reply without sark here. No I do not find it odd at all, just as I do not find it odd that sop many sources call Hitler a racist, or Jack the Ripper a murderer. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really a fair comparison. What about all the people Jack the Ripper didn't murder or the races that Hitler liked? GMG^talk 14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s easy to be correct sometimes. Tarot card readers, stock pickers (or monkeys) who throw darts at stock pages, incompetent football touts, astrologers are correct on occasion, I was even correct once. It was April 1, 1992. I remember it well. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Jones' coverage of Epstein

Someone has been repeatedly adding unsourced claims that Jones aired information about Epstein prior to the story breaking; I can't find any news coverage of that anywhere, though. Most of the recent coverage that does exist instead focuses on Epstein's defenses of Trump[5] - he was concerned that Trump's name would appear in the list (as they did) and preemptively, without evidence, decried the mentions of Trump as fabricated. Older coverage focuses on the way Jones used Epstein's name to push unrelated conspiracy theories (after the story already broke.) I can't find any reliable sources discussing the idea that Jones was somehow ahead of the curve with Epstein. --Aquillion (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)