Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 1

message: Is the correct spelling of Mr. Jones's middle name Emerick or Emric?
In the below Travis County, Texas document it lists an Alexander Emerick Jones:
Travis County Commissioners' Court Minutes, March 24, 1998:
http://www.co.travis.tx.us/commissioners_court/minutes/1998/03/980324vs.pdf
Alex Jones is highly active in the local politics where he lives and has been for some time, so I would be somewhat surprised if that's not a reference to him. Austin, where Alex Jones lives, is the county seat of Travis County.
I'm the one who originally put the "Emerick" spelling in the Wikipedia article, based on the fact that that was the only "Alexander Emerick/Emric/etc. Jones" that I found doing a Google search, i.e., in the above document. I've heard Alex Jones say his middle name on air, but he didn't spell it. This Wikipedia article on Alex Jones has had the "Emerick" spelling for some time now. Google still lists no other spelling variation on the name Emerick/Emric other than "Alexander Emerick Jones."
An edit was only made to the "Emric" spelling on 15:00, 27 February 2006 by 81.153.133.216 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_Jones_%28journalist%29&oldid=41465109 ), and of whom left no comment concerning the edit.
So which spelling is the correct one?--209.208.77.177 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Correct Spelling of Mr. Jones's Middle Name? 

message: :Basically, here's what I think would be great for this article. I'd like to see a more thorough and even-handed explanation of Jones' theories, main theses, background information, and so forth. I think if it were presented in a straightforward, undramatic way, it might present him in a more informative light than the present article does. This way, readers could make some basic judgement or take away some basic understanding of the issue. For one thing, I think, as it stands, the concentration of the article on the Bohemian Grove bit just bolsters the casual reader's perception that, "Yeah, this guy's clearly a nutjob or a fraud." Whether or not the Cremation of Care bit is factual, it's easily the chunk of Jones' work that would seem most rediculous to a casual observer, especially out of the context of his other pursuits.
:For the moment, I'll leave it up to someone who has maybe delved deeper or more recently seen Jones' movies and kept up with his progression, but I might give it a go if the article just sits in its present state for a while. By the way, does anyone have a citation for the bit of the article that claims that the BBC funds Jones' movies? I have never heard that tidbit, and it seems a bit far-fetched. --SamClayton 09:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That probably derives from confusion over some small connections Jones had with a group of British documentary makers when he did the Bohemian Grove film (don't know in what capacity the Brits worked for the BBC, if at all). Also, some BBC bloke (sorry) seems to have praised him on several occasions. But the BBC certainly doesn't fund his films. BarrettBrown
Dunno. Michael Ruppert points out times Jones gets the facts wrong to the point of inverted. 142.177.126.57 18:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  thorough explanation needed

message: I move that we delete the tags.  There appears to be nothing about the article, in its present state, that is at all POV</nowiki> or not neutral.  The opinions of Jones are recorded here as Jones's opinions, and whether or not he's agreeable is utterly irrelevant.  Greyscale 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Mmx1 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree.  I moved some stuff in the intro around and I think it makes it even more clear that these are this guy's opinions.  As it stands now, I don't see that it needs to be tagged POV.  It could maybe use a little more , though. --Deville (Talk) 04:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Removal of Tags

message: As for what he puts on his site, I think the articles he collects on the implications of new technology are worthwhile.  The business about secret cabals generally provokes skepticism just because it appears so ridiculous and cliched on its face, and yet consider the following:
It's well documented that both presidential candidates came from the same secret society within a few years of one another at the same school.  The school itself is a powerful institution; Yale graduates are at the top of U.S. power structure.  For example, 30% of all law professors come from Yale Law School alone, and the vast majority of the rest are from the other Ivies and Top Tier schools like University of Chicago.  But 30% from Yale alone.  Yale alums try to hire as many Yale alums as possible.  It is very, very, very difficult, if not impossible, for a law graduate to teach if he did not attend Yale or a few other select schools.  Likewise in England, the barriers of entry to become a barrister, and then a judge are exceedingly difficult.  The entire practice of law in England used to be conducted in Norman French, with documents written in Latin.  This went on up until the 19th-20th centuries with a brief respite during the Puritan revolution.  This made it easier to rule the commoners.  Another example are the fraternal greek systems.  Affluent men and women typically enter them so they can retain a social network of individuals from similar backgrounds.  Upon graduation, they find it easier to find jobs in many cases.  They have a network that makes life easier for them.  And then let's not forget think tanks, intelligence agencies, the military, etc.  I feel that cabalism is a way of life, a way of doing business, not some Hollywood plot.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it can't be avoided.  Jones says that really powerful cabals exist that consist of extremely wealthy and well-established families, and that influence world events.  While I've never met any of these people, we could look at royal families as examples.  And in the democracies, certain families create political or industrial dynasties.  Once people acquire wealth and power, they typically try to preserve it through their children, and through social networks.  I could go on and on, etc.  I guess the problem I have with the conspiratorial label is the same problem I have with the liberal label:  it's become a devil word for mainstream rhetorice in that it automatically marginalizes the viewpoint.  But like someone joked on another website, "Mainstream Media Plagued by Coincidence Theorists."  :)
[ATreiDeezNutz!]
Alex is great, one of the best Journalists out there. I am looking for people to help contribute to my conspiracy wiki, the links on my userpage if anyone is interested Conwiki 05:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Alex is sorting out the wisdom from the bullshit, basically. A lot of the stuff that gets put on PrisonPlanet comes from sources of rather ill-repute, including the American Free Press [a noted White Supremacist front organization] and Counterpunch. So failing to discriminate with regard to mixing these in with more reputable sources, and internal documents from organizations he puts under suspicion, Jones, in his editorializing, sometimes reaches conclusions that don't stand on solid ground. And unfortunately, he possesses the same confirmation bias that all journalists [and really, all people in general] possess, so being caught up in his own mission as he is, he sometimes does sloppy work in pursuit of the truth.--Baltech22 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret cabals 

message: I'm a big fan of Alex and his site but there is no way on earth he was born in 1974 which makes him 30. I would put his age at closer to 40. I don't know where 1974 is from but it is just wrong.
No it's not wrong, he's mentioned several times in his broadcasts to how much work he puts into 'fighting the new world order' and has often been heard quoting his sleeping patterns, and how much he works compared to his ratio of sleep.  He believes lack of sleep (while not chronic) has taken a toll on his body and looks making him appear older than he is.  --  02/09/06
: www.infowarscom/clippings/USAtdy.JPG  This scan of a USA Today article on Jones' part in the rebuilding of the Branch Davidian Church from 1999 places his age at the time at 25, which would correspond to being born in 1974 or late 1973.--Lenny S., 10:46p 12 August 2005
Alex Jones said in his September 21st 2005 Weekly Report www.prisonplanet.tv prisonplanet.tv is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used/articles/september2005/210905jonesreport.htm] that he is 31. That corresponds correctly with his birthday of 1974.
I met Mr. Jones in 1999.  I remember I was suprised when he told me his age that he was one year younger than me.  I was born in 1973. -- Lord of the Left Hand, 01/05/06
In TerrorStorm, he gives his DOB to a police officer as 2/11/1974, so the DOB on the article is exactly correct. 68.81.166.90 14:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex's age 

message: My opinion about Alex Jones , is a lier, nothing he says is thr truth.. i live in Austin, and sometimes I see his stupid show and I can;t believe all the lies he says!! HE IS FULL OF DOGGY POOP  :) !!! LIER
-At least lern to spell and speek intelligently before you start makeing unfounded, undocumented alegations. Your more likely to be taken seriously that way.
: "lern"? "speek"? "makeing"? "alegations"? "Your"? - Were you being facetious with that entry? If not, well, then, how wonderfully ironic! -- VanHammersly 01:24 EST, 27 January 2006
It seems pretty obvious to me that this person is being sarcastic in their remarks. "DOGGY POOP" seems to make that a clear indication. Lightning Jim 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new world order 

message: User Algore2008 had added the following to the intro paragraph: "In a stunning annoucement on December 19, 2005, he announced that he would be supporting the 2008 presidential candidacy of a Michigan man who claims to be God. "  The source he cited was someone's anglefire page - not exactly a reputable source.  More over, the webpage didn't even mention Alex Jones's name, let alone claim an endorsement from him.  At any rate, unless an announcement is posted on one of Jones's site or one of his radio or video broadcasts can be cited (or a reputable news source has reported it), then any claim that he endorsed so and so ammounts to original research, and quite likely perpetuating a hoax.  Its inclusion also ammounts to slander by Wikipedia.  Blackcats 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax/Slander removed 

message: This journalist is clearly above criticism.  His ideas are brilliant.  He is a prophet.  
Way to go wikipedians!!!!!!  I surrender to thee.
 
Another stupendously balanced article!!!!!!11111
Congratulations on your NPOV. 
I hope you enjoy it's vacuousness.--Capsela 07:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's so easy to refute, why has Popular Mechanics repeatedly and publicly refused to formally or informally debate him or Scholars for 9/11 Truth? I mean, they're the experts, right? They did put out a book on "debunking the 9/11 lies." 68.81.166.90 14:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fortunately we are not required to prove or disprove anything.  Veracity is what matters.  If, as is claimed above, he can be debunked easily, quit ranting and provide a link to a reputable source that does so.  I have no problem with this, and neither would any conscientious Wikipedian, regardless of personal sympathy, or lack thereof, for Jones.  What it comes down to: stop attacking or defending his views; instead, report them, and if there are relevant comments by other journalists pertaining to Jones, include them.  That is all this article needs to be... verifiable.  Not an authoritative discussion of whether or not his claims are true, in which hardly anybody who has posted here is qualified to partake.  Greyscale 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism isn't allowed 

message: Anybody feel that we should add quotes to WikiQuotes?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page Lightning Jim 00:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add WikiQuotes? 

message: The article Christian Patriot is inherently baised, based upon looking at the references. I mean, seriously, "Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments" as a source?
Okay, it's appearntly been fixed. Lightning Jim 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Patriot needs changing 

message: On the February 6, 2006, Alex Jones Radio Show, Alex Jones said he was originally from Rockwall. -Zimbabweed 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jones's Original Location 

message: In response to HGinsberg - If your points were raised to promote sense then you need to back up your bleating about anti-simetic bias. Moloch/Molech was worshipped by the people of Lavant and phoenecians. Lavant is defined in mythology as an area that has Israel on it's extreme NW, coastal boundary. It was the Canaanite culture most often associated with child sacrifice. Israel was mentioned in papers in 1975 but since this is only 1 year after Alex's birth he's hardly responsible for the finger pointing, is he? If the statement 'Israelis' sacrificed children' is based upon disputed facts that's fine they'll come out in time. I believe racism is to support an unreasonable view of different culture's or people's then you Mr Ginsberg are the racist for denying healthy debate about child sacrifices to Molech and supporting a rose-tinted view of Jewish culture. I'm from the UK I'd like to believe we're all lovely sensitive human beings but that is not our history.
Also Zantastik the term Molech is the correct name for Bohemia Grove's idol owl. The source is a washington Post article from 1968
84.64.24.224 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should cite and quote that Washington Post article and state that it is the opinion of the author's article (or someone quoted therein) that such an Owl (1.) exists and (2.) is somehow an ancient near-eastern god, if the article does in fact quote someone who holds such a view. --Zantastik talk 04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unfounded criticism and accusations Mr Ginsberg

message: Thia article should be moved to Alex Jones, and Alex Jones moved to Alex Jones (disambig). --Striver 11:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: Please vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie Zwicker --Striver 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD

message: To help everyone understand how insightful and accurate Mr. Jones is we can cite his predictions from a few years ago.  I discovered Mr. Jones on shortwave shortly after 9-11.  I had heard of conspiracy theorists before, but what I heard from my radio was absolutely amazing. I first thought I was hearing a BBC satire.  During the next several months Mr. Jones talked about concentration camps that were being set up for use during the next emergency. He asserted that these camps were already built and stocked. After 9-11 several states did enact laws dealing with emergencies and evacuations.  I was living in New Mexico at the time and there was a new law enacted dealing with evacuations and designated areas for evacuees to be sent to. New Mexico had no pre-existing, designated areas.  As far as the government herding people into camps, all one has to do is examine what happened during and after the hurricane Katrina assault on New Orleans to understand that the U.S. Government does not have any ready made camps. Another one if his pet issues was his assertion that the CIA flew the planes into the World Trade Center by remote control. He seemed to forget that the morning of 9-11 was crystal clear on the East Coast, and it did not take any great navigation skill to find the towers.  He was and is still claiming that the Bush Administration is bent on confiscating guns from lawful owners.  George Bush has been in office nearly six years and not one single new gun control law has been enacted. (He just has slightly more than two years left.) I noticed that there was no effort whatsoever on the part of the White House to extend the Assault Weapons Ban. I do not believe that there is a single new gun control law sponsored by any Republican.  Gunshows are still being held every three months where I live.  The actions of a few over zealous and possibly corrupt New Orleans cops in the aftermath of Katrina does not mean that there is a national effort to disarm the populace. His other assertion during the invasion of Iraq was that the CIA was going to release an unnamed gas on our own troops to help justify the invasion. He even interviewed some guy who said that he planted some explosive cannisters. I think he was wrong on that one too. While I was living in New Mexico the German Air Force  (they still call themselves Luftwaffe) was involved in joint training exercises with the USAF at Holloman AFB.  This is probably what sent Mr. Jones into his  "foreign powers on US soil” period.  It was no secret that the Luftwaffe was in NM; it was reported everywhere.  Mr. Jones always has "the documents" but we never see them.  I regret that I did not tape record those old shows, but I never thought that Mr. Jones would ever be in a serious reference source of any kind.  If somebody has the recordings or a log of his statements please present them.  A proper discussion of Mr. Jones' accuracy and ability needs to have a record of his assertions form the past.  I am not going to edit the Alex Jones entry in Wikipedia because all I have are my own recollections, and I have wasted enough time already.  Calling him a "journalist" is really, really POV. Oakridgetn1947 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see our policy, Wikipedia:no original research. Basically, it bans the addition to articles of unpublished informatin or novel conclusions. Unless you can find a published account of these errors then we can't include them. For example, if Fox News has done a piece on Jones then we can quote that. -Will Beback 03:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A stirring but utterly moot speech.  I concur with Beback.  It does not matter, for the purposes of Wikipedia, if Jones is right or not.  It matters if we report his views dutifully and accurately.  Greyscale 03:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past Jones Assertions 

message: I've noticed that people keep editing this site to a more POV status. It's really annoying because the rest of us have to go back and edit the page to fix the problem. Of course, there's also the typical vanadlism of editing the whole page to something inappropriate. So please, if you feel it necessary to say Alex is crazy, do it in the best NPOV possible. If that is not possible, than do not do it. Lightning Jim 14:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People keep editing for POV? 

message: I'm concerned about all the external links to PrisonPlanet, especially within the list of interviews Jones has done. Other journalists' articles don't have lists and links for each individual interview. A more encyclopedic entry would be to say something like "Jones has interviewed various people, including Person A, Person B, etc, many of which can be found on his website." --mtz206 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interviews & Links 

message: I object to these names being mentioned. If I create my own website and accuse Alex of being a cyborg from planet Shintar do I deserve to be mentioned on his page? Clearly, there are far better people that could be mentioned who disagree with Alex.--HarveyB 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to Victor Thron and Lisa Giulani 

message: I was alerted to this on AN/I. This appears to be a vanity article. I can't find any reliable third-party sources about this person. If there aren't any, the page should be deleted, and if there are, they need to be cited. In the meantime, I've removed most of the unencyledopic stuff and left the intro and the list of videos, but it all needs to be verified, and anything that can't be should be deleted (though we should wait a bit in case there are sources out there). SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Johnny. That was very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the Austin Access Channel 10 schedule page as reference to his current television presence. In case there is anything still unclear, I left the first "citation needed" in place, but I think at this point the claims are pretty well cited. I've been following Jones for a while, so if there's anything still unclear in the article I'd be willing to spend the time to dig a little deeper. Johnny Watson 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Johnny's sources have established notability, particularly the CNN one. Thank you for finding all those, Johnny. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we unflag this article now? I think the afforementioned problems have been solved. Johnny Watson 00:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's mostly fine now, though I'd like to see some evidence that he's a television host. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it until we have a cite. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: I strongly object to this --Striver 16:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is information omitted. --Striver 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Annual Financial Report accounting structure for government started in 1946 through a private group called Government Financial Officers Association, and then was Federally mandated for all local governments in the U.S. The video also includes an interview with former IRS special agent Joe Banister." Omitted certainly, but not exactly information. That, like the rest of the material recently removed, is no more than a promotional description of one of his 'documentaries.' I don't see that we should be providing him with free advertising. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His "documentaries" are notable enough to have their own articles, regardless.  Perhaps you should consider doing that, and then coming back and listing them in a section. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They very likely shouldn't have their own articles. In any event, we shouldn't describe them unless they're notable enough for reliable third-party sources to have done so; then we can quote them. Otherwise, we're just repeating Jones's unverified claims. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unverified claims? So I guess Associated Press articles and U.S. government documents aren't verifiable? --Zimbabweed 23:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not taken directly from those sources, but rather is Jones' own somtimes dubious interpretations of other sources.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not?  They're certainly notable enough. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Striver: I can tell that you're an Alex Jones fan, so am I. Seperate from my appreciation for Alex's work, however, is my duty as a member of Wikipedia. I believe that the recent edits are not censorship, but the removal of unencyclopedic, POV information. I believe this comes at a particularly opportune time, since the page was recently edited to include slander from the Wing TV crowd. In order to keep this entry from becoming a POV-ridden nightmare, we should stick to the new version, and gradually add more information about Alex as it arrives from well-cited sources. With the new page, Wikipedia users can still learn the fundamentals of what Alex Jones is all about, and even get to his websites and learn about the content of his videos and radio broadcasts from there. As much as I believe in the fight against the New World Order, the purpose of this page is to provide an encyclopedic description of Alex and his work. They can be further exposed to Alex's POV if they wish to follow the links to his websites and view his movies. So, I implore you, let's stick to the leaner version of the page, and add facts about Jones along with sources cited. Thanks. Johnny Watson 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone putting his POV to one side and sticking to Wikipedia policy — what a breath of fresh air. Thank you, Johnny.  SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, ill do as you civily sugested. Is is ok if i instead creat Alex Jones works? Im sure nobody is going to let a individual entry on each film survive, even though they easly have been seen by more than 5000 people required by books and WP:BIO. --Striver 10:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an entry on 9-11: The Road to Tyranny, so I don't see any reason to object to having individual entries for each of his works. With the possible exception of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Exposed, I'm sure almost all of them have exceeded 5,000 viewers (and perhaps that one too). I'd feel a bit better about it if we had some independent verification that the audience for his films is at least that big, though intuitively I'm sure it is. Maybe Google Video or Archive.org has a view counter we can use to prove that Jones has a substantial audience. You might want to take a look at the Road to Tyranny talk page and history (and perhaps the composition, talk page, and history of other controversial works) to see how you should go about putting the pages together. Be prepared to revise and defend your efforts, since the Road to Tyranny entry has been nominated for deletion in the past. Johnny Watson 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, tell me about that, i created it... Thanks for the advice. Slim, what do you say, should i think about giving them a article each? --Striver 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I, unfortunately, don't think Jones' audience is in question.  Thus, I see him as a filmmaker like any other independent filmmaker, who's works should have articles on them. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Having previously AfD'd the 9-11 The Road to Tyranny and seen it go through repeated edits from several editors and independent good faith efforts to locate secondary sources for the film, we've found NONE. The article currently cites the meager IMDB entry, the archive.org user ratings, and the movie itself. As it's purportedly the most famous of his films; this does not bode well for the rest. One of the main arguments for keeping the movie page was the length of the Alex Jones page. Now that it's been edited, how about a smerge? --Mmx1 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Omitting info

message: Hi, I removed the Libertarian cat because there was no assertion made in the article that Jones is in fact a Libertarian.  I'll grant that it seems quite reasonable and in fitting with the rest of his political beliefs, but if there is no assertion make of the statement in the article, it seems that we shouldn't have the category.  If anyone has any sources to back it up, please add them. --Deville (Talk) 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he is a self-described Libertarian; I seem to recall this from a bio on his site.  However, I cannot seem locate a reference to this right now. Greyscale 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian cat 

message: I think the article deserves a little bit about Alex Jones and his belief that FEMA will enforce Martial Law across America in order to turn average Americans into slaves. I think the recent news criticism of FEMA's inability to do anything pretty much conflicts with his 'prophetic' statements. Although I think he has some interesting topics, such as THE GROVE we should provide some fair and balanced coverage of these statements with their counterpoints. (Simonapro 20:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like it or not, Jones thinks FEMA is "trying to prepare Americans for mass slavery in prison camps." The current status of FEMA, or Michael Brown, is irrelevant to Jones's general claim. If people want context, then they can click the FEMA link. I just don't see why all this extra material is necessary in a biographical article (esp. the Michael Brown stuff). --mtz206 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't this page Jones' biography? FEMA prison camps would go in New World Order (conspiracy). Tom Harrison Talk 11:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. Seems as if this inclusion is meant solely to discredit Jones's view, which isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia article. It might be ok to find a brief way to say that Jones's view is unique or unpopular, but we shouldn't start listing all the blemishes of FEMA in order to illustrate that Jones's view is ridiculous.--mtz206 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FEMA and Martial Law? (How about some fair and balanced coverage?) 

message: Go alex go! www.prisonplanetcom/articles/june2006/110606Attendees.htm  Full list]! I gues this is not going into the bilderberg article, right? --Striver 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being prevented from attending the meeting is (arguably) noteworthy and should be included in the article. Happening for find a list of attendees of said meeting is not noteworthy for a biographical article on Jones. Please keep it out. (and the link above is frivolous as well, IMO). --mtz206 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, List of Bilderberg attendees has existed for some while now. --mtz206 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone reverted to include a link to this list without comment. Please discuss here and provide an explanation as to why a list of attendees for this meeting is relevant to a biographical article about the the life of Alex Jones. --mtz206 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not the list itself, but the fact that he got it. If you read, the sentences focuses on Alex's acomplishment, not the  list. Its like asking "what does a concentration campt have to do with a biography of Hitler?" --Striver 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding your odd analogy (see Godwin's Law), obtaining a list of a attendees isn't the kind of noteworthy event in a person's life worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Besides, the names of some of the attendees wasn't all that secret: . --mtz206 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I argue it is worth of inclusion in a wiki encyclopedia, remeber that its not paper. --Striver 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but WP is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it wasn't for the fact that the names of many of the attendees weren't already published in mainstream papers (link above), Jones's obtaining a copy might be noteworthy. But even then, probably more so for an article on the meeting itself, not Jones's bio. You still haven't explained why this is a big deal, just that you think it is. --mtz206 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it would go better in Bilderberg group. Tom Harrison Talk 18:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see List of Bilderberg attendees. Tom Harrison Talk 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it (or a mirror) is already linked there. --mtz206 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Woho!

message: There are a number of Jones' films on Google video, and Jones himself has said he's happy with people distributing them (I don't have a source but I've seen/heard him say it many times in his show). Would it be a good idea to link to some of his videos here?
Terrorstorm has just been released on his site, google has it here. Martial law is here. There are others, but Alex has referred to each of these has his best yet when they were first released. What do you think? We11er 10:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the section on the films he has made should have links to said films if they are available on any video service. -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: They do have it --Striver 18:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video links

message: Recent edits to this article has turned it into a linkfarm. While listing common phrases by Jones might be notable, we don't need to provide links to clips for each occurrence. Similiarly, while listing guests on his show might be notable, we don't need to provide links to clips for each occurrence. See Howard Stern: similar content is provided, but not with 40 links to his websites. WP is not a repository of links. --mtz206 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bro, what you cited is only applicable to the "External links" section, not to refereces. The refereces is not there to link farm, most of the links go to the same video. The same references would be just as valid witout the links, they are only provided for convineance. The refereces are needed, otherwise,  i would have to prove that he is actually saying those words a lot. As for the interviews, we all know that the entire section would have been deletred as unrefereced original reaserch if i had not provided references. I know that your comments is made in good faith, but i sometimes feel that no mater what i do, somethings "is wrong". --Striver 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that especially since "most of the links go to the same video" these multiple external links are redundant, unnecessary, and could be construed as link spamming. Why not just have one link to the video? --mtz206 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not external link spaming since its NOT in the "External links" section and they all link to the same target. If the links are so extremly bothersom, ill remove them and only keep the references, whould that defacto hardening to reach the sources make you happier? If yes, then ill remove the link and keep the referens. --Striver 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I saw your recent edit, and if that is the extent of yourr objection, then its ok for me so far. --Striver 00:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkfarm 

message: Unlike many other good Wiki articles about semi-famous people, this one does not contain any personal information about Alex Jones in the biography section.  It also leaves out any information about him during the first 20 years of his life, starting with the beginning of his career in 1994 (assuming he really was born in 1974).  Where did he live during this period of time?  Who were his parents?  Where did he go to school?  What degrees did he get?  Is he straight or gay (sometimes this is relevant to the person's professional career)?  Did he ever get married?  I'm a real novice re: Wiki, but thought I'd introduce this comment in hopes someone may be able to "fill in the blanks."  He certainly didn't pop up on earth in 1994, unless he really did come from another planet, ha ha.  --66.82.9.58 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not found any references regarding that, so i have nothing to add... --Striver 02:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a line regarding his wife Violet Nichols--Baltech22 05:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Info Lacking