Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Alex Jones as a fraudster

Alex Jones' own lawyer says that Alex Jones is basically playing a fake character to make money. Does this count as Alex Jones defrauding his audience? I suggest labelling Alex Jones as a fraudster in the article opening paragraph. This entire article needs to be rewritten in my opinion, since this fact that Alex Jones' open admission that his entire public persona is an "act" and has nothing whatsoever to do with his actual views and beliefs. Everything that Alex Jones does in public is basically just a tool for making money as admitted by Alex Jones' lawyer.

This entire article on Alex Jones must be completely, totally, fully, wholly and thoroughly be rewritten. The section on Alex Jones' "views" saying that Alex Jones is "conservative" is extremely misleading. Alex Jones' lawyer says that Alex Jones is nothing but an act, so, we can in no way say that Alex Jones is really a "conservative" based on Jones' own statement. Alex Jones may actually be a liberal, his "conservative" views in public may be his "act".

"Alex Jones’ Defense in Upcoming Custody Battle Is That He’s a Fake" http://fusion.net/alex-jones-defense-in-upcoming-custody-battle-is-that-1794370575 175.156.24.120 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

When I see "basically" I see interpretation, do we have an RS saying he is a fraud in those words?Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How about these:

"Will Alex Jones Admit He's a Fraud to Keep His Kids?"

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54570/alex-jones-custody-case-performance-art/

"Wait…Alex Jones is an Actor?! Actually, He’s Not the Only One"

http://www.mediaite.com/online/wait-alex-jones-is-an-actor-actually-hes-not-the-only-one/

"So Alex Jones is a “performance artist”? If so, his act is truly terrifying"

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/18/so-alex-jones-is-a-performance-artist-if-so-his-act-is-truly-terrifying/

175.156.24.120 (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure a total rewrite is necessary, but these are definitely strong enough sources that a qualified mention is due — including a mention in the lede. I would suggest the following second sentence:

Alex Jones has publicly been called a performance-artist and actor who does not believe in his own public positions, notably by his own lawyer in order to avoid libel suits.

Not perfect, but it's a start. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that the sources support this, I cannot find any reference to libel actions. This is all in relation to the custody battle, and I note that most of these articles say "If". Take out the bit about libel.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't like that wording just above: it implies that this is a well-known and commonly made claim, when it's actually a new claim, made only by his lawyer in his divorce hearing. And the bit about libel just doesn't show up in the sources at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Fake News La belling

" His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled as a fake news website.[13][14][15][16]"

It would be best to include context for this sentence to directly state which sources have labelled Alex Jones fake news. Changing it to "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website by USnews, LAtimes, Washington Times, and MotherJones.com.[13][14][15][16]" or even change the sentence to state "His website, InfoWars.com, has been labeled a fake news website by a number of competing news outlets.[13][14][15][16]" would better objectively reflect the truth of the statement and give the reader the full story on the conflict between the different news organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahuterschuter (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, except those outlets don't "compete" with Infowars. They're in the News business, not the conspiracy-theories-masquerading-under-a-flimsy-pretense-at-being-news business. And the cited sources are just a sampling: if we listed every reliable source that has called Infowars fake news, we'd triple the size of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... You'll notice that they don't label any "other" competitors, like each other or CNN or what not, "fake news." That's because they generally don't want to draw attention to legitimate competition. Illegitimate competition? Sure, they'll point out that it's illegitimate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017

concerning Alex Jones, he is not a far-right person but a libertarian who interviews people who are mistakingly labeled by the opposition party as "right wing" or "alt right". He refutes ims this claim on air nearly on every episode of infowars.com. Nor is he a conspiracy theorist because he has been proven,98% of the time, to be right on many issues concerning the world because of his impeccable journalistic resources that include former politicians, political strategists, whistleblowers, guests from all departments and agencies of the government and so forth. It is well documented by other patriot talk show hosts concerning Alex Jones accuracy on items long before they are announced and coopted by mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turk9570 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Turk9570: Nor is he a conspiracy theorist because he has been proven,98% of the time, I'd like to see how you arrived at that number. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need an RS for that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2017

Stating that Alex Jones and Infowars is Fake News, is FAKE NEWS. Unless you want a lawsuit I suggest you remove this remark. Butterfly0fjune (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI for a follow-up to this request. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed this from the ANI report. Wouldn't it be more in line with WP:NPOV to list the sources that claim that Infowars is a "fake news website"? Such as: "InfoWars.com has been labeled as a fake news website by U.S. News & World Report, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, and Mother Jones." —Farix (t | c) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Doing that would probably triple the size of section. I'm not being facetious, either. Almost every reputable news source has labelled Infowars "fake news". Certainly every one who has written about Infowars since the term became popular has. The list would be enormous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

However, completely leaving out who is calling the website fake news is creating a bias by omission. It is far better to state who is calling the website fake news and leave it to the reader to decided if the claims—and sources—are valid or not. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Several of the "who's" are answered by the sources. The fact that the statement is vague makes it more accurate, because the sources used are not exhaustive. If the claim in the article only named the source we used, that claim would be incorrect. And I've considered using a "sources such as .... have labelled Infowars a fake news outlet," statement, and while that would be technically accurate, it would run up against the implication that those sources are ideologically opposed to Infowars, and as such, leave the implication that they're the only sources labeling it fake news intact. The only way to be perfectly accurate is to either leave the statement alone, or list an exhaustive number of sources with a "...and many others" at the end, which would be too cumbersome to read and not encyclopedic. Note that this claim has been a long standing one in this article, with a great deal of support. It would require a new consensus to remove it or significantly alter it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we could say something like "Has been called a fake news site by every reputable news and media organisation as well as media annalists such as...". In other words make it clear this is a (practically) universal accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, if we said "almost every" or "virtually every," I think I could live with adding a few examples. I just want to make sure that the statement is true both in implications and in the most technical sense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, nix that. We'd be doing original synthesis, unless we found a source that explicitly stated that. If someone can come up with a good argument to WP:IAR here though... I'm open to being convinced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Personal life" section of this article needs update due to wealth of new info on Alex Jones

Through several news reports, certain new information on the personal life of Alex Jones should be included into the "Personal life" section. They include:

• Alex Jones suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder

"Alex Jones is a narcissist, a witness testifies."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/20/alex-jones-is-a-narcissist-a-witness-says-and-possibly-the-worst-client-ever/

• Alex Jones married a new wife in 2017 and has commited adultery against her.

"Alex Jones Takes the Stand in Custody Battle, Admits to Cheating on Wife"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/20/alex-jones-takes-the-stand-in-custody-battle-admits-to-cheating-on-wife.html

• Alex Jones is a user of marijuana in Texas

"Alex Jones admits to smoking marijuana in Texas where it's illegal"

https://longroom.com/discussion/441677/alex-jones-admits-to-smoking-marijuana-in-texas-where-its-illegal-but-says-he-only-did-it-to-test-its-strength

I feel that the "personal life" section on Alex Jones is completely and totally outdated and needs a serious rewrite.

Of the three I think only the Washington post would pass muster. Also much of this (such as smoking weed) is rather trivial, and anyway has not been prosecuted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I find all three of the sources are fine. Every single one of them passes the "muster". I don't see Alex Jones smoking weed as trivial, it gives clues to the antics of Alex Jones. I see it as extremely important fact, nothing about it is trivial at all. I consider it completely wrong to see Alex Jones smoking weed as "trivial". 175.156.9.27 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, because of these, only the first source really meets the additional requirements we put on sources making claims about a living person. You may believe that the sources are fine, but others believe otherwise, and when it comes to making potentially libelous claims; "when it doubt, leave it out." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• "In midst of custody battle, Alex Jones reveals that at 16, ‘I’d already had over 150 women.’

http://politics.blog.mystatesman.com/2017/04/24/in-midst-of-custody-battle-alex-jones-reveals-that-at-16-id-already-had-over-150-women/ 175.156.168.209 (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we please stop trying to use this article as a live news feed about a custody battle. This is all just salacious tittle tattle (whoever sauys it) that adds nothing, and just makes us look petty.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need to document every detail he reveals about himself during this. We should wait and see what details garner significant coverage, instead of posting every blog and op-ed that wants to put him on blast for every bizarre thing he says. We all know he says lots of bizarre things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Update what about Chobani Yogurt suing Alex Jones over a false allegation some news outlets are discussing this new lawsuit out of Idaho over a false rape case.

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/national/alex-jones-sued-greek-yogurt-giant-chobani/m3dPU8oTilmuLcdrSfakqN/

Update other news outlets are mentioning that Alex Jones is being sued for $10,000 US dollars by Chobani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:2767 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/25/chobani-yogurt-company-sues-right-wing-radio-host-alex-jones.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.96.188 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not personal life, but yes this could get a mention. But I think we need to wait till after the hearing (after all this could be no more then a fishing expedition).Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article146943339.html Alex Jones could go to Idaho to respond to the allegations Chobani has on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.96.188 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And we do not need daily updates on Jonses doings either.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/in-the-end-nobody-really-cares-if-alex-jones-means-what-he-says-9386409

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/28/alex-jones-infowars-loses-primary-custody-his-kids/101017394/

http://www.statesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/verdict-wife-alex-jones-wins-joint-custody-after-bitter-trial/gsbA2MrX3pSmoEsexz7oeL/

The verdict is out for the Alex Jones Child Custody case the ex-wife gets the kids.

That might be worth including, but somebody needs to justify it, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Most of what I see in this section is trivia or opinion. Just because a RS prints the opinion of a random person it doesn't mean it gets included. The only thing I've seen in this trial that I feel might have merit to mention is that Jones considers himself a "showman" and that he admitted not really believing many of his conspiracy theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

The article states that Alex Jones is "far-right". I would like that part removed. Alex Jones is anti-foreign intervention, he advocates libertarian stances on civil liberties issues, and he takes an egalitarian stance on race related issues and has criticized the "Prison-Industrial Complex". Categorizing Alex Jones as "far right" with the likes of Benito Mussolini and Hitler who favored aggressive foreign policy, extreme violations of civil liberties, and implementing explicitly racist policies is not accurate.

NOTE: The links posted below are not to be used as sources in the article. As I'm merely requesting that "far right" be removed it is not required. The links below are merely to show what Alex Jones' outlet, Infowars, has said on issues related to civil liberties, foreign policy, and race-related issues. Some may disagree with his views, but they are certainly the opposite of what the "far right" believe. If Alex Jones is far right then that term has lost all of its meaning.

Alex Jones on civil liberties:

https://www.infowars.com/the-freedom-act-is-worse-than-the-patriot-act/

Alex Jones on Iraq:

https://www.infowars.com/the-horror-of-the-iraq-war-one-hundred-years-from-now/

Alex Jones on Prison-Industrial Complex and police state:

https://www.infowars.com/the-prison-industrial-complex-the-economics-of-incarceration-in-the-usa/

https://www.infowars.com/video-alex-jones-predicted-staged-race-war/ AscherLio (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done There is a strong consensus on this page to describe him the way the reliable sources do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We should NOT include "far-right" in the lead because it sounds too opinionated

Contrary to some others who have tried to remove this part from the lead, I look at this from a true editor's standpoint. Even if we think he is far-right, there are obviously many people who disagree with the statement. By putting this in the lead like so, we are stating that he is for a FACT far-right. This is biased. Later in the lead, it is clarified that "Jones has described himself as a libertarian and paleoconservative, and has been described by others as conservative, right-wing, alt-right, and a pro-Russia propagandist." This is better, as it tells what others think of him and how he views himself, it is not stating for a fact what he is or is not, since he himself and many others state otherwise. This is not an opinionated issue... Rather, this is an issue of being opinionated. Agree? --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

He is described as far-right in professionally-published mainstream sources -- that's not simply some random user's opinion (which you almost seem to be dismissing it as), that's professional analysis. You've presented no sources whatsoever to imply that he's any further left than far-right. It's your responsibility to prove that there are significant analysis from professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that conclude he's not far-right. The sentence later in the lede gets into more specifics without contradicting the far-right label. Paleoconservative is one of the many flavors that "far-right" comes in. Likewise Libertarianism is a very broad term that also includes Noam Chomsky (who is on the opposite end of the left-right spectrum from Jones). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that, I never said I support what he says and I never said that the majority of people think he is far-right. But you make some good points, I suppose. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like this general issue has come up a lot recently, maybe that's just my watchlist. Anyway, if there is a reliable source for Jones disputing the 'far-right' label, let's see it. Reliable sources seem pretty clear to me, and hedging our wording to avoid the impression of being opinionated isn't actually neutral. Plain language is best. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I find label of "far right" as too tame to describe Alex Jones. I consider "ultra hardcore far right" to be a better label. 175.156.16.252 (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My tale, if we have Jones disputing the use of the term, put in his rebuttal. Otherwise it's an uncontested claim made by RS. A "true editors" job is to reflect the rules and values of the organ they edit, inn this case verifiablility.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Cruz

The article currently states: "Following the 2016 Republican National Convention, Jones and Roger Stone began plotting the removal of Ted Cruz from his Senate seat in 2018 via potential challengers Katrina Pierson and Dan Patrick." A reader of this article could easily be misled into believing that Jones is currently involved in "plotting the removal of Ted Cruz from his Senate seat in 2018". This is not the case. I understand that one could interpret this as referring to something he was specifically doing "following the...Convention", but given the next mid-term elections are in 2018, it is my opinion that this is confusing for readers. At best, it provides an incomplete and inaccurate impression of Jones' relationship with Cruz.

On January 23, 2017, Alex Jones heaped praise on Cruz during a video interview. The video appears to be an uncut clip of Jones' entire interaction with Cruz. Given this was conducted by Alex Jones himself, it was published on his own site, Infowars, which is not generally regarded as a reliable source. Due to the esoteric nature of this interview, it was not covered by reliable secondary sources - the only secondary source available appears to be the conservative blog The Right Scoop, which would likely be regarded as similar in reliability to the original Infowars source.

However, given this is a primary video source, I believed it was suitable as a source for clarifying Jones' relationship with Cruz and added it to the article. Admittedly, I could have indicated the sourced was Jones himself (e.g. 'However, in January 2017, Alex Jones himself said, "*insert quote here*"') to satisfy MOS:QUOTE, and I would do so in the future. MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and MelbourneStar (talk · contribs) reverted this edit on the grounds that Infowars is not a reliable source.

WP:IRS says the following with regards to questionable sources: 'Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.' This does not appear to be a contentious claim. The three individuals who reverted my edits did so for different reasons, with the first mistakenly believing I had deleted information from the page, and the other two reverting on the basis that it was not reliably sourced, rather than questioning the claim itself.

'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
• It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
• The article is not based primarily on such sources.'

The first requirement is met. The purpose of adding this material is to clarify a prior claim for the benefit of the reader. The second requirement is met. The claim is about Alex Jones himself. The third requirement is met, assuming 'subject' is defined as the subject of the claim. This is a primary source for the event addressed in the claim. The fourth requirement is met, given it is a video and there is no evidence of doctoring, nor any motive for Jones to do so with regards to this. The fifth requirement is met, as the sole purpose of using this source is to clarify a prior claim made by another source, and most of the article still consists of reliable sources.

WP:IRS later brings up some more relevant rules: 'Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.' Once again, I do not think this is contentious material, and have not observed any evidence from other editors that they regard it as such. Their problem appears to be with the source itself.

'Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.' This was published by the subject of the biographical material.

As a result of all this, I think there is a strong case for using a questionable self-published primary source in this case in order to avoid the possibility of misleading and confusing the reader.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that Jones can praise Cruz and still be plotting against him. If RS say he was plotting we need RS contradicting this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about explicitly debunking that theory -my proposal is really just to add a line like the aforementioned 'However, in January 2017, Alex Jones himself said, "*insert quote here*"', and letting the reader make up their own mind. --Jay942942 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

1. That is not at all what your edit stated.
2. Ifowars is still not a reliable source. Jones and IW contradict themselves regularly. Wait until this appears in a reliable source, then you can add it in the voice of the source, Jones or Cruz. But not in wikivoice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above. Not all sources on WP have to be reliable as per WP's own rules. There are certain situations where questionable sources are justified, and this meets the requirements. I also concede that my edit could've been worded better and suggested an alternative approach, the quote. However, the sense of your response indicates you would also be opposing to merely quoting Jones on this topic. If so, please elaborate further as to why you don't think this would qualify under WP rules. The reality is that this is from a 4 month old story. The odds of it appearing in a reliable secondary source at some point down the line are next to none. --Jay942942 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So if it does not explicitly state we we cannot infer or imply it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, if we go down my suggested quote approach, as a primary source, it does explicitly state whatever Jones is quoted as saying. It is not intended to infer or imply anything, merely note a fact that is highly relevant to the topic being discussed (Jones' relationship with Cruz). --Jay942942 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is it relevant, if it does not say anything about anything then what are we saying by using it? Do we list all the other people Jones has praised?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant only because this article discusses Jones' supposed attempts to take out Cruz (even though there is no evidence he ever followed up on these empty threats), and this would provide crucial further context. Currently, the article presents this as if it is an ongoing effort, which is factually incorrect. I would be totally for removing this fairly irrelevant line altogether, but I expect there will be a lot of pushback against that from other editors. Really, how long is that line going to stay up? Until after the 2018 TX Senate primary is over?--Jay942942 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems to me to be OR, unless RS say this is not an ongoing feud we cannot infer it. The issue of removing the reference to the feud it is a different matter.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

One doesn't have to directly infer the feud is *not* ongoing. Lay out sourced information (and as I've explained above, this qualifies as a justifiable use of a questionable source under the above WP rules), and let the reader infer what they will. It just provides relevant information about the situation in order to give the reader the full context. --Jay942942 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

And I disagree that your explanation justifies inclusion. This material does not prove that it is "factually incorrect" that the feud is over. It does not even infer it, you are using it to infer it (this is OR and Synthases).Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• If it's not covered in reliable sources, it's not fucking notable. That's the definition of WP:NOTABILITY. We're not going to break the rules just to make sure that the least notable part of his tiff with Cruz gets as much coverage as the most notable part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, but you really have no clue what the rules are. From WP:Notability: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." This discussion isn't about creating a new article about the Jones-Cruz relationship. WP has rules explicitly PERMITTING questionable sources. --Jay942942 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is too partisan

I came here after reading some information claiming he denies the Sandy Hook massacre took place.

What I found was an article that is obviously edited by people who have a partisan agenda against him. Citing articles from highly partisan sources like the Daily Beast and Slate made me take EVERYTHING within this article with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it (talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, this is a discussion page for how to improve this article. So what changes are you suggesting? All sources have some amount of bias. If you just want Jones's take on himself, you can go to his websites. Wikipedia favors independent, WP:SECONDARY sources for content. Being "partisan" doesn't actually make a source less usable. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Citing articles from highly partisan sources like the Daily Beast and Slate made me take EVERYTHING within this article with a grain of salt. That's a good thing. That makes me happy. Next, start taking everything Jones say, everything Fox News and Breitbart say with a grain of salt. In fact, take everything you hear or read online with a grain of salt. Welcome to skepticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The least you can do is out the whole picture out there instead of covering half of it up. It makes you the writer look inept. BenScheidegger (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@BenScheidegger: Which of the 2,830 editors are you talking to? Doug Weller talk 09:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

73.15.47.45 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/connecticut-nbcmegyn-kelly-alex-jones-interview-1202469317/.

Here is an update WVIT is not airing the Megyn Kelly/Alex Jones interview due to the Sandy Hook conspiracies Alex Jones and his fan base has been accused of ranting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:934 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What has this to do with our article?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2017

Kevin005 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What edit?Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

Megan Kelly Interviewed him in 2017 it was a bad idea. 75.121.60.198 (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an actual request. TheValeyard (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones Show Archive link

http://alexjonespodcast.com for external links --Henkri (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I vote "no". This page shouldn't be used to propagate Alex Jones' material. 175.156.19.62 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not interested in using Wikipedia to pimp his shows. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per multiple points of WP:ELNO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alex Jones (radio host). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011102348/http://canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f67cbe75-4eed-4daf-877e-189e52d1f33c&k=12919 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f67cbe75-4eed-4daf-877e-189e52d1f33c&k=12919

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-alex-jones-custody-press-conference-live/

“I want to respond to grossly inaccurate media reports that I lost custody of my children. My ex-wife and I agreed 2 years ago at the time of our divorce to be joint-managing conservators of our 3 awesome children. My ex-wife went to trial asking for her to become the sole managing conservator of our kids and limit me to supervised access. The jury resoundingly rejected her request for sole custody and left us at the same place where we began this horrible journey. The jury agreed we should remain as joint-managing conservators with the only change being who can designate the primary residence – effectively a change of 10 miles. As only the judge in a trial can decide what amount of time each parent will have with their children, I am confident that the Judge will carefully consider the various schedules that have been put in place in the last two years and will give each of us the time that is appropriate. I have throughout this ordeal deferred to the experts and this Court to determine the kids’ schedule with due regard to their own wishes. I have and will continue to place my trust in the Court to continue to do what is in their best interest.” Benallen123 (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A direct link to Jones' website is not enough proof for a single change. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Jones is NOT far-right

Here is the definition from far right: Some aspects of fascist ideology have been identified with right wing political parties; in particular, the fascist idea that by superior persons should dominate society while undesirable elements should be purged, which in the case of Nazism resulted in genocide.[9] Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform in London, has distinguished between right-wing nationalist parties which are often described as "far-right", such as the National Front in France, and fascism.[4]

Far-right politics include but are not limited to aspects of authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism.[10] Claims that superior people should have greater rights than inferior people are sometimes associated with the far right.[11] The far right has historically favoured an elitist society based on its belief in the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses.[12] However, right-wing populist ideologies which are described by some commentators as "far-right" often use appeals to the "common man" as opposed to the appeals of the elites.[3] Far-right politics sometimes involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.[13] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension of nationality, culture and migration, one far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one's own group should be prioritised.[14]

If you have ever listened to Jones, he is clearly anti-establishment and extremely anti-authoritarianism. This negates the authoritarian and elitist suggestions. Furthermore, Jones, just about daily, says something along the lines of "no race or person is superior" and that "global elites want races and parties to be divided so they can conquer us," etc., which eliminates the separatist/segregation/racist/fascist argument. The burden of proof is shown on infowars, looking at "about alex jones show" (which is a reflection of himself and his character) at https://www.infowars.com/about-alex-jones-show/ Key quotes from this source: "SEEKING THE TRUTH AND EXPOSING THE SCIENTIFICALLY ENGINEERED LIES OF THE GLOBALISTS AND THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL OF ENSLAVING HUMANITY." "Jones is dedicated to libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, in addition to what he has coined "1776 worldwide" - promoting a true culture of liberty, transparency and freedom on a planetary scale to empower humanity, while vehemently opposing Agenda 21 and the globalist threat to national sovereignty." "Jones passionately argues against foreign entanglements and wars for the sake of corporate and banking interests. Jones avoids the bogus political labels of "left and right" and instead focuses on what really matters — what's right and wrong"

Request to remove "far right" and replace with "libertarian." I would even be willing to bargain and say he is a "conservative conspiracy theorist." However, "far right" is extremely inappropriate given his beliefs that directly contradict what Wikipedia defines "far right" as. Furthermore, Jones is more focused on the up/down (authoritarian vs libertarian) rather than left/right, and I think the opening sentence should summarize that. I think leaving it as is would make it misleading to wikipedians who know little about Jones and may make them assume he is a racist/nazi, and cause him to automatically be grouped with other far righters who are appropriately categorized.

I understand that this article has been heavily politicized. However, we cannot ignore the truth and the truth is that Alex Jones is NOT far-right on any level. Just because a few news outlets falsely characterized him as far-right for one story about globalism (which is, again, by definition the opposite of far right) does not make it far right.

Thank you for your time, Respectfully Aglo123 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well first off Wikipedia is not an RS. Secondly, We go with what RS say. So you would need RS saying he is not far right.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

http://hollowverse.com/alex-jones/ - While this source may not be as well-known as something like NYT, it is more specialized to the issue at hand and gives evidence that Mr. Jones is a "moderately" right-winged libertarian conspiracy theorist through and through. The current sources offer no proof to back up their statement that Jones is "far right", and cite no evidence of what the definition of "far right" is and how Jones fits that description. Aglo123 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones is about as far-right as one can be in American politics, a fact supported by a plethora of reliable sources. Hollowverse is a blog, one person's opinion, nothing more. TheValeyard (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong, but this fight is not worth it with you guys. So based on what you said, you would say that David Duke or the KKK is more moderate than Jones? Far right consists of nazism/fascism/segregation and racism, Jones is clearly far from that and has shown no evidence of those characteristics. That doesn't even mention Jones' own testimony (which I understand is not evidence in and of itself). Calling him far right is downright ignorant. The piece I posted is not a "blog," and, regardless of its notoriety, gives only quotes and facts and actually bashes Jones based on his conspiracy theorist views, but correctly labels him for what he is. You say there are a plethora of sources, show me just one that proves HOW he is far right and I will agree with you. Aglo123 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that is RS. Which by the way does not say he is not far right, or event that he is a conspiracy theorist explicitly says he is not). So even if we accept this, it does not contradict his being far right. You can (for example) be anti-establishment and still think only an elite should rule (just a different one then the one that does now). Jones is a champion of "traditional values". Nor does the article you link to say he does not support nativism or extreme xenophobic nationalism, or indeed anti-Communism (which Jones sees as a cancer, hardly an endorsement).Slatersteven (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

authoritarianism=No (lets be generous and ignore his support for Donny)

anti-communism=Yes

nativism=Possible, he certainly does seem to rant a lot about other races.

favouring an elitist society= Hard to say, as it all depends on what you mean by an elite. Certainly he seems to favour Donny (a member of an elite if ever there was one, in fact bending over backwards to justify him).

anti-immigration=Yes

anti-integrationlly, bit hard to tell given the rants about Yogart makers and general anti-immigration material. But yes, he does seem to have issues with "the other".

So on balance he seems to either explicitly or to some degree support polices that can be seen as far right.Slatersteven (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems futile to fight about it now as it's clear no RS dare post anything positive about Jones so there's a lack of credible ammunition with which to go off of, per se, but he rants about problems within every race/group, including christians, republicans & whites. Also, he is anti-illegal immigration, not anti-legal immigration. In the end, we can talk in circles all day about this but I'd rather stop the discussion here & concede as it's a battle I don't foresee being won. Thank you though, Slatersteven, for being polite & hearing me out. Aglo123 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What has yogurt factories got to do with Illegal immigration? Sorry but that was pure anti-immigrant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now we are not talking about improving the article and we are bantering about politics. Like I said, we can argue in circles about this, that and the other regarding Jones and you'll have your opinion and I'll have mine with counterarguments for days. This is not the forum for this if we are not trying to improve the article. Goodbye. Aglo123 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones is not far right. Alex Jones is extreme ultra hardcore far right. I also disagree with the labelling of Alex Jones in the article.175.156.28.126 (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Why is wikipedia submitting to this sort of smear? Far right based on the opinion of two random journalists. I thought this was supposed to be an unbiased site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:4044:D4E9:2466:CF34 (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

2? [1], [2], [3]. that is three after a few seconds search.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Those are all from the same source, and two are written by the same person. Not sure this article is neutral at all, seems more like a smear piece. But reading through the archives it seems that any efforts to try to fix this fail. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6], [7]. Would you like any more?Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

AlaskanNativeRU, Slatersteven could sit here giving you links until you guys filled this talk page. In the end, it doesn't matter whether you reject those links or not. What matters is that the consensus and policy here is to describe Jones in the same way that RSes describe him, and not according to your own original research. I could just as easily list a large number of points on which Jones would fail to qualify as [insert-your-favorite-political-ideology-to-call-Jones-here], but that's just as much OR as your opening comment. We follow the sources, so unless you have a preponderance of reliable sources arguing that Jones isn't far-right; we're sticking with what we've got. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Alex's middle name is misspelled. It should be "Emric" 76.191.67.59 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 8 August 2017

I'd like to retain the line about Jones' sales promotions in the article lead. I believe Jones' salesmanship is vital to understanding his work. I have added credible citation. I would like expand the article in the next few days with a small section on his website sales and sales figures. WarpSpeedRainbowRead (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You may well, but we need RS making the link.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course. I'd just like to keep the line in the lead for now. I have a lot to do over the next couple of days with a small section, mostly just sales figures and reiteration of the time devoted on his show to promoting the website/products. Should I post the intended edits to talk first for approval from ye-who-have-protected? WarpSpeedRainbowRead (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why this is any more important then any number of other people whop use their fame to plug goods. You need to have an RS making the point that this is in some way special or noteworthy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Right. I already do. It's now been reported in the media. He tells you there are problems then he sells you the solutions. At significant markups. WarpSpeedRainbowRead (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

So are to actually provide a link that says this is an issue?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Slater, he did provide an RS. The criticisms are covered in the LA Times, and were made by John Oliver. The problem I'm seeing is that this is one single criticism. It's just not important enough for the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure this establish enough weight to be in the body. This is why I want RS saying it is an issue, not just reporting that John Oliver made a few cheap digs.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say more than one RS. As Slater pointed out, many famous people do this. Especially in recent decades, with the rise of the internet. As I said in the edit summary where I reverted: it can go in the body just fine (though I'd put the second sentence in source voice), with no arguments here. But it's not a part of what defines Jones. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Jones frightens his audience then sells them products to sooth the fears. And those other famous people are essentially what Jones is as well, brands selling products. I'll find more sources and move the current line for now, but that's who Jones is. WarpSpeedRainbowRead (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how deplorable the behavior is or how true the criticisms are. It matters how much it defines Jones. And frankly, it's not in any way contributing to who Jones is. Even if Jones did not sell any products at all, he'd still be a conspiracy theorist who runs Infowars and is known for his emotional political rhetoric. Please take a look at MOS:LEAD, which is our guidelines for how the ledes work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I know a snake oil salesman when I see one. WarpSpeedRainbowRead (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And I suspect many would agree with you, but we still need RS saying he is one, this must be attributed to John Oliver if it is to be included.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Supplements/Products

Have noted Buzzfeed/Labdoor's report on Alex Jones' supplements. This is obviously a contentious page, so I wanted to run it by other editors before making any significant changes - - - do we want to add anything to the article about these vitamin supplements which are claimed to play a major part in sustaining Jones' business model? I couldn't quickly find anything about the matter on the page. I have noted the discussion above, but it does seem curious that there should be no mention of vitamins (I see some mention of products), when they are all over the website, and Jones himself often promotes them verbally. Given that these and his other products are directly related to his pet theories (such anti-fluoridation water filters) and guests (see Edward Group, GQ below), does this warrant its own section, given that according to Der Spiegel two-thirds of Infowars' funding derives from such sales? A few links for anyone who's interested:

San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/local/article/SF-lab-finds-out-what-s-actually-in-Alex-Jones-11748954.php

Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-visit-to-the-infowars-studios-of-alex-jones-a-1136654.html

Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/we-sent-alex-jones-infowars-supplements-to-a-lab-heres?utm_term=.kdzNvMaXv#.diw9QjxqQ

GQ: https://www.gq.com/story/john-oliver-alex-jones-owned

Salon: http://www.salon.com/2017/08/10/alex-jones-infowars-supplements/

Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/john-oliver-alex-jones-last-week-tonight-infowars-644240

Infowars has also responded:

https://www.infowars.com/fail-buzzfeed-attack-on-infowars-blows-up-in-their-face/

Any thoughts? Cpaaoi (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, something should definitely be added. There are usable sources for this content, although it's a bit of a walled garden with how often they seem to link to each other.

While Buzzfeed is, um, unpopular in many circles, to put it mildly, their news division has a pretty good track record. They shared a Pulitzer win at one point, for example. That article also links to this one from New York Magazine.

Salon should probably be avoided, when possible.

The Newsweek one links to http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-visit-to-the-infowars-studios-of-alex-jones-a-1136654.html this article] at Der Spiegel. That article is useful because it helps explain some of the significance of this story outside of the John Oliver mention. He brought a lot more attention to this, but was not the first to notice it or study it.

Infowars' response is of limited value, here. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I wasn't sure about Salon, and I likewise would attach little intrinsic value to the Infowars piece, but I thought it was as well to recognize that there had been a response! Cpaaoi (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the suggested addition?Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

His products are obviously notable and deserve a mention. The current framing, which uses only John Oliver's analysis, is largely irrelevant to his overall career though.LM2000 (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

How would something like this sound (haven't bothered to format the links yet):

Infowars product range

A 2017 piece for German magazine Der Spiegel by Veit Medick indicated that two-thirds of Jones' funds derive from sales of a successful range of his own products. These products are marketed through the Infowars website and through advertising spots on Jones' show. They include dietary supplements, toothpaste, bulletproof vests and "brain pills", according to Medick, amid a wide range appealing to "anyone who believes Armageddon is near".

In August 2017, Californian medical company Labdoor, Inc reported on tests applied to six of Jones' dietary supplement products. These included a product named 'Survival Shield', which was found by Labdoor to contain only iodine, and a product named Oxy-Powder, which comprised a compound of magnesium oxide and citric acid; common ingredients in dietary supplements. Labdoor indicated no evidence of prohibited or harmful substances, but cast doubt on Infowars' marketing claims for these products, and asserted that the quantity of the ingredients in certain products would be "too low to be appropriately effective". Cpaaoi (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• For the record: This is the level of sourcing I was looking for in the last talk section. I'm on board with using these sources to add some material to the article. If it results in a long enough section, that might even justify adding in a sentence about the John Oliver criticisms. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I like it. I also don't mind a John Oliver reference, it just needs WP:DUE weight.LM2000 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Bit long for my tastes, not sure this is that important. But can live with it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is that important. If Medick is correct that two-thirds of the income derives from these questionable products, then, from an economic perspective at least, Infowars could be characterized as a mail-order company, with a broadcasting division. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is clearly no particular objection to this curious omission of what appears to be Jones' central activity; so in it goes! Cpaaoi (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: incorporation of mail-order business details

I don't mean to labor this point, and, again, I would have just gone right ahead and done it myself, but there is obviously a lot of debate over this page, so I ask here: Jones is described here as a "radio show host, filmmaker, writer, and conspiracy theorist". Would it be appropriate to note in this list that he is a businessman, given that his mail-order business appears to be the principal way in which he feeds himself and his family? Cpaaoi (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

See no reason why not, as this is such a huge part of what he does.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Please add in "businessman". 175.156.2.214 (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones is now a [other kind of] conspiracy theorist

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.806924 AHC300 (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is vastly insufficient sourcing for the claims in the (former) section title. Please see our policy on the biographies of living people. Such a label would (by policy) require extensive sourcing in order to pass muster. A single, pro-Jewish outlet calling out Jones over a single antisemtic incident will not cut it. Furthermore, I suggest you find far more sourcing than would be required by policy to make such a claim, as there's currently a huge debate raging across multiple pages over whether to describe Jared Taylor, one of the most notable white supremacists of our time as a white supremacist. If it's controversial on-wiki to describe that guy in this way, the shitstorm over describing Jones in that way would be of biblical proportions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How about Jones as white nationalist? Will there be shitstorm over that? I see it as "fair" label for Alex Jones.175.156.2.214 (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither one is even remotely well supported enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing the title of this thread does not alter what you wanted to say in the article. For him to be labelled (what the point of this thread was originally) anti-Semitic we need more then one source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It was I who changed the title. BLP applies to talk pages as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz is most certainly a reliable source - for this as well. However, I agree that for this to be added we'd need more than just one source stating it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above entirely. When Haaretz is used in conjunction with other sources to evince a negative BLP statement, it is perfectly acceptable. The presence of a bias in Haaretz's reporting is a factor only when it's the only source making the claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's ADL on the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That pretty much aligns with my view: "Jones is not demonstrably anti-Semitic, but frequently expresses his distaste for “globalists,” which some consider a dog-whistle term for “Jewish.”" followed up by Jones saying some ridiculously ignorant and stereotypical things about Jews. He's clearly a bigot IMHO, but he's careful to stay juuuuust this side of the line. I don't think the sourcing is going to get good enough any times soon to label him an antisemite in WP voice even with the slate source below, unless he has a meltdown on air or something. Err, unless he has more of a meltdown on air than usual, as his shows generally come off like a lunatic having a meltdown on the air. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you to stop agreeing with me? Or was that the other way around? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Crap, sorry. Oh wait, do apologies count as agreement? Umm... I mean, stop trying to push your commie fascist views on this article, you libtard hippie! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)