Talk:George Lincoln Rockwell

He was a terrible writer

I did not get too far into this article, like some said it reads like a hagiography, although I did notice that from what I read no one actually commented on the horrible writing style this guy had. I'm reading his biography and I feel as if I'm reading something written by a teenager in high school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you really all that surprised? Neo-Nazis tend to be pretty unintelligent. ~Andrew Floyd Williams —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC).

"The House on Hatemonger Hill"

Is there a single substantiated reference to this? Did anyone---let alone conservative Virginians in the 1960s--- actually use the term "Hatemonger" at that time? It sounds like nothing more than self-righteous leftist propaganda from the 1980s or later. Deleted until someone can scrape up some evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.102.101.85 (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mirror sites

This article is now being used, with attribution, by: http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/george_lincoln_rockwell.html — Clarknova 01:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, they're one of our mirror sites, one rated highly compliant with the GFDL - David Gerard 11:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Predominately VS Predominantly

Recent changes made to this article have changed the spelling of predominately to an alternative predominantly. My first instinct as I prefer the former was to change it back, but I decided to investige. Both mean the same, and here is what I came up with:

There’s been a lot of scholarly argument about the relative merits of these two words down the years, most of it directed at the linked adjectives, predominate and predominant. Some usage writers have condemned the former as illiterate, arguing that it can only be a verb, never an adjective. History is against all such critics, because predominate as an adjective first appeared as far back as 1591, and is actually older than the verb. The spelling of the adverb as predominately is about a hundred years older than the predominantly form. Predominantly and its related adjective are now much the more common forms, though that doesn’t make the other pair wrong, just less often currently preferred alternatives.

Now this is not biggie and I am not gonna upset editors over this...I prefer predominately. Personally. Anyone else with thoughts on this, and isn't wiki policy to leave unchanged that which is acceptable even if it is not someones preferred spelling? For now, as it affects none of the content I see no reason to change it. Any thoughts though??? Joey James 00:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Frankly, Scarlett..." I didn't know there were 2, & "predominately" was older. Thanks. Trekphiler 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (BTW, please yourself, 'cause somebody's bound to change it, anyhow. 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Portrait of Rockwell

Here is one portrait of Rockwell that could be used for the article.[1]

Other images [2]

Congressman Stanley Tupper

I removed the Congressman Stanley Tupper reference. I did a search on Google and found nothing that connected the two men. If Tupper only knew Rockwell in his youth then the reference is not significant. I found Congressman Tupper supported civil rights legislation in the 60's. This would hardly make Tupper a supporter of Rockwell or his cause. If there is other information of importance regarding Tupper and Rockwell then a paragraph should be developed and included in the article.

According to William Schmaltz's Hate: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party, Tupper was one of the people he interviewed for the book. During the interview, Tupper talked about how he spent much time with Rockwell in Boothbay and at Hebron Academy. Years later as a US Congressmen, Tupper still maintained a closed door friendship, even though he disapproved of what he was doing. In fact, during their last conversation, Rockwell confided in Tupper that his life was nearing its end.

Right now, this is a bad article

First of all, this article is awfully long for a basically minor fringe figure. Second of all, parts of it read like a hagiography. There's a whole long paragraph about how as boy he learned courage by standing off a gang of toughs (sole source:Rockwell)... he didn't get into Harvard only because of some screwup with his school records, so he went back for another year of high school, hmmmm... blah blah blah... paragraphs and paragraphs about his deep understanding of philiosophy etc etc. Really bad article. Herostratus 08:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it does read like a Hagiography, it is obvious that some of the contributors to this article are probably sympathetic to his movemement. Even the Skrewdriver website is listed as a source, so clearly pulling from bias sources. It does need much cleaning up and revising, I am particularly too lazy to do it myself, so someone else should have a go at it.

But the length of the article I have no problem with, the more information on any subject can never be bad. xcuref1endx 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you compare it to the Rosa Parks or Malcolm X article?216.174.53.248 02:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockwell actually isn't a minor fringe figure. His movement was rather large during the civil rights era. He just isn't talked about any longer.

Calling Rockwell a minor fringe figure is a bit of a misnomer. The American Nazi Party was, with regards to political groups, are fairly major event. As it was formed less than twenty years after WW2, one can't help but think of it has being of some historical note. However, Rockwell's group never was too large. It maintained a fairly limited membership, even during the civil rights era.

Also, I'd like one to explain why we would ever compare Rockwell's article to Rosa Parks' ?

Rosa Parks = Sweet Old Black Lady, Rockwell = Paranoid Pipe Smoking Bastard, oh sure, there are SO many comparisons... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I assume that the suggstion of comparison mentioned was not to establish your view of their negative and positive qualities, but to say that other articles have refences from sympathetic sources and this should not be a problem if the source is reliable, just because a source does not promote a specific or accepted political outlook does not make it unreliable in itself. It is not an agument to say one article is better or should get better treatment because the subject is ' nicer'. But as it stands, most of the above comments were unsigned and useless. It is unlikey they will return or contribute in a constructive way. PyrE 00:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to discuss perceived similarities between rockwell/parks, ect. however, the assassination section sounds like it was written by indiana jones, with practically no citations or sources. an important figure deserves credit, regardless of his beliefs or actions. that section is just ridiculous. where can it go from here without creating edit war III? Aceholiday (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To compare George Lincoln Rockwell with Rosa Parks is ridiculous. To compare Rockwell with Malcolm X, however, isn't all that farfetched, as both were racial separatists during the sixties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Floyd Williams (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta connection ?

I removed the section on the Atlanta demonstration and the synagogue bombing. In Rockwell's autobiography he thought the Feds would try to connect him to the event. A separate article titled 1958 Atlanta temple bombing should be created and perhaps a reference to Rockwell be added. 216.174.52.242 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockwell and Vietnam

Rockwell was not an opponent of the Vietnam War. I made the correct changes.216.174.52.13 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Elijah Muhammad & Malcom X

At the same time, Rockwell reached out to form friendly associations with the Nation of Islam, for its shared belief in racial separation. He also had great respect for Elijah Muhammad as the "Black people's Hitler," for doing the best job promoting integrity and pride among his people. Finally, he admired Malcolm X, as his black equivalent and the next true leader for Black America, even after his split from the Black Muslim organization.

Can we find the sources for this, if there are sources? --Liberlogos 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this will help.[3]67.72.98.45 01:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mental Stability

I find it intresting that non of the articles dealing with racist/white hate leaders explain the cause of these individual's deillusions of "Communist jews" or "massive mixing conspiricy", neurologically. I mean, these people HAD to have something very wrong with them to make them believe this crazy sh*t. It just dos'nt make sense and its pissing me off, why the hell wont they just leave us alone? 69.250.130.215 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum, go find one and then post what you want... but not here. Shadowy Crafter 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to explain fucked up beliefs with psychology is quackery. I'm not one to decry today's mainstream psychology's supposed over-diagnosing of people, but Rockwell was a product of history, not chemical imbalances. It is, in fact, dangerous not to recognize this. I could go on, but as Shadowy Crafter said just above me, this is not a forum. MQDuck 11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Large portions of this article are sourced not from the references listed in the References section, but from sources that seem to me to be unreliable. In some cases these are for claims that shouldn't be controversial, but other cases look a little problematic. Consider this paragraph for instance:

Rockwell's next tactic was to hold a rally in Union Square in New York City. He went there to demand a permit to speak and soon found himself surrounded by his archenemies: the Jews. A near riot erupted as Rockwell began to answer reporters' questions. Rockwell said that 80 percent of the Jewish population in America were Communist sympathizers and therefore traitors who should be gassed, on the basis that most of the convicted spies happened to be Jewish. The crowd went wild, demanding Rockwell be killed on the spot. He was given a protected escort out of New York City and never received the permit to hold the rally. 15

The linked source is, in fact, a chapter of Rockwell's book This Time The World, as published on a UK racist Web site. Since this is a work of political opinion, it is a reliable source for what Rockwell or other neo-Nazis think but it is not reliable for what happened in New York.

Chiefly, the claim that he "found himself surrounded by his archenemies: the Jews" and the claim that "the crowd went wild, demanding Rockwell be killed on the spot" seem to be the sort of unreliable claims that come from using unreliable sources. --FOo 10:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I followed a link to this article from another as I didn't recognize the name and I must say this is one of the most untrustworthy Wikipedia articles I have ever seen. A lot of information is given, and almost all of it is completely unsourced. The unsourced material should be removed until it can be backed up by a reliable source. Magnus 13:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bad sources"? That's for sure. It says

"Rockwell flew old Curtiss biplanes which were launched by aircraft catapults from Omaha. Off the coast of Africa, Rockwell helped in the sinking of two Axis subs when he was part of a carrier hunter-killer group."

To begin with, Curtiss biplanes had long since been obsolete & out of service by 1941. Nor do I recall CVE Omaha being a part of any ops off Africa (my guess is Bogue, the targets a couple of Type 14s, IIRC); in fact, I don't recall the existence of a CVE Omaha. And "co-ordinated air support on Guam"? I've never seen his name connected to it before. That's only what I know just offhand... Trekphiler 12:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) I gotta learn to read the d*mn articles... 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias

In attempting to write from a neutral point of view (I hope this is the reason, anyway), this article becomes uncritical, in particular when stating his specific beliefs and reasonings. For instance (bold added by me):

"With the appearance of the skinhead movement of the 1970s and 1980s many working class youths became a part of a neo-Nazi revival. The movement appeared for the most part on its own; the root cause was alienation of white youths in an ever increasingly multi-racial society."

I, for one, would strongly disagree with that statement, or at least declare it a dangerously incomplete explanation. It should not be stated factually. I also deleted a statement implying that the peace protesters Rockwell was, so to speak, "fighting" against were hypocrites.

The article gives a lot of detailed, factual information and, assuming it's all correct and not chosen in a biased way, is very useful. I suggest a thorough check of all the facts, some minor rewriting of many of the sentences, and eventually adding some of the basic counter-arguments to his that are given in the article.

UPDATE: Forgot to sign in before. MQDuck 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is very biased. It doesn't mention positive references to this true American. His right to political views is the same as any other American and should not be bashed for what he believed in. -'unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.89.190 (talk • contribs)

• I reverted your edit to this article because it was factually incorrect. George Lincoln Rockwell was a neo-Nazi, and has only been influential to a minority of people with similar views, not to all nationalists or Americans. That is not being biased; it is stating fact.Spylab 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But did he not have a wider, indirect influence? Personally, I don't know, but it should be asked. MQDuck 11:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can references be cited proving he did have a wider influence? That would seem to be the wikipedia test. Personally I'd not come across the name until some reading on black civil rights movements in the USA turned up that some white extremists had turned up at a Nation of Islam event. --mgaved 16:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Rockwell was a hero. This article does not mention all the great things he did in his life. A bad article indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.74.105 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the photo of "James Byrd, Jr., a victim of his followers"? Is this not irrelevant and POV?

RV unsourced POV "National Review"

i removed a section asserting that roockwell was a conservative who once worked wor the National Review magazine for lack of sourcing.

as it turns out, there's actually positive evidence against the verity of this claim. William F. Buckley and the magazine won a libel suit against another magazine which made this claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-libel.html

Second Wife

The article states that Rockwell's second wife was named Thora Hallgrímsson. Shouldn't her last name be Hallgrímssdóttir, following Icelandic naming conventions?

• No, her correct name is Þóra (Thora) Hallgrímsson, indeed it does not follow Icelandic naming conventions.--Moingv (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

She is named as Þóra Hallgrímsdóttir in Icelandic media: http://www.dv.is/frettir/2011/5/12/bjorgolfur-bodinn-opnunarhatid-horpu-um-helgina/ and under Icelandic law her patronym is Hallgrímsdóttir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.162.5 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we dispense with writing Mrs. Rockwell's first name as Þóra? Rockwell in This Time the World does not write it that way but transliterates it as Thora, which uses only characters from the English alphabet, and which everybody will know how to pronounce. I think Anglophones who know how to pronounce Þóra are probably few and far between. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing Television?

I am watching the History Channel right now, & the program states emphatically that he was murdered due to disagreements over the superiority of lighter-skinned whites. How does one cite a television program as a source? Or do we just say "We have no way of verifying the show's sources, so we don't cite them at all"? 96.241.3.248 (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I forgot to log in. FlaviaR (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

POV check

This article was listed in Category:NPOV disputes from June 2007. Since there has been no recent discussion regarding this article's neutrality and no outstanding correctable issues left on the talk page, I have removed the pov-check tag. If anyone disagrees, please revert my removal and list your grievances here. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Many words, few sources

This article seems very long compared to the number of sources. For example, the assassination section is very detailed, yet it doesn't have a single source despite being marked since 2006! I'll give this article a few weeks to see if anyone wants to improve it. After that I'll cut it down to what's supported by the obvious or inline sources.   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

only the dead politicians are good politicians

hitler, j kennedy,rockwell..