Talk:Alex Jones

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be bloc

Talk:Alex Jones

Let's review, shall we?

Latest comment: 11 months ago11 comments5 people in discussion

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

Comments / questions

  • Q: Why is this here?
A: It is here because new editors repeatedly come to this page claiming that Jones is telling the "truth". It is here to save editor time. Without it, we would have to repeat this every time someone comes here and says we are all lying about Jones. Which happens a lot. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Q: Isn't Jones just an actor playing a role without actually believing all of that?
A: It doesn't matter. Millions of people read his webpage, some believe it, and a tiny percentage go to Wikipedia to set us straight. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Q: Why doesn't this page cover the bit about gay frogs?
A: We only cover those things Alex Jones says that have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Which has significant, reliable sources. More like youre cherry picking data to form a narrative. 86.27.243.15 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, so find some significant, reliable sources that cover this story. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Q: OK, all that other stuff is just silly, but the bit about South American walruses is real!
A: No it isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Here it is for anyone who has not experienced this special moment: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tVrntKgdN0 ]
It's like a turd sandwich with Wikipedia's Gay bomb page at the start, The Daily Mail[1] at the end, and Infowars in the middle! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Guy Macon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvf6gz58xnI Guy (help! - typo?) 21:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@JzG and Guy Macon: On the subject of YouTube, we have a small bit about John Oliver's take on him with regard to his product shilling on-air, we do have some secondary sources, but would we want to have the primary source as well? [2] —Locke Cole • t • c 16:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Activist?

Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Re: [3] Should we categorize Jones as an activist? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do RS call him an activist? Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No. One source that talks about anti-vaccine activists mentions him in passing as an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist, but that's not the same thing. I am removing the activist claim as being unsourced. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Alex Jones: still a conspiracy theorist, but is he a radio host?

Latest comment: 3 days ago36 comments10 people in discussion

Genesis Communications Network closed down in 2024 and I can't find any evidence that anyone else is broadcasting a radio show by Jones.

So what do we call him? Ex-radio host? Video Blogger?

He has a few websites:

  • alexjoneslive (dot) com
  • realalexjones (dot) com
  • alexjonesbanned (dot) com
  • thealexjonesstore (dot) com
  • infowarsfront (dot) com

and according to [ alexjoneslive (dot) com (slash) social ] he has videos and text posts is on X, Rumble, Facebook, Gab, GETTR, Twitch, Truth Social, Parler, Minds and Kick.

On the above web sites ( "Globalist financial rules forced these Methylene products off the main store" ) he is still selling Ultra Methylene Red ( "bypass genetic limitations like MTHFR mutations. This precision formula targets methylation, mitochondrial energy, and synaptic growth" ) Does anyone have any sources that talk about how he is managing to do that after his bankruptcy and without paying the Sandy Hook families? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just describe as is. He was at one point a radio host. We don't need to clarify things with "formerly" all the time especially if RS don't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You advocate calling someone a radio show host when it has been over two years since he hosted a radio show? As the page says "Jones's syndicator, Genesis Communications Network, announced its shutdown effective May 5, 2024, citing financial losses. The owners plan to migrate Jones's show, and others, to other networks." There is no evidence of any other network picking up the radio show. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no evidence of any other network picking up the radio show. 'The radio show' is key. Sounds like he still does have a show, just that he's losing his network. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If I wrote a story but no one publishes it am I still a writer? Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If he ceases to be relevant would we then have to clarify it with former "everything"? We're still writing about Richard B. Spencer in present tense even though he hasn't done anything relevant in years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think there are still outside-of-network terrestrial radio stations playing his show, such as it is. https://www.1360khnc.com/1360khnc-show-schedule
He is no longer a radio show host, but that is what he was notable for. But yes maybe "Social media personality". Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
If you had spent many years publishing stories, and if those published stories remained readily available, and if those stories were the primary basis of your notability, describing you as a "writer" would be accurate even if you 'actively' stopped writing, although using past-tense descriptors would probably be best here. I note that Jones even abandoned that eternally popular playground of conspiracy theorists, shortwave radio, around three years ago. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alexander Emerick Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American far-right and prominent conspiracy theorist seems sufficient detail to tell our readers who is and why he is notable. I don't see that stating that he is a former radio host is necessary. See MOS:FIRSTBIO. TarnishedPathtalk 07:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with TarnishedPath. Per voluminous sources, he is most notable for being a conspiracy theorist, more so than most other conspiracy theorists. Identifying him as a radio host strikes me as a misguided attempt at neutrality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
can't say i see the correlation between attempted neutrality and calling him a radio host, unless it comes with the implication that radio hosts can't also be conspiracy theorists consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 12:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It has been said that Wikipedia bends over backwards to find and boost 'balancing' life details of unsavoury people, no matter how trivial. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
...that says nothing about "balancing". andrew wakefield is a lying conman who wanted your money, but he was also a surgeon, so the lead says that without issue. there are definitely other issues that could get in the way of referring to him as such, but "it make bad man look less bad" is not one of them unless a theoretical reader really looks up to radio hosts for some reason consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the first sentence of the lead of Andrew Jeremy Wakefield should say he "is a surgeon, an English fraudster and anti-vaccine activist", and it doesn't. Saying he a former surgeon in the next sentence is appropriate though. And BTW, people's perceptions of radio hosts isn't relevant to this discussion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
not being a thing anymore is also unrelated to how neutral saying that they are/were that thing is, is the point here consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 11:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The point is moot. Guy is wrong and the premise for this subsection has been mooted: Jones is a radio host, and evidently intends to remain one for the foreseeable future, see where it says, "he would continue broadcasting on his personal social media accounts, new websites and dozens of radio stations that air his program"[1] Removing his continued status as a radio host in favor of "figure" is bad work... it seems to me that if you are on, and will remain on, "dozens" of radio stations, and have been doing so for decades, you qualify as a "radio host". Marcus Markup (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
That lead sentence is a MOS:CONVICTEDFELON violation so I wouldn't look to it as a positive example. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
ignoring how unrelated this is to alex jones (as i only initially brought it up as an example of how the article says that he's a former surgeon without issue), is it a violation? the manual suggests being more specific about what the fraud actually is, which the lead... is consarn (talk beige) (count ribs) 19:53, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Labels such as "criminal", "convicted felon", "fraudster", and "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself." The first label there is "fraudster", not contextualized until later, which is the exact opposite of what the MOS says to do. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Has been said a few days ago by a Wikipedian? Sure.
Anyway that just isn't true. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do not agree that removing "radio host" and substituting "figure" in the first sentence improves the encyclopedia... I actually think it's wishy-washy, a loss of content, and unencyclopedic. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
How did you decide that leaving out "radio host" in the lead is bad, when you appear to not have any problem with leaving out "public-access cable television host", "high School football player", "Branch Davidian church founder", and "seller of mail order dietary supplements"? Also, please don't describe "fully covering content in the body but not in the lead" as "loss of content". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Long standing consensus, mostly, and my sense of what makes a good lead. Him being a "radio host" used to appear in capsule descriptions provided by Google in their infoboxes, and in search results, but no longer. That's a loss of content and information for many use cases...he's now a "figure" according to Google's initial results presented to the casual reader. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Good point. It now says he is a "American far-right conspiracy theorist." --Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Calling someone a "figure" is terrible. How are they a figure? What does this person actually do that made them notable? "Figure" does not explain it. We might as well call him a "far-right man", that is equally unclear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It appears to be a coat hanger for "far-right"... remove "figure" and "radio host" and where do we call him "far-right? Marcus Markup (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't oppose "far-right" being a descriptor but "figure" as used here means nothing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lots of editing and reverting, but I don't see anyone explaining what is wrong with my "American far-right conspiracy theorist" wording. Are we going to work together on the talk page or are we going to edit war?

Has everyone here read MOS:LEADCLUTTER?

Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

How about WP:POLYMATH?

Trying to exhaustively list a subject's occupations is bad style even where correct and verifiable. John Smith may have been a film director, producer, screenwriter and actor, but it does not help our readers to cram all that into the first sentence of the article. Instead, use the whole lead section to summarise the significant parts of a biography in a logical sequence.

Finally, has everyone here read MOS:BLPLEAD?

The first sentence should usually state:
  1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). Handling of the subject's name is covered below in § First mention.
  2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
  3. Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.
  4. One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
  5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)
However, try not to overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead paragraph.

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

it's better than "figure", to be sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The issue with far-right conspiracy theorist, is that I have seen arguments of WP:SYNTH against such constructions in the past if the sources themselves don't have exactly that construction. I personally don't agree with such arguments; however, a construction like "far-right figure and prominent conspiracy theorist" avoids that. TarnishedPathtalk 01:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Okay, but what does "figure" convey here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I guess a pointless word to avoid the juxtaposition Katzrockso (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Pointless, yes. I don't think saying "far-right conspiracy theorist" is really synth anyway, and I'm pretty hardline about that kind of thing. Those are two separate facts. I'm also pretty sure we could find sources calling Jones specifically a "far-right conspiracy theorist"; google shows many hits for that phrase in reference to him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I understand and agree with the general rule of not sticking together two descriptors without some words in between, but we also need to use common sense. Nobody is asking us to find a source that calls him American and far-right in the same sentence, after all.
The being said, the exact phrase "far-right conspiracy theorist" is used by The Guardian[4], The Los Angeles Times[5], Le Monde[6], CBC Radio Canada[7], France 24[8], The Christian Science Monitor[9], Al Jazeera[10], South China Morning Post[11], Politico[12], Axios[13], and multiple local news outlets[14][15][16] --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agreed that SYNTH is misapplied here. SYNTH applies when two unrelated concepts mean something different when spuriously put together, i.e. Dr. Josephine Bloggs is a professor of law, but she also wrote a notable book about English literature, and a Wikipedia editor erroneously writes that she is a professor of English literature. Jones is far-right. He is also a conspiracy theorist. Those two facts put together in the same sentence don't make Jones into something separate and distinct. Carguychris (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

References

Can anyone show me call letters, time and frequency of Alex Jones broadcasting on AM, FM, or shortwave radio?

Latest comment: 2 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I just spent 45 minutes looking. I have found sources that repeat Jones' claims about "dozens of radio stations" and a number of sites that were last updated before his syndicator (Genesis Communications Network ) closed down, but failed to find a single example with call letters, time and frequency.

I also searched every Jones-owned website that I could find, and failed to find any actual broadcast stations listed -- despite him making it as easy as possible to find him on Rumble, X, Truth Social, etc. I did find some audio-only podcasts on the Internet but couldn't figure out whether they were just audio from his videos, which we know he is still creating and putting on the net. (Is any actual antenna TV station broadcasting those?) Maybe Alex is just shy and doesn't want any attention...

Does anyone have a shred of evidence of any AM, FM, or shortwave radio station that broadcasts Alex Jones? It is hard to believe that there aren't at least a few given how crazy radio has become, but I simply can't find one. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have found sources that repeat Jones' claims about "dozens of radio stations" The "dozens" number is the Associated' Press' number. Jones has said he has "hundreds". Marcus Markup (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
And yet, despite the fact that he prominently lists literally everywhere that you can access his content on every website he controls, he fails to list any radio stations. Why, it's almost as if Alex Jones sometimes says things that are not true! Go figure. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I found several AM stations which still have him on their published schedule, but they are looking stale at this point. Looks like Jones podcasts/Rumbles M-F, and it gets archived to two sites, but I cannot find a transmitter broadcasting him over the airwaves. It's unfortunate that the Associated Press said Jones has "dozens" of unaffiliated stations in his corner... it's going to make aligning the lead with reality, and completely removing his status as a "broadcaster", tougher than it needs to be. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is indeed the problem. I see absolutely no reason why we can't, in the very first sentence, the infobox, and the "This article is about..." at the top, use approach #5 from WP:WSAW, then in the Alex Jones#The Alex Jones Show section, use approach #2 or approach #3. No Wikipedia guideline says we have to cram "radio host" into the lead of the article, and MOS:LEADCLUTTER, WP:POLYMATH, and MOS:BLPLEAD tells us that we should not. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Due weight requires coverage in proportion to actuality. His network was indeed a thing and building something like that actually is worthy of remark. But if it currently has no buzz beyond litigation and documentation, the lead needs to reflect that, proportionally. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." --MOS:LEADCLUTTER

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.