Talk:Lew Rockwell/Archive 2

Federalism and secession
Aren't these entirely contradictory ideas? What is a federation if you can secede? Wouldn't such a thing be as powerless and as lacking in moral authority as the U.N.? Yet according to his article, Lew Rockwell espouses both. How do you account for it? Jason


 * Well, according to de Tocqueville and other observers, the ideas weren't necessarily mutually exclusive. More importantly here, Rockwell's columnists often argue points based on the fact that the US Gov't system is a federal one and that this therefore necessarily means that certain things are not under the authority of either the federal gov't or that of the states. I agree, though, that the current verbiage may confuse, and a rewording may be in order. DickClarkMises 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A good example of why federalism with the right to secede cannot work is the American Civil War. If a federation is supposed to protect the rights of minorities, and states secede as soon as the federation steps in to protect minorities therein, how then can these rights be enforced.  The South in this example saw that slavery was going to be abolished, so they seceded, and the federal government could not protect the rights of slaves except by declaring civil war.  In the same way, the U.N. cannot, and will not, protect the rights of ordinary people when communist leaders oppress them.  As for lack of mutual exlusivity, the same could be said about federalism versus states' rights.  Jason


 * That's a highly over-simplified summary of the events leading to the Civil War. Why do you think a state government is more inclined than a federal government to act unconstitutionally, illegally, or immorally? For 80 years before the Civil War, slavery had been an institution essentially unchallenged by either the federal or state governments, so the federal government was just as complicit in slavery as the states. The power of nullification or secession acts as a check on the power of a central government. This, in general, increases individual liberty through a reduction of the concentration of power in a single government body. Federalism and a right to nullification/secession are not "contradictory ideas", but if a state was to exercise the latter it would void the former, at least as far as that state was concerned. Strikehold (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as someone actually referenced in the article a federation should indeed have clearly delineated authority between the separate parts. Certain powers belong solely to the federal government, certain powers belong solely to the states, certain powers are shared by both, certain powers are forbidden to both.  Moreover the initial assumption used by writers on the website is that the federal government is a creation of and in theory an agent of the states.  A federation is supposed to represent the members of the federation, nothing less and nothing more.  Protection of minorities is an aspect of some federations, and not an aspect of others.  As per the slavery issue, the consensus among LRC writers is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Harvestdancer 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The federal government could just as easily abridge rights as protect them. In these cases it would make sense to secede. For instance if the federal government forced people into military service (draft). I believe to ignore the right to secede when your liberties are being infringed upon would be against the whole idea of the U.S. in the first place. Did we not "secede" from the British after all? --Jayson Virissimo 06:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Federalism in no way destroys secession, if anything, the decentralization of power found in a federalist structure of government would lend itself to secession more so than not. (Though obviously not so much as a confederation) Considering that New York and Texas BOTH entered the union only under explicit terms that the right to leave the union be guaranteed for their state should display that the governing minds of the time did not find any contradiction --Darrin 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On wikipedia what matters what we can source on the subject at hand, not our personal opinions on the views. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

eponymous & photos/libertarianism box & Reason article
Carol Moore 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk
 * First, hopefully didn't mess up anything else in article when somehow double copied material by mistake here instead of my saftey copy in wordprocessor.
 * I am removing eponymous AGAIN because it is WP:OR and only described thusly at one non-noteable site.  Who keeps putting it back there?
 * Why not put the photo to left and libertarianism box to right? I think looks better, but will wait for others' opinions.
 * I think we can venture another sentence or two of what Reason says and controversy; definitely a more accurate description of what they say. Yes, I'm quoted there and believe IF he's responsible he should confess, but NOT anti-Rockwell and just want balanced and accurate article.


 * As for images, they should be thumbified (which is default right) with no size declaration, since what looks ok on one browser more than likely doesn't look ok on even the same browser on a different OS with a different screen resolution. Please see Manual_of_Style and Image_use_policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding "eponymous," I reverted you, Carol, and then found this and reverted myself. It does not appear correct to use "eponymous" in this context. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Misuse of this word seems to date back to Wikipedia's early days. The 4th Earl of Sandwich is the eponym of the word sandwich. Julius Caeser is the eponym of the word/title kaiser. Mr Rockwell would be the eponym of rockwellian if this ever came to mean any Austrian school libertarian, but Lewrockwell.com, being a thing directly associated with Lew Rockwell himself, not a word or title, cannot have an eponym and cannot be eponymous. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Carol: With the regards to the Reason article, it is my understanding that it asserts that the "half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" all agree that Lew Rockwell was _a_ ghostwriter/speechwriter--perhaps the most frequent one, by some accounts--during the time period at issue. I am not aware of any first-hand account identifying Rockwell as the writer of the specific newsletters under review. Am I missing something? DickClarkMises (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss how to put in NPOV description of controversial newsletter
I'm bringin this up just to avoid revert wars and to work within WIKI policy. I agree with the current reverts but also believe there are ways that factual accusations can be summarized in a sentence or so in an NPOV fashion and might even do so myself at some point if no one else does. So discussion of NPOV way to do it to get to a consensus would be helpful. Carol Moore 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk


 * WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP: This is a very short article which could quickly be overwhelmed by "current events" reporting of political sniping. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But the truth is if you web-google Lew you don't find many news stories on the first pages, and most of them are about this. Having followed his career for 28 years I can safely say this is the biggest national news he's made. i.e., all those recent relatively mainstream google news stories. Plus describing the controversy is legitimate and necessary, since there are all sorts of controversies that it might refer to. (And knowing libertarian libertines, who knows what people might imagine?) And most people will not think to click on [Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy|Ron Paul] to find the link to the article about the newsletter controversy there. However, because of WP:BLP it's best to avoid possibility of libel by using a good, balanced descriptive phrase from some reliable source (i.e., not a minor blog), like from the recent Reason article.


 * For example:


 * On January 16, 2008 libertarian publication Reason claimed "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of several controversial, anonymously written articles published in Ron Paul newsletters from "roughly 1989 to 1994." Online copies of some issues had revealed some "bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays." However, the magazine also noted Rockwell has denied responsibility for the articles and "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"


 * Since I was quoted in the article I'm not rushing to insert anything controversial (as opposed to factual) so at this point just suggesting. Carol Moore 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Non-denial of Reason charges
The fact that Rockwell refused to discuss the newsletter controversy with Reason seems pretty significant to me. The previous version gives the misleading impression that he denied the allegations when confronted by Reason, which is false. Binarybits (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He already denied it to the TNR author. You personal opinion of his unwillingness to talk to Reason is not germane to this article. The fact is that he has denied authorship. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have no objection to including that fact in the article. It's also a fact that he declined to discuss the matter with Reason. I don't see why his non-denial to Reason is any less significant than his denial to TNR. Binarybits (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But the inclusion of it in this article implies that it is relevant to this article's coverage. It is understandable that Reason would note that their information was not first hand since they were relying on third party sources. That journalistic consideration by Reason does not seem relevant to this discussion. DickClarkMises (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DickClarkMises Conflict of Interest
DickClarkMises is a former staffer at the Lew Rockwell "Ludwig von Mises Institute," and a rabid partisan supporter of Lew Rockwell, as noted on his personal page, and elsewhere. This is not his pet article that he can do whatever he wants with. He should be banned from editing this article due to blatant conflict of interest, malignant intent, and a track record of edit warring facts deleterious to the personage of Lew Rockwell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually there only has been one point of contention, whether it is relevant/important that Rockwell refused to comment on Ron Paul newsletters to Reason. Why not just settle that here, rather than assume COI one just one controversial point? I don't have much of an opinion myself, so let's hear both sides. Carol Moore 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Proposed move to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Is there any opposition to moving the content of this article to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. ? The use of a nickname in an article title is inconsistent with general practice on WP as far as I can tell. I will move the article and make the current article redirect to the new one if consensus in favor of this action could be generated.PStrait (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do. (see below) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "general practice on WP", aka Wikipedia's naming conventions for people has two central ideas:
 * "1. The name that is most generally recognisable"
 * "2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles"
 * Neither the current title nor the proposed title bring up any disambiguation issues, so it comes down to which title is "the most generally recognisable". Google registers 519,000 hits for "Lew Rockwell", with 25,300 for "Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.". This does not seem to support your rationale. Regards,  скоморохъ  12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting this, I was mistaken. Given the written policy and that he does publish as Llewellyn H. Rockwell (without the Jr), it does seem to me any move would take a clear consensus of many experienced editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, do you think we should take this to Requested moves? скоморохъ  12:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given Wikipedia's naming conventions for people the consensus to move would have to show up on this talk page first and I don't think it will happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would certainly oppose such a move. As скоморохъ has demonstrated, Lew Rockwell is the much more well-known name, as well as the one for which most people are likely to search.  On Wikipedia, even a nickname---for example, Moondog rather than Louis Hardin---is used, as long as it is the more well-known name.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the move, since "Lew Rockwell" is obviously the most common appellation for the article's subject. I don't think it should go to WP:RM. No need to waste further editorial time on this, since the application of WP:NCP is unambiguous in this case. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing Anarchist Classification
Does Rockwell Self-Identify as an anarchist? as a libertarian party activists and former staffer for a republican party politician makes his classification as such very nonsensical. could these links be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.106.124 (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's nonsensical. There are many kinds of anarchy in political and economic thought and the word is not a synonym for chaos. The Austrian school is often considered a form of anarchy (but maybe more helpfully thought of as methodological individualism drawn from praxeology) and is somewhat linked with Anarcho-capitalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lew Rockwell is a self-avowed anarchist, according to this interview.
 * He explains,
 * The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn't mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalist system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I'm not sure that the term does that well. As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I'm with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I'm completely against that idea.
 * In an article Rockwell wrote about Rothbard, he quotes Rothbard as saying Then, when I became an anarchist, I was advised, similarly: 'Forget this anarchist stuff. It will injure your career, and ruin your scholarly image as a laissez-faire Austrian.'  It seems clear to me that Rockwell is an anarchist of the anarchocapitalist variety.
 * DickClarkMises (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Economist or not?
I really don't feel like getting in an edit war over this guy, but how is he an economist? If he's an economist, then so is anybody who writes on economic issues. In this vein, Kent Hovind is an evolutionary biologist. I prefer the term economic writer, but User:DickClarkMises keeps reverting. Rockwell has a degree in English. He lacks an advanced degree in economics and he has no serious, scholarly, peer-reviewed publications in economics. I submit that one or the other is necessary for a person to be called an economist. To wit, Joe Stiglitz = economist, Thomas Friedman <> economist, Murray Rothbard = economist, Lew Rockwell <> economist. KrJnX (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even as a libertarian I don't think libertywatch a reliable source. So I agree with above - UNLESS you find a reference where Rockwell describes self as an economist. Then you could call him a "self-described economist." Carol Moore 13:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Other people besides Rockwell consider him an economist. If you want to use a more restrictive definition of the word "economist," I suggest you start by narrowing the definition offered at the article economist, which defines an economist as follows:
 * An economist is an expert in the social science of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. Within this field there are many sub-fields, ranging from the broad philosophical theories to the focused study of minutiae within specific markets, macroeconomic analysis, microeconomic analysis or financial analysis, involving analytical methods and tools such as econometrics, statistics, economics computational models, financial economics, financial mathematics and mathematical economics.
 * The same article continues:
 * ...many prominent economists come from a background in mathematics, engineering, business, law, sociology, or history.
 * There is simply no question that Rockwell writes on economics and economic policy nearly daily, and is known for such writings. One need not be lettered in economics to be an economist (just ask Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Frederic Bastiat). What is the precedent for applying the word more narrowly, such as is being suggested here? How many monographs, chapters, and articles on economics must one write to be an economist? DickClarkMises (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I stated that one should have serious, scholarly, peer-reviewed publications in economics (published by a reputable press or journal). If an individual has ONE publication of such quality, he or she can be labeled an economist.  Lew Rockwell writes about economic issues in the same way that Tom Friedman does, yet Friedman is not considered an economist.  You are indeed correct that numerous persons are not formally trained in economics, yet are nonetheless considered economists.  These individuals, however, made a serious contribution to the field.  Rockwell has not any such contributions.  Sudhir Venkatesh, for example, a sociologist by training, can be called an economist by virtue of his work in unregulated markets.  At any rate, you state that "other people besides Rockwell consider him an economist."  Who, specifically, are these people?  Are they themselves respectable economists?  Or are they like the Discovery Institute calling Kent Hovind an evolutionary biologist? KrJnX (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assessment of Rockwell's contributions is original research, and isn't germane here. Here is a newspaper blurb advertising a speech by Rockwell at Walsh College, and billing him as a "libertarian economist.":
 * "We're honored to host one of the nation's leading authors on the free market economy," said Walsh College Finance and Economics Department Chairman Harry Veryser. "Lew Rockwell has written thousands of articles on liberty, the right to private property and the study of Austrian economics. He is a follower of Karl Menger, founder of the Austrian School of Economics." Rockwell joins Walsh economics faculty Veryser, Donald Byrne and David Breuhan in the annual discussion of economic theory and current climate. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can't show in Rockwell's massive number of writings that he ever calls himself an economist, it does verge on original research. WP:OR. (For example, searching "lew rockwell" economist biography nothing relevant popped up.) Though that could be over come if 3-4 high status economists called him one. Carol Moore 22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Your quote above doesn't call him an economist, just says he talks on the subject. And it's not reliable cause it could have been written by an intern, for all we know. For all we know Rockwell may NOT want people calling him an economist and would sue wikipedia for calling him one without a WP:RS saying he is one, or his own statement. Please see WP:BLP. Carol Moore 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Well Carol, I know you know better than that, since you are well-acquainted with his views and know that he doesn't believe in libel or slander laws. However, even if he did, how might one be damaged by being called "economist"? After all, a libel suit requires that the plaintiff show damages (among other things). Rockwell's status as a willing public figure would also make such a case very difficult. And Carol, if you had read the source to which I linked you would have seen that the item begins with the words "Economist Lew Rockwell...." Rockwell has been called "economist" in at least one independent, verifiable source. We are not naming the one true messiah here, folks. Calling someone "economist" when at least one newspaper has done so with regards to an economics club-sponsored event at a business school where he spoke as part of a roundtable of economists hardly seems like a stretch. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, a small town daily newspaper advertising a roundtable talk is now a reliable resource for an encyclopedia? Since when?  I would bet you spend a good deal of time looking for that single citation too.  Also, the fact that he engaged in a roundtable discussion doesn't make him an economist.  The blurb you cite (to call it an article would be too generous), doesn't even have a byline.  Additionally, the opinion of that one paper's staff is certainly not relevant.  Finally, Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines indicate that only high quality mainstream news organizations are to be used when referencing contentious biographic material regarding a living person.  Given your user page, I'm willing to bet that you know Mr. Rockwell personally and you are letting your personal feelings interfere with your objectivity.  It seems like the only people you can find that would describe Rockwell as an economist are you, Rockwell himself, and some copy editor on the Macomb Daily staff.  Doesn't seem acceptable to me.  To describe the man as an economics writer seems to be the best resolution to this debate.  The appellation economist is, at best, misleading when applied to Rockwell.  I'm not trying to insult him or denigrate his accomplishments or opinions.  I just think that the term economist becomes practically meaningless when such status is reduced to self-identifiabilty.KrJnX (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to work for the Mises Institute in Auburn--so what?. I announce that on my userpage for purposes of full disclosure. I don't see how you can impute anything to Rockwell based on my arguments here. I've never asked him, "Hey, do you call yourself an 'economist'?" I'm not claiming to have asked him that. I'm not claiming that he has called himself an economist, as you seem to be assuming. I am claiming no special knowledge of anything other than the English language. It isn't like I think the term is some prestigious appellation that he "deserves." I just think it is an accurate statement, much for the same reason that I think it is an accurate statement about Henry Hazlitt (about whom the same dispute occurred, I might add)--both are notable for their writings on economics. One need not have originated a theory to be notable for having popularized it. If one is notable for writing economic analysis of public policy, speaking on economics, editing and publishing books on economics, and starting an economics institute, I say that meets the plain definition of the word "economist" as the word is defined both here on Wikipedia and in any dictionary you pick up. It isn't about allowing just anyone to call themselves "economist" and be so-called here on Wikipedia. It is about writing a correct encyclopedia article. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously Rockwell isn't going to sue wikipedia for that. I was just trying to make the point that he might not like being called an economist (maybe he's modest :-). If he doesn't want to self-describe himself thusly, why foist it on him? If you know him, tell him to put it on his web page somewhere and then he can be a self-described one til you get a couple better sources. If he doesn't want to self-describe himself thusly, why foist it on him? Carolmooredc {talk}
 * So Carol, answer this yes/no question: Must someone say "X is an economist" in order for them to be so described here? It seems to me that anyone who writes in economics is an economist, just as anyone who writes in philosophy is philosopher. Wikipedia does not have any official policy or guideline of which I am aware that requires certain educational backgrounds for certain professional descriptors. After all, the article on Lysander Spooner does not omit the fact that Spooner was a lawyer just because Spooner did not meet the state requirements for such a title during that period in American history. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, essentially what you are saying is that economics writer and economist are synonyms? Then why bother reverting?  It shouldn't be a problem to call him an economics writer.  It shouldn't bother you and it wouldn't bother those persons who have a more exacting definition of the term.  Do you seriously believe that every journalist who writes on a topic can be described as experts on that topic?  Is the science writer for the New York Times a physicist, biologist, chemist, and astronomer?  I expect those Wikipedia categories to become very crowded then.  You keep jumping from rationale to rationale in your justification.  Find me a source where a real-life economist calls him as such, preferably more than one.  By the way, Lysander Spooner is called a lawyer by Alexander Volokh.  Find me a source where an economist as respected in economics as Volokh is in law calls Rockwell an economist.  Additionally, historical persons are typically held to less exacting standards in such matters, so the comparison is less than apt anyway.  As for the term philosopher, the term is more akin to 'artist' than 'social scientist'.  That is, the colloquial standards are less exacting.  In the end, the facts are that you have been unable to find sources where he is called an economist by other economists, that he has not produced any peer-reviewed scholarly works in respected journals or a respected scholarly press, and that has he no advanced degree in economics.  That said, Rockwell still deserves a page on Wikipedia for numerous things: for popularizing libertarian economics, for creating the Mises Institute, and for his numerous writings.  Such a page should accurately describe him as what he is.  He writings are not scholarly in nature, therefore he is not an economist, he is an economics writer.  But none of that is relevant if, as you say, "anyone who writes in economics is an economist."  According to that statement, changing "economist" to "economics writer" is no different than changing "baby" to "infant."  So tell me why, if the term means nothing more than a person who writes on economic topics, he absolutely must be labeled as an economist and not economics writer.KrJnX (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, if Bob Johnson from the Birmingham News writes a column on economics, I am not saying he is an economist. If however, we are talking about someone who has made writing about economics his life's work, and is notable primarily for this work related to economics, the term "economist" is apt. Some journalists, such as Hazlitt, who spend an entire career writing about economics may be both journalists and economists. I guess I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between "economist" and "economics writer." Could you explain the difference to me? DickClarkMises (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Haven't I explained it several times already? An economist is someone who has either an advanced degree in economics or produces original research on economics in reputable scholarly publications. Such an individual is likely to be considered an economist by other economists.  To clarify, if you were to subtract the scholarly economic contributions of Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Paul Krugman or Brad DeLong from their existence, all would be labeled economic writers or journalists for their popular work.  I'm tiring of this.  I noticed that you undertook the exact same position on the Hazlitt talk page as you do in this one.  It also appears that your opponents simply tired of arguing with you.  In other words, you act as though the Hazlitt dispute was an actual resolution instead of a battle of attrition.  Rockwell produces no innovative works, nor has he an advanced degree in economics.  He has devoted his life to popularizing the economic works of others, which, while not an ignoble pursuit, does not make him an economist.  Therefore, he is an economics writer.  Amity Shlaes, who wrote an economics column for several years for the Financial Times, can be described in precisely the same way.  She is an economics writer, like Rockwell.KrJnX (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Frederic Bastiat's writings were intended for a popular audience. Does that render him a non-economist? You are making a value judgment which affects a reader's perception of the subject. Now look, if you can find sources that go back and forth on this--say, something specifically calling Rockwell a non-economist, for instance--that would introduce a different issue: one of NPOV compliance with regards to a controversial issue. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, although this is not a reliable source, I am happy enough to accept it as evidence of controversy on this topic, which would lead me to remove the description "economist" in favor of your preferred "economics writer," but which would also imply that calling Rockwell a non-economist in the article (or elsewhere) would equally be a violation of the NPOV: . DickClarkMises (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Calling him a non-economist would seem to be a term of disapprobation.00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrJnX (talk • contribs)
 * All right, I used "proponent of the Austrian School of economics" instead because the Austrian School link seems important for the lead. I am open to better wording, though. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems perfectly fine to me.KrJnX (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

think Tank
isn't the mises institute a conservative think tank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read some of the better articles (ones with actual sources) and even some of the sources and learn more about the topic of libertarianism vs. conservatism since this is your second edit today showing some confusion on that topic. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not much of a biography
I swung by to learn about Lew's early life, and there's nothing. In fact, aside from mentioning his religion and university, there's hardly anything about his life in this whole article. Where was he raised? Who were his parents? Did he play sports? Was he a good student? What cities has he lived in? When did he publish his first essay/article? Is he married? To whom? Any children? And so on. Ikilled007 (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Be bold. Research and add info with WP:RS references. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an intellectual, not a peasant. Like Mycroft Holmes, I leave the legwork for the peons. Edited to add a smiley face I meant to add. :) Ikilled007 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anything wrong with just emailing Rockwell and asking him for details of his early years and family? Persianq (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be original research, which isn't allowed. Which is to say, any information you might glean by email couldn't be cited unless it was published in a reliable source, or perhaps self published by him on his website, since that would likely be taken as verifiable by many editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter controversy coverage
On January 16, 2008 libertarian publication Reason claimed "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of several racially charged anonymously written articles published in Ron Paul newsletters from "roughly 1989 to 1994." According to Reason, "Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick." Rockwell "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"

The above text has been in the article for quite some time. Now that these stories don't seem to be developing any further, I thought it might be possible to revisit our rationale for including this material. The BLP policy advises that we should "[a]void repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Beware of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." The accusations leveled against Lew Rockwell in Reason and TNR have been based on anonymous sources. Rockwell seems to have denied the accusations. Are there any reliable sources on this? This seems awfully thin in light of BLP concerns. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * TNR and Reason are generally considered to be reliable sources. The fact that a reliable source uses other sources which it does not identify explicitly is mostly irrelevant. (However I've started a thread regarding that text: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons). The Reason piece actually identifies several people who name Rockwell as a writer of some of the material in question. The issue of whether this material is relevant to this biography is less straightforward, but I'd tend to say it qualifies. The subject's political writings are a central theme. The presentation seems reasonably neutral: an assertion, attributed to two sources, is made and the denial is given. It might be getting too much weight by having a section and heading of its own. It's make more sense to move it into the chronological position with a slight re-write. Something like "Years later there was a controversy over whether Rockwell was responsible for..." Also, the double attribution of the denial seems excessive. Instead of saying, According to Reason, "Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick." Rockwell "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"[18], we could just say something like Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents and has called the accusations "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies".     Will Beback    talk    21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, maybe I am missing something you are seeing in the Reason piece, but I only see where people say that Rockwell was a ghostwriter for the newsletter, not that they knew that he wrote the specific content that caused this dust-up. Thank you for taking a look, btw. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that none of those specifically say that Rockwell wrote specific material. However one says that Rockwell was the "editor and chief writer", which implies he had knowledge of the writers and authority over the contents. I don't see a probem with making that clearer. Can you suggest any alterations to the material to improve it?   Will Beback    talk    23:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the current wording saying that the Reason article says that Rockwell was the chief ghostwriter of the articles is problematic, since the sources really just say that (1) he wrote a lot of stuff in the Ron Paul newsletter, and that (2) he was in a position to know who did write the disputed material. I think that clarification would improve the coverage tremendously. I was planning on expanding the bio with more vital stats/influences stuff soon (from this autobiographical source), so that should help with implementing the idea you suggested about weaving this into the biographical chronology rather than setting it apart in an independent section. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do your best, I'm sure it'll turn out fine.   Will Beback    talk    23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I reworked the relevant section for now, and I added some material at the top from the interview with Brian Doherty. Once I incorporate more of Rockwell's career information (Arlington House, Hillsdale College, etc.), that section can probably be rolled into the chronology like we discussed above. DickClarkMises (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

George Lincoln Rockwell
Is there any relationship tp George Lincoln Rockwell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.204.121 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. "Rockwell" is the surname of about 1 out of every 22k Americans. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rockwell advocates police brutality
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-10/opinion/op-178_1_safe-streets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.193.193.54 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion
There's no reference for the claim that Rockwell is a Roman Catholic.

67.165.153.4 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1988 Libertarian race and subsequent blowout
There's a significant event with Ron Paul's 1988 Libertarian race, and Lew Rockwell/Murray Rothbard/Burton Blumert's nasty blowout with the Libertarian Party that is omitted from this article. I think he almost became chairman of the board with the other two as board members, which would have given them a lot of control of the LP, but he lost by one vote or something. It was pretty contentious. JettaMann (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

John Birch Society
Did Lew Rockwell start out as a member of the John Birch Society? JettaMann (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Koch Brothers
LR had a blowout with the Koch Brothers over von Mises. In one of the most recent LRC podcasts LR talks about this. JettaMann (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/08/02/213-tom-woods-quizzes-lew-rockwell/

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 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 &#x1f5fd; 15:15, 24 March 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)

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 &#x1f5fd; 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 &#x1f5fd; 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 &#x1f5fd; 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 &#x1f5fd; 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 [the newsletters] 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 &#x1f5fd; 22:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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 &#x1f5fd; 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 &#x1f5fd; 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)
 * Hello. I am sorry to keep nagging you about WP policy lately, but I have to say that your word choice ("hyperventing") borders on WP: PA (irrespective of whom you directed that comment at). This is particularly true this you do not invoke any concrete examples of where the tone is misplaced; you just make a bad charge. I am maybe being to sensitive about this, but think I am justified in doing so given that you have previously personally attackd me. Steeletrap (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hyperventilating may be a bad choice for POV language. But it looks like you want to pummel people who made stupid mistakes 20 years ago when there is no evidence of current transgressions. Sure, it needs to be mentioned, but in a low key way. It looks like your personal POV is a bit out of control is all. I'm also frustrated that having problems on other articles like that and it's tiring having to constantly list every incident of bad sourcing or POV language. Sometimes one gets impatient. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 03:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to be clearer about your claim. Is the tone of the piece POV (i.e. is the evidence slanted/sources misrepresented)? (with respect to this claim, I again urge you to cite specific passages/citations and present your argument as to why they are biased.) Or do you think that the fact that the piece has a sub-section on the Rockwell page is the bias? (That is a far less debatable proposition. The RP newsletters is the single biggest issue for which Rockwell has been discussed by credible RS in the mainstream media. Whether or not you think the story is worthy of discussion is a (your) value judgment; but it is a fact that LRW's role in the newsletters have been covered a ton by RS/the press, including but not limited to the NYT; The Economist; WP; The Atlantic; Reason Magazine; The New Republic; The Huffington Post; and Andrew Sullivan. This fact justifies not only the inclusion of a sub-section devoted to the newsletters, but very likely a separate section altogether. Steeletrap (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)