Talk:Lew Rockwell/Archive 3

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 &#x1f5fd; 18:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statemen that I am "[using] 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)
 * gain bad choice of words for questions about use of refs and POV language. 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; 03:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy to look the other way on what you concede was a bad choice of words. I -- like you -- am personally biased about this subject, but it does not follow from this that this bias is guiding my (or your) edits. Indeed, I am committed to editing this article based on encyclopedic merits. To suggest otherwise is a WP:PA, just as my suggesting that you were motivated by a desire to protect an ideological comrade (I don't think this-- just a hypothetical example) would be a PA. But I do have to insist that you to cite specific claims rather than vaguely claim that my edits contain "POV language." If there is an egregious example you should be able to point it out specifically (I.e. through quoting a specific passage and detailing what you perceive to be its problems on the talk page). Your unwillingness to do so thus far strengthens my conviction that I did a good job with my edits. Steeletrap (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm here because Steeltrap asked me to take a look at this article, although I have edited here previously and its on my watchlist. I'm very disappointed by what I see here. Carolmoore, I hope you will respond to Steeltrap's request above and provide a detailed argument to support your view as to the text and references under discussion. Whatever the outcome, it seems to me that Steeltrap has done a lot of work assembling the grist for your critical evaluation and that the article is already in better shape than before he arrived here. SPECIFICO talk  11:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been a great disappointment. I am sure they are making their edits in good faith, but they need to get more specific with these claims that edits are violating "neutrality" and NPOV. Failing to specify a single example in which either of these are violated (despite my asking them for nearly a week to provide them) while still leveling these charges only serves to shut down debate. Steeletrap (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you remember correctly we already had a bunch of criticisms above and you changed some of them after a fight. Sometimes one gets a bit burnt out and frustrated. But you ignore the general critique (still have looked to see if your comments reflect all sources):
 * An encyclopedia says: Ron Paul had a series of newsletters during what years and Rockwell was editor of some of them during some years (whatever facts say). In 2008 Kirchick brought publicity for (describe nasty things from this original source used by most media afterwards), plus any other additional info/commentary of note from other sources. Rockwell and Paul responses. It also was a big deal in 2012. Any new and important Rockwell and Paul responses, per WP:BLP.
 * "Hyperventilating" might describe and POV definitely describes your current version: According to these major sources(!!!) Rockwell was the editor of this racist/antigay(!!!) publication and here's what people say about it(!!) and here's his/Paul's response.
 * After I do my NPOV version, should you revert it, I'll have those two diffs to take to to BLPN. I'm 99.9% sure that my type of version will be seen as more NPOV per WP:BLP policy. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is not constructive. Please quote a specific passage and explain where it violates NPOV. Your charged language and false characterization of my edits is not looked fondly upon, particularly given your previous personal attack. I also fail to see why my mentions of the numerous sources who claim Rockwell wrote the newsletters -- as documented by RS --, to include Paul's former chief of staff, is not important information for this controversy. Steeletrap (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And no. I do not "remember" anything like what you're saying. That's because it didn't happen. Neither of you have ever pointed out, through all of the insulting insinuations and vague criticisms you've made, a single sentence that deviates from NPOV. You haven't even tried. Steeletrap (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol Moore, I don't know whether you are aware of it but the tone of your language sounds extremely angry, hostile, and sarcastic to user Steeltrap. At the very least, WP:BITE applies. Please consider.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't realize User:Steeletrap was a new user since he seemed quite sophisticated in his editing. So perhaps that explains my frustration. In any case, if that was too general an explanation I shall hold my tongue until I get around to investigating further and/or when I get around to redoing it per WP:BLP/NPOV as I described. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest changes
It appears that virtually all of my substantive, exceedingly well sourced edits which enhanced the newsletters part were, in spite of Carol's suggestion that she would completely change the article above, effectively upheld. For the sake of the Encyclopedia, I am glad for that. Steeletrap (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Gender-neutral_language
Check it out. User:Carolmooredc  15:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lew Rockwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050527223733/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n5_v13/ai_19092301 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n5_v13/ai_19092301
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/masthead.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lew Rockwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928032704/http://old.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment030701b.shtml to http://old.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment030701b.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627114950/ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=25 to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=25

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lew Rockwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519155444/http://students.uis.edu/araut01s/ir-intro.html to http://students.uis.edu/araut01s/ir-intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lew is dead from COVID, February 14, 2022.
Lew is dead from COVID, February 14, 2022. 47.233.38.20 (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)