Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Who cares what "Journalist Michelle Goldberg has stated"

I have nothing against her, but what is the reason that her opinon of AJ is in the article about AJ? She isn't some famous scientist. Again I don't have a problem with her, but I don't see her as a some magic source of truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.171.1 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Because this is Wikipedia. AKA a joke.

Agreed this statement is not important. 12.129.136.5 (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2010 (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)

He's not "known" for anti-globalism? LOL, I've been listening to him every day for the past two years and he is clearly quite strongly anti-globalism and has done several films on the topic of world government. Brainchannels (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2010 (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)

In fact most of his conspiracy theories are just slightly updated John Birch Society material with 'communist' hastily scribbled out and 'globalist' scrawled beside it. He has been accused of a great deal of plagarism.

Your John Birch Society comment is interesting. Here's an excerpt from New Republic article: "Nevertheless, Jones’s roots are very much on the far right. He represents an old strain of American conservatism--isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies--that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday." Varks Spira (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alex's info isn't paranoia, it's reality. Men like Glenn Beck and now even Limbaugh are beginning to copy his materials and forewarnings. Alex Jones backs up everything he states with evidence. If you want to remain in denial you'll continue to label this man as a paranoid conspiracy theorist. If you want to face reality of the nature of the world we live in, you'll dig deeper. Apparently you're too shallow to look into what this man has to say based on his well documented research evidence. Y ou're too busy writing up this pathetic attempt to write this man's history. Alex Jones writes his own history quite well, and you'll never overcome what he's achieved. Millions of people listen to his program daily and he's made a difference in our world, including exposing the criminals manipulation of climate data to bring in another world Hitler regime. To trust any government is foolish. They're not our caretakers. Historically governments are the vehicle where millions get slaughtered. Check out eugenics, their next plan to eliminate 80% of the population so they can fulfill their plans for total world domination. Brainchannels (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex's "info" is entirely his speculation, not based on facts. I couldn't say whether it's paranoia or just attempting to incite a revolt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the use of the beating around the bush type language in reference to his conspiracy theories. The phrase "Mainstream news sources has referred to Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist" is puzzling to me, as he has a veritable galaxy of THEORIES about CONSPIRACIES in virtually every facet of society and life in general! Is it considered opinionated or accusatory to simply say, "He is a dedicated conspiracy theorist"? I understand that most conspiracy theorists dislike the term, presumably due to the negative connotation and connotations of insanity that goes along with such a label. However, the fact remains that he theorizes about various conspiracies. It appears the phrase "Mainstream news sources has referred to" is unnecessary and shows weakness on the part of Wikipedia to do the very thing that an information resource is designed to do: present information as clearly, error-free, and unbiased as possible. I checked Rush Limbaugh's page, and it refers to him as a "conservative political commentator." No mention of "He is commonly thought to be..." or "Some people think of him as a...". No, it calls him what he is. Why should Alex Jones receive special treatment? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are... 70.134.74.15 (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the phrase "Mainstream news sources have referred to..." remains. A very misleading phrase that needs to be removed. It's a stain on the article. 70.134.97.106 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I'm not going to fix it, because of the previous edit warring here which would continue. I have no objection to others fixing it, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

Well I would fix it myself if the article wasn't locked. It's absurd. In one paragraph, the article notes that mainstream news sources have referred to Jones as a "right-winger", "conservative" and a "conspiracy theorist." In the next, the article states what Jones calls himself. He "self-admits" that he believes that there is a global conspiracy taking place to establish a "New World Order" where 80% of the population will be wiped out and a one-world government will be put in place. At the center of this...uh, conspiracy, is Barack Obama and the United Nations, who are working in tandem to accomplish this, in no small part to using the swine flu vaccine as a scare tactic that is really designed for eugenic purposes to assist in the mass murder of the Earth's population. Even with all this, the phrase "...have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist" remains. Just because he doesn't like the phrase "conspiracy theorist" doesn't mean that it makes the article inaccurate to label him as such. The current phrasing is asinine and shows a clear bias.Don'tDrinkTheKoolAid (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a conspiracy for the mainstream media to refer to Jones as a conspiracy theorist? Part of a very nasty mudslinging campaign? Jones describes himself as one who "only talks about what he can prove". If anyone spends time listening to him, 90% of his show is him reading mainstream articles on air (the other 10% is commercials). It would violate POV to "declare" that he is a conspiracy theorist when he clearly isn't. Mainstream media, his competition, is not/(can not be) an authority on him.

Actually, I have a big problem with the term "mainstream". Can someone define mainstream media for me? Or for that matter can anyone point me to a reputable source that lists which media outlets that are mainstream? The mainstream sources cited in this article--with the possible exception of the WSJ--can hardly be considered "mainstream" by any common idea of the term. Besides the common idea of the term, which is nearly impossible to define, the term itself is meaningless, vague, and charged, and shouldn't appear in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about precision, information, and reliability.72.93.193.22 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to have the article say that he is referred to as a conspiracy theorist by everyone, which is pretty much true. Can you name anyone other than Jones, himself, who does not refer to Jones as a conspiracy theorist? "Mainstream" was a compromise, which I'm now starting to regret agreeing to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist? More like a nutjob preying on the ignorant and stupid to earn a comfortable living. 67.70.29.102 (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2010 (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)

In truth Jones uses a standard rhetorical tool of the far-right. He will focus on cases where he is able to defend the 'free-speech' of extremists and use that as a platform to air their views. Thus he isn't explicitly saying anything racist or anti-semitic, just defending those who are. Most of the extreme right use the technique as it circumvents certain FCC broadcast limitations. he seems to be much more overt about his anti-gay views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.7.123 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones has never even remotely implied anything antisemitic. If so, where are your sources? Rbpolsen♦☺♦ 05:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a near daily listener to Alex Jones, and while I do not agree with the majority of what he says, i do find him entertaining and interesting. I dont believe 9/11 was an inside job etc etc. And while Alex may say some "controversial" claims i have NEVER heard him say anything anti-semetic in the least. Some callers have brought up the global zionist stuff but Alex has never said anything bad about people who are Jewish as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of the criticism he gets about being antisemitic have to do with his comments on the government of Israel as well. I would like to point out that while I do find him to be inflammatory, I cannot in good faith support the idea that his statements represent antisemitism anymore than a persons stated dislike of Normal Rockwell represent a dislike of small town America. 24.188.207.20 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Alex Jones is a zionist shill" - Jeff Rense

He has never shown anti-semitic bias. Accusing unpopular/controversial figures of racial or other bias is a common scare tactic to discredit them. Stating that the Israeli government is corrupt and part of a global conspiracy along with America's government is (political) criticism of a government and has nothing to do with race. Whether or not you agree with Alex Jones' views, for the sake of argument if he is even partly right about controlled & subservient mainstream media, don't baseless accusations like the ones on this page neatly fit his theory that independent media figures are attacked at all costs? Sursurrus (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (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

?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.191.205 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Films

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

No, Alex Jones was not in the film Slacker. He was in Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 2 November 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)

I agree. Every other "media" person has their appearances sourced in their articles. He's also on Coast to Coast AM fairly often, which should be included. 24.188.207.20 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones' Religion

What are his religious beliefs, and how do they affect his agenda?Lily20 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[snipped] - WP:BLP (by Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

Hmm...Im pretty sure hes not a Discordian if that's what you're saying. That was a serious question, btw. Does anyone know the answer? Lily20 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He describes himself as protestant christian. As for how that affects his agenda, well, we can't really say within the article without a good source as that would be original research. A place to get a quote about that may well be Jon Ronsons book. It makes him think that things like the Grove rituals are satanic, whereas someone more mainstream/rational like Ronson just thinks it's immature behavior of the wealthy and powerful blowing off steam. Agent4200 (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! Lily20 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This article gives some idea on his religious position www.infowarscom/movie-review-avatar-and-paganism/ --24.43.71.37 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Endgame

Endgame the movie has been deleted by a wikipedia admin. - It is a movie, it exists, it deserves a page. Not providing a page actually PROVES his points about control over free speech, and media control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khilkoff (talk • contribs) 23:46, September 26, 2009

It was userfied, apparently as an advertising piece, in April 2009, to User:Echofloripa/End Game (2007 film). If you want to work on it there, go ahead. When it becomes credible to say that there's something other than advertising material there, you can request it be moved to articlespace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that not all films that exist are notable; see WP:NF for the guidelines related to that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit. Seems notable given that several reviews describe it as "cinematic gold" and, at the time, "his best film yet." Can we do a deletion review? I have yet to see one in action. Varks Spira (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that the Endgame page is up now. Thanks for putting it on wikipedia. Now if only we can properly expand the Alex Jones wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

John Birch Society

I'd like to know what similarities Alex Jones has with the John Birch Society's ideas. Can anything be dug up? I haven't found anything much. Max Blumenthal compares today's far right to the John Birch Society of Eisenhower's day. He lumps Alex Jones in with today's far right. That's about as close as I've come. It's important to compare Alex Jones ideas to ideas of the past. Here's an interesting quote I put in the lede from a New Republic article: "Nevertheless, Jones’s roots are very much on the far right. He represents an old strain of American conservatism--isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies--that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday." Anyone with sources that provide more insight? Varks Spira (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

One very prominent item is his opposition to flouridation of water. That was a huge issue with the JBS 40+ years ago.

Radio Sharon (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

views of alex jones?

Didn't there used to be a "views of Alex Jones" article? There doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage of his own assertions in this article. For example, I'm listening to his 12 Oct 09 program, and he asserts that he is on "government hit lists": I seriously think that including that in his article would bring some "balance" to his article... as right now, this doesn't go into enough detail about his crazy views. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It may violate WP:BLP. One would need reliable sources as to his craziness, rather than just giving examples — I mean, claimed examples. (See how hard it is?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering his views are aired on his radio show which can be downloaded, or are aired on his films which can be watched on the internet, I don't see what the problem is. The primary sources litter the interwebs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Listing his views may be acceptable, but saying they're crazy? I don't think we can do that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are taking Hypnotoad too literally. I know what he means. Toad wants a good summary of all the views that Alex Jones holds, and so do I. Jones is a colorful character with views on 9/11, Katrina, etc.... but what are his positions on those events? What could have happened to the article "views of Alex Jones"? I'd like to see it. Did it go the way of Endgame (2007 film)? Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed in my watchlist that I've watchlisted Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche. So Views of Alex Jones must be out there somewhere. Varks Spira (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the article did exist... but it's not linked to by this article. That's suspicious. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah-ha!!! It was AfDed, with a consensus to MERGE to this article. [1] however, nobody bothered to do the merge. What's say we do it now? [2] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

- and - for Arthur Rubin - I'm actually a little concerned that this article doesn't go into the slightest detail about what an utter nutcase he is. I'm not saying rewrite the lead to "Alex Jones is a nutcase", but I do think it's vitally important that a person coming across this article for the first time, who's never heard of him, knows right off the bat that Alex Jones professes the existence of a worldwide Satanic conspiracy, regularly purports himself to be in danger of assassination by the global elite, supports hoarding gold and guns, asserts that the global elite is moronizing the masses with fluoridation, asserts that the H1N1 vaccinations are an attempt to exterminate millions, and so on. This is attributable right from his show, his website, and his movies, and as they are his views, stating that they are his is perfectly within the bounds of WP:BALANCE and WP:RS. Right now, this article is making him look like a cuddly version of Glenn Beck. That is misleading and should be fixed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found the article's bulk in the article history, but I doubt a lot of it is attributable. It even looks like just general comments about history, such as the history of the John Birch Society. All the sources are weak. It would be a nice article to have but it isn't anywhere near reliable yet. Varks Spira (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

oh and BTW - according to last Monday's show, he had "hit pieces" written about him on Salon.com, New Republic, and "George Soros's webiste" - I forget the name of that. Maybe I should just go there, find those articles, and start adding in what they're pointing out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jones said that George Soros had written an article about the Oath Keepers but I still haven't been able to find such a Soros article yet. I do agree with you that there should be a LOT more criticism of Alex Jones in this article. It's doesn't nearly do the man justice yet. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know, under what circumstances are we allowed to use PrisonPlanet.com articles and InfoWars.com articles? www.infowarscom/articles/commentary/alex_jones_interviews_mcmanus.htm This one] discussing the John Birch Society is written at Infowars.com and can probably be considered propaganda. Varks Spira (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The March 2007 Hustler magazine article about 9/11 is very interesting. When I heard Jones talking about how he predicted 9/11, it boggled my mind. Was he crazy or did he actually predict something? This Hustler article gives an explanation and it should be used as a source. Varks Spira (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that we may uses inforwars.com articles only for sources as to what Jones says; any commentary as to what he may have meant or how crazy it is must come from reliable sources. Hustler sounds promising as a reliable source, but I don't have a copy. Most of the libraries I go to don't have (at least, easily accessable copies).  :-P — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, articles from infowars.com and prisonplanet.com can be said to faithfully present Alex Jones' purported views. (On every show, he notes them as his websites, thus we don't need to worry about pedigree.) I wouldn't even go so far as to say "Alex Jones believes X", because he might just be doing a Colbert; but certainly "Alex Jones asserts X" is fair comment for anything that he writes on his website. WP:BLP isn't meant to protect someone from his own crazy statements - if he's willing to post it on his website, he should accept that others will note that fact. And as for Hustler, go check Pirate Bay. I mean... this is for research purposes! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh - Arthur Rubin check above. Varks Spira has linked to the Alex Jones Hustler article in pdf form. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

and further info on Alex Jones is in Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy - [3]. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog link is a clear copyright violation, which we can't use, even if we can trust it as correct. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're misapplying WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia content isn't allowed to violate copyright. We are personally allowed to look at whatever outside sources we want in whatever format they come. WTF do you want, anyway? Want someone to buy you a subscription to Hustler? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and PS - Prison Planet attacked Wikipedia once a few years ago - www.prisonplanetcom/articles/july , 2007/280707fightback.htm]. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. He attacked me, personally, last year. The basic COI principle suggests I should ignore it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I wish I could score that sort of action. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome. So they (Alex Jones & company) are reading our discussions and watching our editing, as the days go by? Rubin's mentioned in a 2007 forum discussion titled www.infowarscom/archives/2007/september/09-29-07.html "Arthur Rubin attempts to edit and discredit Alex on his Wikipedia page"] and for a Wikipedia article history edit summary in a 2009 article titled www.prisonplanetcom/wikipedia-renames-911-controlled-demolition-page-to-a-conspiracy-theory.html "Wikipedia renames 9/11 controlled demolition page to a “conspiracy theory” "]. I haven't read the forum discussion. The Hustler article is good, no? It's available on the web illegally, but it is a real reliable article that you could get at the right library. I'll be back later, for more. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to add criticisms or anything that puts alex in an unfavorable light to this article.. they will never stay.. they will just be reverted over and over using the excuse of BLP (no matter how well sourced or documented). I mean there was like 5 video's from different angles of his little screaming fit against tiny michelle malkin where people were screaming kill michelle malkin and hes yelling to people dont let her go... but as you can see. all vanished from the article.. this is one of those "special" articles that needs to be locked and have only a small group of people neutral to alex jones be allowed to edit it. The guy says were all gonna be locked up in amtrak concentration camps equipped with gas chambers..and he makes tons off selling fear to somewhat unstable people. With all the products advertised on prison planet being stuff like gold bullion, stocked food containers for the coming apoocolypse, red light evader license plates, water purifying equipment... or whatever..He even used to list on his advertising page that you good buy ads disguised as news articles (so people are tricked into clicking on them).. This article does not go anywhere near enough into extreme "views" or propoganda or advertising or whatever you would like to call it. The sad thing is.. it never will. Im suprised this section has even stayed up on the talk page this long without somoeone crying BLP and deleting it all.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Tracer9999, many people dont like Alex Jones but just because they don't like him that doesn't give them a license to post negatively about him. But I also don't think there needs to be a bunch of praise for him either. We need to retain neutrality. Iscream22 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Videos, even if from a credible source (which those weren't), are subject to interpretation. If there is specfic criticism from a reliable source, it may very well be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I will add the criticism if you will point me to some reliable sources documenting Alex Jones's views and statements. I try to avoid anything published on Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com because those articles are obviously biased. Can you proffer us with a few sources that you would like to include? Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

here's one view [4] 93.86.205.97 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Why does wikipedia always include completely biased views from leftist journalists in initial articles on conservatives? It's really annoying, why don't we see it written on for example, obamaramas article, "Rush Limbaugh has described obama as the communist negro anti-christ" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.186.173 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's because there is real-world consensus, even among conservatives, that Alex Jones is a crank. Still, it's possible that some opinions (mostly Alex's but possibly that of some liberals) have filtered into this article as if they were facts. If you could be specific? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As someone who at first thought Alex Jones was a "crank" you have to really listen to him a while to realize he's truly onto something and his program has made a huge difference in the world. For you to make this statement is highly ignorant because Mr. Jones' films and radio program have grown exponentially and many people respect him. He has top officials and very well respected people like Gerald Celente, Trends Forecaster, Bob Chapman and a wide range of very credible people he interviews. Mr. Jones is for real. At times his emotions and passions are imbalanced, however he has a talent for research and communicating the whole picture of those who have an agenda to control the world's finances and bring in a brutal, evil tyranny. You may want to consider Maddoff a crank and many of the nutcases who rose in government from the 1970's who used to be considered "cranks" by far saner people in government back then. Start focusing on the people causing problems in our world and stop picking on the little guy documentary film maker. Other contributions to the world by Alex Jones: Helped expose the phony flu scare in which greedy pharmaceutical companies were planning on use to spread the flu while making billions, the media now admits! Helped expose the phony global warming alarmist fraud and phony UN scientific data, predicted 9/11 and Bin Laden used as a patsy; Has been one of the primary sources of information on the Bilderberg Group meeting activities around the world, their guests, and secret agendas; Exposing secret society's in America and their roots in Masonry and satanic occult practices of those in power who participate in the Bohemian Grove mock child sacrifice ceremonies. This Wikipedia page is really a sign of how politics attempts to hide the truth. Alex Jones has done a lot of good in this world exposing evil. Have a problem with that?--Brainchannels (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't get how Michelle <!portion reducted per WP:BLP>berg's(or whatever her name was)is relevant in any sense. Is there anyway to precisely measure "real world consensus" by the way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.186.173 (talk • contribs) 14:30, October 27, 2009

Michelle Goldberg is an established journalist with some books published. Still, I'm not convinced her opinions belong in the lede. Perhaps that sentence could be tagged for further consideration as to whether there are any differing opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was also wandering what makes Michelle's opinion so distinguished. Also, Mainstream news sources have referred to him as .. from the lede cites several sources of which I recognize only two -- and therefore could call them mainstream (BBC and WT). Are other sources also mainstream? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to measure "real world consensus" it's all opinions. And even if one took polls it would only be a percentage of the population. Not to mention tons of people have never even heard of Alex Jones. And yeah mainstream media does tend to view Alex as a kook but Alex has a decent amount of fans that listen to his program, myself included. And im a hardcore libertarian but i dont agree with a lot of what Alex says but he does make some great points. A lot of his points on the bilderberg group, the rapid advancement of technology and people owning Global Positioning Syetem technology in their cars, cell phones, and even parents putting them on their children, the post 9-11 overly-paranoid public, the illusion that is the war on drugs and how its impossible to "win" it, people being prescribed drugs left and right for new diseases while the pharmaceutical industry is raking in tons of cash, the widespread public acceptance of listening and accepting what the mainstream media/news dictates and accepting it as fact without thinking for oneself, and most importantly the promotion of the constitution and how many things in our generation (Patriot Act, violation of the 4th amendment, 1st amendment ETC). So while some people may think he is a kook, and while at times i think he's kooky, he makes very good points often on every program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscream22 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Websites

Doesn't Alex Jones own/run several websites? I don't see any mention of these (although I may not have looked closely enough). --95.34.3.54 (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{editsemiprotected}} please add 'citation neeeded' tag next to this sentence: The most frequent guests of the program include Jones' own staffers, producers, advertisers and the writers or publishers of books and videos which Jones sells at his web sites. thanks. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, even if the IP address is probably Jones. Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

impressive observation. i didn't know jones lives in belgrade. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. remind me as i forgot, who is conspiracy theorists here thinking all the world (including IPs) is conspiring? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones has a lot of proxies. Still, even he would be allowed to make suggestions about the article, in spite of his attacks against Wikipedia and Wikipedians. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

interesting. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that I'm one of the Wikipedians he's personally attacked, in spite of my attempts to keep claims (only sourced to videos) that he assaulted a reporter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

i see you guys have feeling for each other (he attacking you personally, u calling him a crank)... isn't it fascinating how this online virtual activity intertwines with our nonvirtual lives? 93.86.205.97 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Under 'Media > The Alex Jones Show' there is a list of guests, one of them is "Muse frontman Matthew Bellamy." The Muse link should point to Muse_(band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.166.80 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

info to add

he reported that american police force in montana had a serbian crest. www.infowarscom/investigation-could-sink-american-police-force/ 93.86.205.97 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not unless that report is commented on by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mont. lawmakers want info on secretive Calif. firm Forbes - Sep 30, 2009

On a Web site run by right-wing radio show host Alex Jones, a posting claimed that employees of American Police Force had "occupied" the city and started... 93.86.205.97 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be on forbes.com, and doesn't appear to specify that he's responsible for the post. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

i don't intend to subscribe to forbs, but it was indexed on forbes by google. anyhow, it may not refer to the post linked above, but it does refer to the same news on american police force. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, found it in google search caches, but the source credits a post of one of Jones' sites, not specifying that Jones is responsible. It doesn't seem usable, and doesn't mention a Serbian crest in the copies I saw. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

that specific serbian crest info is not in forbes. however, other info about this illegal police and alex jones reporting on it is in forbes. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

i see now what you mean. web site run by ... alex jones.... o.k. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to Google News

There's currently two references (4 & 7 in this version) which are supposed to be linking to a San Jose Mercury News article but are actually linking to a Google News search. I presume this is because the article is no longer available at least without paying but the search doesn't even find the article anymore. I did find the article via this search [5] which confirms it's not available. However using a Google search, which only shows a snippet isn't good practice and unless we can find an archive this probably should be removed. I presume the reason this article is used is because it's from the same paper and so intended to show that even some papers can't make up their mind. The problem is this probably isn't a particularly accurate reading of the situation, in fact the search we use does find some existing/working refs like [6] & [7] which show this is very likely an AP story (the text we can see looks the same) so the San Joes Mercury News article was probably just repeating what the AP story said. I suggest that the Google News search refs be replaced by one of these refs (and that ref archived) Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Without checking details at this time, if the articles in question were in the Mercury News, and properly described, we should replace the original cite of the paper's site to point to reference the physical copy only. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible the articles were in the paper edition or they may have simply been online. Unless someone is volunteering to track down these article and find out if it was ever in the paper edition I don't personally see much point given the existance of what is very likely nearly the same article in other sources. Yes this may not have the benefit of being the same source as the other source we use but I still feel it's misleading anyway given that all we're really saying here is probably that San Jose Mercury News doesn't have strong enough guidelines to ensure they change AP stories on how they refer to Alex Jones. In any case, these appear to have originated from User:Varks Spira who's been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:The Wurdalak who was also blocked indefinitely for continually sockpuppetry. He/she did mention newsbank so it's possible these did exist in the paper edition but appears to be referring to a different paper in one instance so I'm not sure what's going on there and I'm not aware of the details surrounding the sockpuppetry so it's possible they just found the Google News cache and decided it must be in NewsBank [8] [9]. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

alex jones image on article

Im not sure how this works but are we sure the image is properly licensed and not just taken from some page? I noticed the user who uploaded it is now indefinatly blocked from editing. Which makes me concerned wether or not the image license is valid.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you check out the image info page (click on it), you'll see it's a cropped version of this photo on flickr [10]. The image is indeed under a cc license but is cc-by-sa 2.0 rather then the cc-by 2.0. Both of these are acceptable for wikipedia but it is important we get the license right so I've corrected it. If this image was uploaded to the commons:commons, I believe there's a bot which will automatically verify this anyway. Incidentally images should always give the source as this one did. If you find an image which doesn't give the source, then that's a problem and you may want to tag it so it can be taken care of. In terms of the flickr image, I see no reason to doubt the uploader has the rights to release it under the license, it's clearly an amateur image most likely taken on behalf of the uploader on their camera. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am the user who uploaded the image, also note I have been allowed to return to to editing. The image is acceptable for wikipedia. I have changed the main photo back to the file I uploaded, it is a better portrait, the old photo is totally horrible and has outlived its time on the page.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this photo [11] you can barely make out Alex Jones' face due to lighting and it is from a off angle, and he has a sun frown. In the photo [12] the photo is frontal with much better lighting not to mention you can see his features with a semi smile. Others opinions on this matter are much welcomed.--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Both images are acceptable and neither is clearly superior to the other. For what it's worth, I think if anyone cared enough to put it to a vote that the first image would win handily. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the image File:Alex Jones thumbs up.jpg is of lesser quality than the previous one, File:AlexJonesBB2007.jpg, both with regard to effective resolution and with regard to color. For me, the quality of File:Alex Jones thumbs up.jpg raises BLP concerns, because it may appear to be deliberately distorted. (Note that I do not think the author of the image actually has deliberately distorted it.) I'd recommend to restore the previous image.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud use this: http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/bio/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.241.109 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of PrisonPlanet.com

Infowars and PrisonPlanet are similar but different sites both officially controlled by Jones. To say that "one is enough" without group consensus is unsupported. There's no good reason not to list both here. See WP:ELOFFICIAL for guidelines. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

At one point, there were 8 sites listed. I admit, I can't find the discussion where they were removed (there being gaps in the archives), but there seemed to be consensus that 8 is enough too many. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it either. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism section.

I like all of the Alex Jones' documentaries but the lack of a criticism section, makes me feel like I'm on the pages of "Gandhi" or "Mother Teresa", both persons with BIG personality flaws(racism and hypocrisy) but lacking of criticism, "because they are saints, they are perfect! they had flawless souls", etc. If we have to be fair, I would like to see other POV's, from people who disagree with Alex Jones, or his ideas. So don't dismiss all criticism, an article without criticism, it's, by definition a dogmatic article, a religious establishment.--201.247.28.7 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think his style would be one area of criticism he shouts far too much, although I have no sources to back up my claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.107.228 (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Certain articles are exempt from criticism. See for example Talk:European Union/Frequently asked questions. ―cobaltcigs 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You may misunderstand. That article is not exempt from criticism. An editorial decision was made to write criticism seamlessly into the text rather than have an awkward, lone criticism section. This approach is usually preferred, but it doesn't make sense for all articles. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Alex Jones has been a controversial figure for quite some time now. I think it would only be appropriate to create a "Criticism" section. 72.240.82.155 (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be found, Be bold and insert using those sources. However, a placeholder with zero content should not be added as a placeholder (note: placeholders should not be used for any sections with zero content, just singling out a criticism section as that's what I removed from the article earlier [13]). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I will find what I can for NPOV. Although, I don't think there is any reason only one wikipedia contributor should work on it, considering the fact this is a collective project.72.240.82.155 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.59.63.144, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Who ever maintains this page needs to add How Weed Won The West to his filmography. Really good film. 174.59.63.144 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide more details please? Like what year the film was made, and what role Jones plays in the films production? -- œ^™ 00:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem with two references

Two facts are referenced only to a radio station or show, with a date but no time. For a fact to be verifiable, it needs to be cited in such a way that someone questioning that fact can find the source of it. This is not the case for the following references:

^ Jones, Alex. Coast to Coast AM. January 27, 2007. ^ Jones, Alex. The Alex Jones Radio Show. February 6, 2006.

Wwallacee (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Alex Jones (radio host) is an occasional "expert" on RT (TV network) (formerly known as Russia Today).

Add Alex Jones (radio host) is an occasional "expert" on RT (TV network) (formerly known as Russia Today). 99.155.145.227 (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

ABC News on Alex Jones

Angry in America: Inside Alex Jones' World  Cs32en Talk to me  03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is horrendously inaccurate and needs to be reworked

"Horrendously inaccurate" and "needs to be reworked" seem to me to be a bit excessive (which, in addition to my admittedly subjective impression of your tone in that which follows, in turn causes me concern regarding your interest in preserving the neutrality of this article).

• If there are specific inaccuracies in an article, one can edit them.

• Reworking an entire article seems to me to be unnecessary in cases (such as this) in which the addition of a section will suffice. Specific to your apparent concern, Template:Biography suggests that a biographical article may well include a section entitled to the effect of "Philosophical and/or political views".

Nemodomi (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read this article a few times over now, and I have to say that it is one of the worst articles I've seen on wikipedia. Alex Jones is primarily known for being a conspiracy theorist,

As noted in the first paragraph of Conspiracy theory, the term has come to have a perjorative tone. If you are indeed neutrally interested in expanding this article in order to enlighten readers regarding Jones' views, I humbly and kindly suggest that in the process of doing so you adhere to the guidance recommended in Template:Biography under the section "Philosophical and/or political views", viz. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for individuals to espouse their views. However, views held by politicians, writers, and others may be summarized in their biography only to the extent those views are covered by reliable sources that are independent of the control of the politician, writer, etc.".

Nemodomi (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

and yet it gives exactly zero information on the long list of nonstandard views that Alex Jones holds, even though that's what his radio show and almost all of his websites are dedicated to. Conspiracies that he has voiced support for which come to mind almost immediately include: 9/11 being an inside job, water fluoridation being a sterilization technique, rejection of the widespread scientific consensus on global warming, chem trails, government mind control, and many more.

I honestly have a hard time believing that an article about a man who believes that environmentalist, socialist dictators have taken over the planet with the long term goal of wiping out a significant portion of the global population could have been written in good faith when it makes absolutely no mention of that fact. The only explanation that I can think of is that this article is attempting to make Alex Jones appear more mainstream than he actually is. That said, this article needs to be reworked.

I'm a relative novice at editing wikipedia, having only done minor fact checking and grammatical editing on a handful of articles, but I believe I'm up to the task. What I do need, however, are *written* sources espousing the wide variety of nonstandard views that Alex Jones supports on his show; in particular ones whose authorship are attributed to Alex Jones himself. His websites all speak on these topics quite readily and are all used as sources on his own show (using yourself as a news source is awful convenient),

In turn, however, and in all fairness, information in articles on Jones' Web sites -- especially those that are written in-house -- is generally heavily linked to outside sources.

Nemodomi (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

but I would prefer to avoid the debate about whether or not the opinions on his website can be reasonably called his own opinion, when the authorship is left blank.

Honestly I've not seen an article on either of Jones' most popular sites that lacked a reference to the author be he in-house or external.

Nemodomi (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else willing to lend a hand?

If you are sincerely interested in expanding this article to include an objective section describing Jones' philosophical and/or political views, as opposed to emphasizing Jones' deviation from the mean, I have a couple of suggestions that may be of assistance.

• Especially in regard to avoiding any appearance of personal bias, you may find it helpful to review the styles of writing and expression to be found in the viewpoint sections in the Wikipedia biographies of (for example) Glenn Beck, David Icke, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage.

• In terms of neutrally indicating the nature of the topics that Jones typically addresses, you may find it helpful to review the topic and subtopic headings at forum.prisonplanetcom/ PrisonPlanet Forum].

Nemodomi (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeahchris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

I tried awhile back to add accurate sourced information on alex jones. nothing about his conspiracy theories or the fact that for instance the guy thinks amtrak stations are wired up as gas chambers to exterminate the populace after martial law is declared..or that amtrak depots are secret govt prisons built to keep people in not out.. will ever appear in the in this article no matter how you sugar coat it to come accross as bland and NPOV as possible. biased editors will change it and certain admins will immediatly suspend you no matter how well sourced it is due to "BLP".. I have seen video that clearly shows things be removed.. He could write a letter, sign it in front of the president and vice president, and the pope as witnesses explaining his views. and it will be a POV source, violation of BLP and deleted.. you want to talk about conspiracies lol.. now thats a conspiracy for you. Ive long gave up on this article.. and thats sad that is the case. so I focus on the million other articles I edit.. cause there is no point editing this one -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The biggest issue with an article such as this is personal agenda, poor phraseology and an inability to abide with a NPOV. Sources should be accurate and much of the infomation that can be gathered on Jones is available on his website and YouTube videos. Weasel words have a way of ruining an article with such ease also. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Alex Jones is a man who thrives on fringe theories and negative attention, and as such, it can be really tough to document him accurately without facing a lot of complaints and rulebook thumping. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 22:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with TheHerbalGerbil. Beyond a basic bio and simple background this article would turn into a something akin to one of the subjects websites, a broadcasting point for his theroies. J. ORLY? (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Adnan Khashoggi owning GCN

I just removed an insertion of this claim into the article. Firstly, if such information is relevant, then it needs to be put in context to show that it is relevant. To avoid WP:SYNTH that had best be done by quoting someone pointing to this would-be fact and asserting that it is a problem. For possible reliable sources attesting to Khashoggi owning Genesis Communication Network such may possibly be found at The Unhive Mind II (a forum board). __meco (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Advertising?

To quote the article, "Alex Jones is also the operator of several web sites centered on news and information about civil liberties issues, global government, and a wide variety of current events topics. Several of these sites are www.infowars.com, www.prisonplanet.tv, www.prisonplanet.com, and www.jonesreport.com."

Is it really necessary to post these websites anywhere on the article other than the External links? I think it is unnecessary and inappropriate.72.240.82.155 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added a controversies section

I have a new informative section regarding controversies against alex jones, in NPOV manner "Controversy Many individuals have tried to brandish Alex Jones as a...."

How do i include date in signature???/? Kruger1191 (talk)

Sign with ~~~~ (four tildes).

I've removed that section, because it strays far from WP:BLP. For sundry reasons, you can't cite YouTube videos, moreover you can't cite them to forward your own original research. Nor can you source reader comments in blogs. Moreover, the wording of the section was wholly non-neutral. Criticism can be cited if it is notable and published in a reliable, independent source under some kind of editorial control. However, be aware, if opinion pieces are cited, criticism must be attributed within the article narrative (not only in the reference). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright understood then. BTW thanks "nowiki" Kruger1191 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The writer of this article is a tool

This is the most pathetic article I've ever seen on Wikipedia...and that says a lot. Did someone pay you to write this trash? Is it acceptable that the person with the "permission" to write and edit this article is someone obviously highly critical of Mr.Jones? i —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.127.144.103 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.226.151.117, 4 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the political affiliation from "Republican" to "conservative". Anyone who does any empirical research into this man knows that he cannot be affiliated with a political party or any establishment for that matter. It is a mischaracterization to label Jones as a "Republican".

98.226.151.117 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: Given that I cannot find a single reliable source calling him a Republican (some call him conservative, some call him libertarian, others call him names that can't be used without violating WP:BLP), I've removed it. Since that line in the infobox is only for a party affiliation, I can't put conservative in. If Jones is shown in a reliable source to be a registered member of any particular party, we can add/re-add with a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the Austin American-Statesman: Nine to seek Greenberg's House seat BYLINE: Scott S. Greenberger DATE: January 4, 2000 PUBLICATION: Austin American-Statesman (TX) EDITION: Final SECTION: Metro/State PAGE: B1 Greenberg's departure after five terms in the Texas House has attracted two Democrats and seven Republicans, including a college student and a well-known public access TV personality. The GOP race to succeed Greenberg has seven contenders: * Documentary filmmaker and public access TV show host Alex Jones, 25, known locally for his diatribes against creeping federal control, says he's running ``to be a watchdog on the inside."

He has run as a candidate for public office, and in doing so he filed paper work that proclaimed himself to be a member of a political party, specifically the Republican party, therefore we have are reliable source for his political party. Brimba (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

same as above, to quote " The GOP race to succeed Greenberg has seven contenders: * Documentary filmmaker and public access TV show host Alex Jones, 25, known locally for his diatribes against creeping federal control, says he's running ``to be a watchdog on the inside." " Also please see WP:PAYWALL Brimba (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to make you go through that. Under most circumstances, WP:PAYWALL + WP:AGF are sufficient by themselves. I only hesitated here because of the WP:BLP and the fact that a number of unreliable sites, along with the editor who made the request above, all seemed to indicate he was not a member of the Republican party. I whole-heartedly agree with labelling him as such, and half-self reverted to put the citation and categorization back in the article. Again, I really appreciate the extra effort. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)