Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 1 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lew Rockwell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 5 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Template:WikiProject LibertarianismPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Epistemology / Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Ethics Social and political philosophy

Lew Rockwell -Hardistry removal

I don't believe that the Hardisty material is what WP calls vandalism. What policy-based reason do you have for its removal? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: this diff. First, I am being stalked by Misplaced Pages:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis who reverts me all the time, going back even to older edits like his revert without explanation on March 18. (And see the nasty comment he left in his AnonIP edit before that.) This obviously was one of his.

To specifically discuss Hardisty, what was removed was:

Jean Hardisty, founder of Political Research Associates, wrote in 1999 that Rockwell was one of the most influential proponents of the paleoconservative faction of "right-wing libertarianism."== REF:Hardisty, Jean V. 1999. Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society to the Promise Keepers. Boston: Beacon, pp. 170–178.

If someone who is the founder of an advocacy group writes a book is just wrong in their characterization, do we use it? Rockwell never called himself a Paleoconservative and "right-wing libertarianism" is just a mere descriptor used by some and not even an actual philosophy. So why include something that inaccurate and confusing? I do not think it would pass WP:BLPN or WP:RSN unless you can find other more NPOV WP:RS that also use that description. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Created section on alleged authorship of racist newsletters

Since this controversy on Rockwell's role in Ron Paul's old newsletters is (as far as I can see) by far the single biggest source of mentions of Rockwell in the mainstream news, it deserves a section in its own right; so I deleted the small mention of the newsletters in the "working for ron paul" part of the piece and created a new section more specifically describing the content newsletters. I also describe the newsletters as "racist" rather than racially charged because -- if the term "--racistRacist" has any substantive meaning or application -- it should apply to a publication that calls black people animals. Steeletrap (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My thinking here is that the term "racist" is descriptive. How we define it may contain a value judgment (and definitions vary wildly) but the term racist, as a substitute for "expressing a belief that some races are inferior to others", can be used in a strictly descriptive sense (this is illustrated by the fact that people who share different values -- i.e. those who think racism is bad, and people who proudly identify as racists -- still operate under the same abstract understanding of what the term means). I can't imagine how any reasonable conception of racism would say that it isn't "racist" to slur African-Americans as "animals." Steeletrap (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced material/inaccurate section title

Per this diff "moved material under Ron Paul who is in the end responsible party; misleading section header since oversight not authorship the issue; raw URLs very ugly". I could say it in four paragraphs but hopefully that says it all. Put in couple comments from existing sources about what Ron Paul had to say about it. I see the controversy has been cleansed from his article and both Prez campaigns... CarolMooreDC🗽 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just strange. Why should such an inflammatory scandal, (having one's name on newsletters which call blacks animals and say it was really the jews who attacked the WTC in 1993) heavily covered in the national media, merit no mention whatsoever on Paul's page? There have also been many efforts to "cleanse" this from Rockwell's page. Steeletrap (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue here isn't cleansing, it's putting the section in the wrong place. It belongs with Ron Paul material. Whether it deserves a title and what an NPOV title would be, is another issue. Making changes like that before discussing it is edit warring behavior, by the way. Any NPOV editors out there willing to opine, or shall we go to WP:BLPN? CarolMooreDC🗽 17:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a little experience with "edit warring" and I'm happy to step back until there is neutral arbitration (you are a libertarian and I am an anti-libertarian, so we both have our biases :) ). My central argument for having a new section is that this is material to Rockwell's record in a very significant way (he's been mentioned more in the national media for his involvement with the newsletters than any other issue ever) independent from his overall work (e.g, as his Congressional staffer) with Ron Paul. Putting it in as a subsection of Lew's work for Ron Paul detracts attention from the newsletter thing, which is, in and of itself, one of (if not the) most significant part of Lew's notability. At a cosmetic level, it also clutters the Ron Paul section terribly. Though I strongly disagree with deleting the "Involvement with racist and anti-gay newsletter" sectoin, I am happy to change the name if people object to it. Still, I maintain calling the newsletters "racist and anti-gay" is -- though certainly provocative -- simlpy the most descriptively accurate, non-euphemistic way of putting it. By "cleansing", I was referring to the fact (as I understand you stated it) that nothing about the newsletters is on Ron Paul's campaign pages. Maybe I misunderstood you though. Steeletrap (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

First, arbitration is hardly the first step. If it wasn't a BLP, WP:Dispute resolution would be next.

Second, Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell tightly bound together in the newsletter issue. If Ron Paul hadn't run for president it would never have been been notable or mentioned in any of those publications. Removing it just looks like a POV attack on Lew Rockwell; it made me think you were a Paul fan who was trying to distract from Ron Paul's role! (And part of taking it off Paul's pages. I'm not going to work to put it back, having better things to do.)

Also, you failed to give a time period so most people think it was last year or whatever; fixed it. The white male backlash isn't quite over, but it's hey day hopefully has passed. Even Robert Byrd's Ku Klux Klan involvement is a chrono section, not a whole big separate section at the end. And that deserves a section; does 20 year old possible editorial sloppiness which also involved Ron Paul?

It obviously is the most notable thing about his working for Ron Paul, but does it deserve a "Ron Paul newsletter" subsection under Ron Paul when it is 2 of the three paragraphs? Just seems WP:Undue. The text of the paragraph just screams racist/anti-gay so title doesn't need to. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Time period is certainly relevant. That should be added and I encourage you to do so. (I will if you can't get to that.) That this happened in the early-mid 1990s (as opposed to now) is an important clarification (though, of course, calling blacks "animals" wasn't exactly normalized back then, except among extremists). The Byrd comparison doesn't quite work to Rockwell's favor; it's true that Byrd (like Rockwell) only (to our knowledge) used words and associations rather than violence to condemn blacks, but Byrd joined the KKK at the age of 23 in 1942 (which was common in the culture he grew up in) whereas Rockwell was involved with an extremely racist publication well into his 40s during the 1990s (when that sort of in-your-face, explicit racism was disapproved of by most upper-middle class whites). Both should be criticized for what they did, but that is a pretty big contextual difference. And I note that there is (appropriately) a ton of mention of Byrd's having been a Klansman on his wikipedia page. Steeletrap (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Another problem is your writing " newsletters regularly featured derogatory remarks about minority groups" using Reason as a source, that doesn't say that. You are giving the impression that this happened monthly over ten years. Somehow missing from the article is the James Kirchick New Republic article that first and probably most thoroughly investigated them which find a much smaller number over a smaller time period. So why don't you check all your claims and make sure they are verified before I have to produce a bullited list :-)

Also you have no intention of moving the section back? I'll wait a day or two to see if you think better of it and then put it back to go along with BLP policies. If you revert, given no other BLP related discourse here, I'll take it to WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No he doesn't. Kirchick shows that the derogatory comments came over the course of years (he says "decades"). Reread the piece. Writes Kirchick (who uncovered the newsletters and examined the originals), "they reveal ... decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays." http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/angry-white-man Steeletrap (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You only talked about the racist gay stuff which is what Kirchick talked about in beginning; just read the rest where he says that. Of course, the most "smear" type stuff is blacks and gays, the rest is political, if fringie or controversial. The point is use an accurate source, which Reason was not for your assertion in that part of the sentence. I'm not going to respond to you below because a) Do Not Use people's names in section headers - i'd appreciate your removing it; b) I've made my points above and there's no need for a brand new section: wrong place, unnecessary section title, let's accurately reflect sources. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is another article about the newsletters: . And Doughery opines that "As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all." My concern is that the heading is not NPOV. It should be "Involvement with Ron Paul newsletters" and that's it. The following text can use the NYT, WP, Atlantic info, but it needs balance from what Rockwell and other said on the other side. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. In fact, I think omitting the term "racist" is what deviates from NPOV. My evidence: Virtually every mainstream article RS on this matter, including those from Paul sympathists, (Dougherty and Conor Friedorshoff ), say the articles were racist. You are (quite unintentionally I'm sure) completely distorting the Dougherty quote. He is speculating that what motivated them to write racist newsletters may have been a desire to build a political coalition with racist ideology (rather than racist attitudes). But he is adamant that the newsletters themselves are racist, so your citing him just proves my point, Srich. It would not be NPOV to call Rockwell himself a racist. But the fact is that he was involved with and, according to the evidence (though I wouldn't make this point in the article, since it'd constitute synthesis), almost certainly authored, seethingly racist newsletters. I submit that no reasonable reading of the newsletters can interpret them as not being racist, given the definition of the latter term. This is why the extensive credible RS pieces on the matter (even from Paul supporters) call them racist. (I wonder, do you disagree? That is, do you see a plausible interpretation of the newsletters according to which they weren't at all racist?). There is no other adequate word for calling blacks animals and talking about how to get away with shooting black teenagers. And as to the charges that the racism and homophobia was "brief", that just isn't true, unless you consider (at least) 4-5 years (probably more like 6-8 years), encompassing dozens of newsletters, a brief and insignificant period. Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, as you'll find if you research this, the problem with "presenting the other side" is that Rockwell has stonewalled almost entirely, and virtually no notable people (including friends/supporters) seem willing to defend his role in this. Other than the comments he made affirming involvement but denying authorship to Kirchick (cited in this piece), and the comment on the Lew Rockwell blog about how the New Republic is in a campaign against him and how the saga consists of "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" (which I quote in my edit), there is virtually no attempt to "defend" Rockwell. The one exception I can find is this piece which largely defends the content of the newsletters: http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/#axzz2RcDwClfc. In any case, that x and x's supporters are unwilling or unable to defend x from charge y doesn't make y non-notable, and doesn't mean we shouldn't quote the arguments for y. Steeletrap (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

SRich - good cleanup; I didn't realize there was a separate newsletter article - should have known! CarolMooreDC🗽 17:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

However, while better than was, we still haven't gotten rid of that hyperventillating style and I haven't checked to make sure all claims are supported by the source. (No, personal blogs cannot be used and removed that.)

Also, I believe most or all reporting is based on Kirchick's reading of and report of the newsletters, so his ref alone should be used to describe actual content since the way it is written now it sounds like every issue had that kind of material in it.

Also, Paul took responsibility and from my experience in 1987-88 he knew dang well what was in a lot of them, and he was Rockwell's boss, so that needs to stay in there per WP:BLP. I still haven't gone through to see if all claims made actually reflect sources either. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the hyperventing. As we have a Newsletter article, I think that is best place to beat the drum. I've also posted an undue banner on RP's article about the newsletter section. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

On the neutrality section (carol)

Carolmoore, I don't understand what is non-neutral about the edits in that section. Is it the title you're objecting to? Or the content? Please specifically refer to some content so we can talk this out. Steeletrap (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

John W. Robbins Statement

I think we agree that it's significant that Ron Paul's former chief of staff, who worked for Paul at a time when the newsletters were just getting off the ground, (1981-1985) is willing to go on the record not only saying that not only does he fully believes LRW wrote the newsletters, but that every informed person believes that too. Therefore, I'm confused as to why this keeps being deleted. Is it because you question the RS? I have trouble understanding that, since the RS cited is the blog of J. Bradford Delong, a prominent UC Berkeley Professor of Economics and a former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury, the blog of whom is cited in a copious number of Misplaced Pages articles. (See: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/03/worth-reading-1-john-robbins-open-letter-to-lew-rockwell-march-30-2010.html) Granted, DeLong cites another (non-notable) blog that publishes Robbins' letter, but the fact that DeLong -- a credible and notable RS -- cites it is what matters, per WP: RS, For the reasons mentioned above, I think it's clear that this should be re-added. Let me know what your specific concerns are -- based on concrete Misplaced Pages policies -- with my citing the DeLong piece. Steeletrap (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I re-added the statement because a piece HuffPost has talked about it. (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/bill-clinton-bridegroom-tribeca-_n_3146636.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular) Obviously there is no problem with that source. So given the significance of the claim, it is a slam dunk to re-add it. Steeletrap (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the link in question. Ok, so you have properly ref'd it.

But you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between creating a chronological retelling of a story in an encyclopedic fashion and making an emotional, personal-sounding attack essay that uses refs as weapons and not tools. That's what you've got now. I'm going to do it properly in next few days and if you try to revert to this kind of screed it's straight to WP:BLP Noticeboard. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your statemen that I am " refs as weapons" in a fashion motivated by negative emotions is an imputation of bad faith and therefore an ad hominem attack in violation of WP:PA. Please retract that post. You are welcome to specifically cite claims that you think are unneutral or biased or unsubstantiated But these vague charges (and I'm talking to you here as well Srich) don't help the editing process, and end up -- unwittingly, I'm sure -- immunizing Rockwell from the facts about his involvement with (and the (in my view) overwhelming evidence of his authorship of) the racist newsletters. Steeletrap (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class epistemology articles
• Mid-importance epistemology articles
• Epistemology task force articles
• C-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles