Talk:LewRockwell.com

Controversy on Anti-Gay and Allegedly Racist Contributors

I created this section to reflect the fact that there has been controversy -- e.g., from Cato Institute Senior Fellow Tom G. Palmer -- over some of this website's columnists. Even though it's pretty obvious that people who defend Holocaust Denial "scholarship" (Sobran) and white nationalism (Francis) are racists, I put in "allegedly" to be meticulously fair. However, since North advocates stoning gays to death, I think it's fair to call him "anti-gay" without a qualifier. I mean, if someone who literally wants to smash in the skulls of homosexuals because of their sexual orientation (and sexual behavior, I suppose) isn't "anti-gay", then that term has no meaning. Steeletrap (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've retitled the section as it only has Palmer's criticisms. Also, I've tagged it as OR. My concern is that Palmer's comments are tied with sources from others. For example, he is critical of North and the fact that North has been featured on LR.com. But is he critical of North's specific comments or advocations about gays or because North's anti-gay comments have been featured on LR.com? – S. Rich (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think he's opposed to stoning gays to death. In any case, that's the material charge, from a credible RS source: that North wants to stone gays to death. Palmer's opinion on LRC isn't particularly relevant in that context; the only relevant factor is whether 1) Palmer is correct to assert that (and he is -- see the reason article and Christian Reconstructionism) 2) Whether Palmer is right that publishing someone who wants to stone to death homosexuals discredits LRC. #2 is for the reader to decide, but he or she should have access to that information. (Similarly, it would be material if LRC published an author who wanted to stone Jews or African Americans to death.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. I think you mean Palmer is opposed to stoning gays. I'm sure he is, but what does that have to do with LRC? Nor does it matter if North wants to stone them -- if he doesn't say so on LRC. If he had, that would be a different editing issue. (Also, part of my confusion comes from the fact that Palmer is not mentioned in the Christian Reconstruct article.) In editing this article, the only relevant information is that stuff published by LRC. Suppose one of the LRC contributors said they loved foie gras, but in a non-LRC forum. Would that be pertinent to the LRC article? (No.) The logic I see above is "LRC publishes stuff by people who love foie gras/hate gays, therefore LRC is an anti-animal/anti-PETA or anti-gay forum." But even if LRC had a pro-foie gras article, we could not say "LRC is anti-animal." – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a determination for the readers to make. You are welcome -- encouraged, even -- to specify that he doesn't advocate these specific views on LRC (though I believe he has written critically of homosexuality there). But whether it has "nothing to do" with LRC is a contentious matter (see the controversy on the Palmer article), and a matter for the reader to decide. Suppose I hire a neo-Nazi who wants to stone Jews to death to write about economics, politics, and ethics for my website. Even if he never says he wants to kill jews, is it unfair for someone to criticize my website for my choice in author? Or to speculate that his anti-semitism may affect his political views in a broader sense? (say he spoke out against on World War II, as North has spoken out against funding HIV/AIDS research) The fact is that the criticism would be considered relevant to many people, and (in their view) would undermine the credibility of my site. Hence Palmer's criticism, given its factual accuracy, is relevant. (conceding relevancy, by the way, is not the same saying as agreeing with a criticism; you can disagree that publishing North reflects poorly on LRC and still think it's a notable criticism.) Steeletrap (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. In this case there is an objective standard (WP:SYN) that we, as editors, must follow. We can see whether or not LRC has posted such articles. Compare: "If one reliable source says A [LRC has published stuff by North], and another reliable source says B [North has anti-gay views as evidenced by XYZ publication], do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C [LRC is anti-gay] that is not mentioned by either of the sources. [emphasis added]." This WP policy does not allow us to present material "for the readers to decide. (paraphrase)" – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by OR? Palmer is a credible RS who, in the link I provide, explicitly criticizes Sobran, NOrth, and Francis for the reasons stated in the Wikipedia entry (and criticizes LRC for publishing the first two repeatedly and linking to the third). I didn't piece any of that stuff together; it's all a paraphrase of Palmer, not an inference. Please point out where I am engaging in OR in the criticism section. In the process, perhaps try to see how much positive OR there is in this article (as well as argumentation ethics), and hold that to the ultra-stringent standard you're holding my edits. UPDATE: for some reason, my citation regarding Palmer's criticism of North was deleted. Here it is: http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/. Update 2: It wasn't deleted (my mistake). Which makes this concern of yours quite inexplicable to me. Palmer states A B C and I state A B and C. Look at both cited Palmer articles (see:http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/ and http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/) and tell me where the "OR" is. It is nowhere to be found even given the most strict interpretation, as opposed to everything positive in these (and all other) Mises Institute-related columns, such as "argumentation ethics." [User:Steeletrap|Steeletrap]] (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edits: [1] produced this text:

Tom G. Palmer has criticized (http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/) Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com for publishing hundreds of columns by Gary North, who advocates stoning to death homosexuals and children who curse their parents (http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning) (http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/public_stoning%3A_not_just_for_the_taliban_anymore) featuring as a columnist Joseph Sobran, who gave a Keynote Lecture to the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review (IHR) entitled "For Fear of the Jews," where he defended the Holocaust Denial scholarship of IHR (http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml) and for favorably linking on multiple occasions to columns by Sam Francis (http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/), a white nationalist (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/sam-francis#.UXTdqbVJMoo) associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which Palmer characterizes as a racist group which grew out of the Jim Crow laws-defending White Citizens Council.

Since then you and I have worked on the page (and I've removed the <ref></ref> markup and replaced it with (parens), but here is the point: Tom Palmer with his tompalmer.com citation is the "A". The other links are the "Bs". The implicit, and un-allowable conclusion about LRC is the "C". Palmer has to say "A" and "B" and reach conclusion "C" without help from other sources. He might agree with the "Bs", but he has to make the statement that he does. Where does Palmer say North advocates stoning gays, or children who curse their parents, or that Sobran gave a lecture, or the white nationalist stuff? We cannot add in our own "Bs" from other sources even if they are reliable and even if they correspond with what Palmer thinks. I regret if I am not making myself clear in this regard. Perhaps it will help if a third opinion comes in. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for concretely expressing your concerns on OR. I am happy to address them. (incidentally, the answers can also be found by reading the previously cited Palmer pieces.)

"Where does Palmer say North advocates stoning gays"? Palmer: "North favor favors stoning of homosexuals (stoning is preferred on economic grounds, since the instruments of murder can be used over and over — how economical!) and exploitation of religious toleration just until his own madcap sect gains power, after which they will kill the rest of us." See- http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/ Palmer's criticism is that it shows "astonishingly bad judgement and a sign of a lack of moral sense for anyone to associate with him or to list him as a columnist."

"Where does Palmer say .. that Sobran gave a lecture"? Palmer: "Other columnists for Lew Rockwell include Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review." http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/

"Where does Palmer say ... the white nationalist stuff"? Palmer - "[LRC's] citations of anti-immigration material (of course!) and enthusiastic links to the columns of one Sam Francis, one of the creepiest and most stomach-churning figures on the American political scene. He’s not “racially insensitive”; he’s a proud and outspoken racist. Check out his website and then follow the link to the “Council of Conservative Citizens,” for which he is the newsletter editor. http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/

Please note that the text containing these remarks constitute the main point of Palmer's pieces (they are not tangential or peripheral) and are in the body of them (not the comments section). And -- iirc -- I have provided as citations both of those links for days, since my first edit of the criticism. You may have a point on the stoning children thing (although it would be fair to note that "Palmer links favorably to an article making that claim.") In an attempt to eliminate anything that could be construed as "OP," I deleted that part hours ago. All of the other stuff is explicit and cut-and-dry. Steeletrap (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your addition of the "B" material. Rather than WP:EW, I propose we post this on WP:3O. It can be phrased as "Talk:LewRockwell.com#Controversy_on_Anti-Gay_and_Allegedly_Racist_Contributors Disagreement as to 1st paragraph of LewRockwell.com#Criticism." Is this agreeable? – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. I was EW-ing because the points you were making weren't true. (there is no "synthesis"; Palmer's arguments contains that claims made in the article.) If you want to object to my inclusion of the claims on other grounds, you're welcome to do that, and to refer your concern to a third party. Steeletrap (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Edit -- I am not going to edit this again until we get some third party criticism. But are you still claiming that Palmer didn't say what I say he said? Read the articles if you are in doubt. I am very confused at this point; is it "synthesis" to paraphrase what he says (bereft of inference or embellishment)? Should I just quote directly? Steeletrap (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Except for the reason.com article, which requires registration to view completely, I do not see Palmer making any comments in those links which I posted above and tagged in the article. If Palmer was mentioned in those links it would be proper to include them with appropriate attribution. But as Palmer is not mentioned in them, they are "B" assertions. – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Srich, what is the concern about SYNTH with respect to North, Rockwell.com and stoning? The cited source appears to make the connection. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Adapted from my comments above (immediately after the EC): 'In this case there is an objective standard (WP:SYN) that we, as editors, must follow. We can see whether or not LRC has posted such articles. Compare: "If one reliable source says A [Palmer criticizes LRC because it has published stuff by North], and another reliable source says B [another source, not Palmer, says North has anti-gay views as evidenced by XYZ publication], do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C [LRC is anti-gay] that is not mentioned by either of the sources. [emphasis added]." This WP policy does not allow us to present material "for the readers to decide. (paraphrase)"' The language within the quote here is directly from SYN policy. If Palmer says North is anti-gay the assertion should not be added to by other sources. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the issue: Palmer says everything that I say he says in my edit. You can verify that by reading the page. The reason article (which is cited by palmer, and which you don't need to register to see -- you have the option of answering a random question as well) substantiates Palmer's claim. So does the Alternet link. None of it is "OR"; it's just substantiating the claims Palmer makes. Nonetheless, if you insist on calling this "OR", I'd much prefer that you delete the links and remove the "synthesis" tag than keep the synthesis tag with the links. Steeletrap (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC) (Update: I specifically mention that Palmer cites (and explicitly discusses) the reason article talking about how north believes in stoning gays to death; this (not "synthesis") is my basis for citing the reason piece. I deleted the alternet piece so you couldn't say it's "OR." The Sobran bit remains "synthesis" in your view. Although I don't think that simply sourcing claims made in an RS article (as opposed to expanding on them) reflects OR, I am happy to get third opinions on this. Steeletrap (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, better late than never go around to Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_self-published_sources regarding Tom Palmers self published blog. Look what it says:

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

In short, ONE can't use Palmer to write about living people; and ONE can't use even WP:RS sources about the same people unless they also mention they were published on LRC, establishing notability of that fact. He can write about dead people, however. So find a real WP:RS one re: gary north. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Balance needed

With scores of contributors to LRC and perhaps thousands of postings, it is easy to cherry-pick LRC postings (justified or unjustified) that people do not like. A critical look at the article is needed in order to preserve WP:BALANCE. – S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, as you said we really aren't supposed to cherry pick which LRC articles we want to make notable and which we want to ignore but use WP:RS comments. However, when those comments become WP:Undue (i.e., establishment types writing lots of nasty things about a tiny section of articles ignoring the topic of the great majority) then it's ok to add a few of the typical articles for balance sake. Also, if a WP:RS mentions it publishes articles on a topic (and because the site describes itself as "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market") it's appropriate to mention and link to a couple of the more representative articles on LRC which are examples of whatever the overall topic is. Which I'm going to do when I get back to this soon. So don't see this as an excuse for deleting the first paragraph of content. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with the criticism section (one of which I've posted before). First, the connection between LRC as a website, Rockwell's editorship of it, or his use of LRC as his blog and the Ron Paul newsletters is tangential. We have absolutely nothing that suggests LRC and the newsletters mentioned each other, were written by the same people, or even discussed the same topics. The editorship is a red herring and not encyclopedic. Second, since we do not have an on-point LRC reply by Rockwell or anyone else to the newsletter issue, we are lacking balance. E.g., Rockwell is being personally criticized in this LRC article for non-LRC activities. A specific reply is needed for balance. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a few articles published on LRC replying on the newsletter issue and we can quote from those. On my to do list, but feel free to search lewrockwell.com and ron paul newsletters. You'll find a few things, I think mostly from 2008, with a variety of opinions.

Also I do have clarification tag on "clarify|relevance to LRC using a reliable source|date=May 2013}}" because I do think we need a ref that mentions the relevance of Ron Paul Newsletters to LR or LRC. Have asked for it, I'm sure there are some; still waiting. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Ron Paul newsletter controversy

Srich, I strongly disagree with your last edit. At the very least, don't you think that it's worth debating this rather than immediately deleting that the previous "editing" experience of LRC's editor in chief was for a racist publication? Surely that would be a relevant criticism of other notable publications, if their chief editor was someone who had previously been involved with (for example) a white nationalist publication. It is especially relevant since the website revolves around Lew Rockwell's thought. Steeletrap (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you referring to this edit: [2]? The issue is simple, did LRC publish any of that stuff? If so, then it should be cited with RS. If LRC did not publish the Ron Paul stuff, then it gets left out. The issue is more properly covered in the Rockwell BLP and Ron Paul newsletter articles. The connection of Rockwell to the Ron Paul newsletters is stretchy as it is. As this is BLP-type material, the policy is to leave out controversial material that is unsourced. Please, WP is not the place to WP:RGW. – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, we have 49 other contributors to LRC. Do we include the "writing" experience of them? Do we say they were associated with a racist publication? (No to both questions.) Also you are applying your own assumption that the website revolves around Rockwell's thought and thereby attributing the contents of LRC to Rockwell. E.g., "some of the contributors had attitudes about such-and-such, therefore Rockwell had the same attitudes about such-and-such." This is not a very sound editing approach. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"The connection of Rockwell to the Ron Paul newsletters is sketchy as it is." You've lost me. Steeletrap (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a lot of difficulty assuming continuing to assume good faith when you think that his connection to the newsletters is "sketchy." I know I should be giving you good faith, but I don't think I'm able to do that at this point, so I plan on stepping back for a bit. That is a simply preposterous statement which makes it difficult for me to want to continue working on these edits with you. A bazillion credible publications -- virtually every major media outlet which investigated that matter closely -- pins him to them. Reason, the world's flagship libertarian publication -- citing a "half dozen" libertarians who used to work for Paul -- says Rockwell's wrote them. As does Ron Paul's former chief of staff http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/open-letter-to-lew-rockwell/. And even Rockwell, who is totally stonewalling the issues and has refused to give interviews about it since his cryptic initial remarks to Kirhick, admits the (empirically-verifiable, since he's -- at various times and in copious publications -- is physically listed as "contributing editor" (or in some other editor role) on the newsletter's masthead.) fact that he at wrote the subscription letters for the racist publication. I guess I wasn't literally in the room when he wrote/edited the newsletters, though. Steeletrap (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

While difficult, you should try. And I'm sure you'll do your best as AGF is one of the 5 Pillars of WP. (And I'm sure you can do it!) My comment "sketchy" was made for lack of a better term. I'll take a closer look and comment some more a bit later. (For now, though, I'm going off to enjoy Giulio Cesare. The mystery is now whether I'm going to see it live-live or HD-live .) – S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The overriding issue here is "To what extent is the Ron Paul newsletter controversy relevant to the LRC article?" E.g., are the RP newsletters and Rockwell's editorship of them within the scope of this article? I submit they are not. No more so than they are to the LvMI article, the Journal of Libertarian Studies article, or, assuming an article were to be written, about Rockwell's Speaking of Liberty.

Suppose this: Rockwell, in a campaign of civil disobedience, decides not to put money in parking meters and racks up a lot of parking tickets and there is a news story about his defiance of parking laws? Would such info or news story be relevant to the LRC article? No, not unless he wrote about his campaign in LRC. Or further suppose his campaign included parking in handicapped reserved zones, and he got ticketed for those violations -- would it be fair to now characterize him as biased against the handicapped? Again, no, not unless we saw something in LRC to that effect (supported by secondary sources) that he was doing so in particular regard to the handicapped. (Maybe he was racking up handicapped parking tickets because he was protesting the fact that non-handicapped people were using ersatz handicapped parking permits to avoid daily parking costs.) WP:BALANCE would be violated in either case.

Regarding "sketchy", perhaps a better term would be hearsay. As set forth in the essay WP:Hearsay, we rely "on [the] practice of providing verifiable sources as much as possible, to keep the content neutral and accurate." With "neutral and accurate" in mind, if there are opinions about the anti-gay/anti-race/anti-handicapped (etc.) nature of LRC, those opinions should be labeled as such. (Also, I don't like the labeling of someone as racist because they make a derogatory remark about someone else even though the remark itself had no racial overtones. By analogy, suppose someone said "Dr. Laura X was sued for medical malpractice 5 times in the last 10 years, proving she is incompetent." Is that person a misogynist? No. But a statement which concluded "... proving that women, as doctors, are incompetent" would be a different matter.) We have to be careful about letting our opinions as to who is "totally stonewalling" about something influence our editing decisions. Embracing the opinions of others in order to put them into articles is a no-no. (And I freely admit that I sometimes fail in this regard.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Srich. Don't buy your analogies at all. My basic point is that clear-cut and formal involvement (and probable authorship) of an extremely racist newsletter is relevant to a publication (I say clear-cut and formal for two reasons: see below). That LRC's editor in chief previously worked as a contributing editor for (and very likely ghostwrote) a seethingly racist newsletter is relevant to LRC, just as it'd be relevant to the New York Times' if its chief previously worked for a seethingly racist newsletter. I'm going to drop off because I am (honestly) incapable of assuming good faith at this point, and therefore instead of pretending that I'm assuming good faith by using disingenuously polite and friendly language, think it'd be more appropriate for me to just drop off this debate. Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I say clear-cut/formal for two reasons. First, it's a fact that he worked for the racist newsletter (he says his role was confined to "writing subscription letters" (which were by all accounts themselves very detailed, inflammatory and racially charged), but even he doesn't deny having been an active participant in the project. (which he can't do given that he's listed as "contributing editor" or some such title on dozens of newsletters spanning years, a title which is odd given his statement that he had nothing to do with the actual newsletters). Second, it's a fact that scores of people who worked closely with Ron Paul and/or Lew Rockwell have accused him of writing the newsletters. Reason basically called it an "open secret" among those in the know. Moreover, it's preposterous to suggest that it's open to interpretation that calling blacks animals who are 95% criminals (and providing information about how to shoot "violent" black teens and get away with it) isn't racist. If the term racist has any substantive meaning whatsoever, the newsletter fits the bill. Steeletrap (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I'd say Steeltrap is correct about this. Your reasoning above is unconvincing and has some feeling of argumentation for its own sake. I don't get the sense this is about Steeltrap's opinion so much as about providing vetted background information which is appropriate in that it supports the other information in the article with context related to the subject. I have no problem risking the error that we might include too much well-sourced information rather than too little. I don't see that this material is controversial in the BLP sense. SPECIFICO talk 11:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Other than the fact that Rockwell edited newsletters and is the sponsor of LRC, what is the connection? Was Ron Paul a contributor to LRC? Did the other RP ghostwriter (Powell?) contributed to LRC? Did any commentator who criticized RP, his newsletters, or Rockwell mention LRC? The relevance between the newsletters and LRC is tangential at best. What if Rockwell was left-handed? Would such info be relevant to this article? – S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That a webpage's editor-in-chief's past editorial experience is with an extremely racist publication (which praised David Duke/called blacks animals, etc) matters to that webpage. I refer you to my NYT example; can you really argue that no one would think it's notable if someone who edited the "Ron Paul Survival Report" became the chief NYT editor? And to answer your question, yes: Ron Paul is a "columnist" for LRC. Steeletrap (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rockwell section

Srich, I deleted your section called "Rockwell's editorship of Ron Paul Newsletters" because that titles misleads people into thinking that the newsletters part is primarily about a personal criticism. This sort of criticism (e.g.., criticizing him for (totally hypothetical example) allegedly having an affair) should indeed be deleted, and your (I am sure unintentionally) misrepresenting it as such provides surreptitious yet strong support for deletion. In reality, the criticism is about the controversial editorial experience (in an extremely racist newsletter) of LRC's editor in chief, which therefore directly bears on LRC. The criticism would stand if LRC's editor in chief were not Rockwell but had the same editorial background. (see again my NYT/WP example; do you really think it wouldn't be deemed relevant if editors of these magazines derived much of their editorial experience from work with racist publications?) It is strange that you deny the relevance of this while (though trying to delete the entries on them on vague and unsupported "synthesis" grounds) not disputing the notability of the fact that LRC has published controversial authors like North and Sobran. Steeletrap (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you reverted my change. I will not EW on this matter but I ask that you please tell me why that title is necessary, and respond to my substantive arguments about why criticism of a publication's editor in chief for his/her controversial editorial background isn't material to criticism that publication. Steeletrap (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As per my discussion above, I can't see any direct connection between Rockwell's history as a politician, staffer, education, religion, left-handedness, club-foot, membership/non-membership in PETA, or even his history the the RP newsletters with the LRC website. It is WP:OFFTOPIC in that there is at best a loose connection. With this in mind, the subsection heading, with banner, serves to limit the scope of this discussion and attract other contributors to comment on this topic. If you can improve the heading, please do so. – S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you're alone on this (and SPECIFICO and I disagree with you), and again you have failed to address my arguments for its notability independent of Rockwell in any specific way, I am going to revert your edit after a reasonable period of time has elapsed (assuming you continue to fail to provide a specific argument). Please try to make specific arguments addressing (for instance) my NYT comparison. I understand that you view the fact that LRC's editor-in-chief has controversial editorial experience to be as irrelevant as if he were left handed. But instead of simply stating and restating that view, try to defend the good-faith arguments I have made (and SPECIFICO have seconded) against it. Your tendency to put banners up with vague charges bereft of any argumentative support tends to choke debate. Steeletrap (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I put it in a more NPOV way to avoid a fight. But thinking about it, this really is more something that goes in the content section since this is not a criticism of LRC per se and what's of interest is Rockwell's TRN bashing, with a somewhat shortened intro (they can go to the newsletter article for more details). However, if you think it really is a major problem, Srich32977, could take it to WP:DRN or WP:NPOV or even WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich removing Rockwell's quote actually was correct because he does not specifically say he's replying to TNR's article and so we can't just stick it in there. I see a couple other articles on LRC mentioning it which would be a reply IF the section actually states that criticism of Rockwell impacts LRC. There's probably something somewhere but I think the person who so aggressively is pushing this paragraph should find them. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of half dozen sources saying Lew wrote Ron Paul newsletters

As this is clearly material to the allegations and comes from Reason magazine, a credible RS, I ask that this be re-added for purposes of NPOV. Steeletrap (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

But where are the RS saying that Lew Rockwell's promotion of the newsletter are relevant to LRC? There may well be one, but you have to go find it. Per my clarify the relevance tag. Don't give us ten thousand words of explanation why you don't need one. Do the work. Do you give your advisor all these excuses why you don't need references? Geez.... CarolMooreDC🗽 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Do you give your advisor all these excuses why you don't need references"? This s a demeaning personal comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Please cease making personal attacks. Whether the newsletters are material to LRC is another discussion altogether (my argument is that yes, the controversial editorial history of the editor of a website or newspaper -- whether LRC or the New York Times -- matters to that website or newspaper. I think this is an easy question). But if they are material, and we are to keep the stuff in there, clearly the Reason stuff belongs. Steeletrap (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying that controversial editing history isn't relevant, we're saying what WP:RS says it's relevant to LRC? CarolMooreDC🗽 18:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please spend some time reading WP Guidelines. The gold standard for mention of y on page is not an RS explicitly saying "y is relevant to x." (If such an absurd standard were adopted , all articles on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair mentioned in "Presidency of Bill Clinton" would have to be deleted that don't explicitly state "this is relevant to the Clinton presidency.") The gold standard is RS -- such as the "cleansed" reason article -- which talk extensively about Lew's work with the newsletters while connecting it to his work for LRC. "They are less angry these days. Visitors to LewRockwell.com or Mises.org since 2001 are less likely to feel the need for a shower. One can almost detect what sounds like mellowing in Rockwell's reflections on the high and heady paleo days, unburdened by ominous warnings of the looming race war. Nowadays the fiery rhetoric is directed at the "pimply-faced" Kirchick, "Benito" Giuliani, and the "so-called 'libertarians'" at reason and Cato." Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

On the vein of direct connections, see also RS Tom G. Palmer's remarkably explicit connection of LRC to the newsletters , following the breaking of Kirchick's story: "The evidence of truly ugly racist collectivism at LewRockwell.com and the little network of groups clustered around him is overwhelming, not only in the Ron Paul newsletters that have been found, but in their hateful attacks on Rosa Parks and others, as well as in their connections with anti-Semites, German “nationalists,” white supremacists (e.g., Sam Francis), etc., etc. ad nauseam. The embrace of clearly anti-libertarian figures, sentiments, and causes, all in the name of being “anti-PC,” contrarian, and enemies of the American state has done incalculable damage to the cause of limited government. Rockwell and his sick crew should be ostracized and excluded from decent company." Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you have a reference, use it. Also, it's considered WP:Undue to use excessive numbers of references which just repeat the same info over and over just to make your POV point that it was heavily covered. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Please stop using loaded language ("biased" editor; "your POV"). As an extreme (anarchist?) libertarian, you have a POV as well, yet I do not harangue you about this. Focus on the content not the contributor. If you can't stow it, then file a formal complaint about my "bias" and be told off by admin. Steeletrap (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul Newsletter issue (part 3 – restarted May 11th)

I'd like to revive the Ron Paul Newsletter issue, as I feel we got sidetracked with other topics and concerns. Accordingly, I've posted a template in the criticism section. In a short while I'll try to restate my concerns here. – S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there are more than enough refs to say something like: Lew Rockwell has been criticized because he was involved in various aspects of writing Ron Paul newsletters which contained contents which has been described as a, b, c, d. Rockwell has asserted that an unnamed person was responsible for editing and publishing and he only was involved in writing and promoting. Ron Paul also has assumed ultimate responsibility.

If you leave it out it looks like "coverup." Even if you only use refs that mention he edits LewRockwell.com, I think you have enough to say something like that. And per WP:BLP text where he defends himself don't even have to mention LewRockwell.com. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts regarding the WP:OFFTOPIC newsletter material:

1. The RP Newsletters were never posted on LRC. There are 2 LRC blog postings and 1 article that mentions them. The only article (I find) is by Gary North (economist), where he says he wrote in one newsletter. Should that be in this article?
2. Rockwell edited the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Why not bring that up? If we did, how does it tie into the newsletters?
3. Blumert owned a company called Camino Coin Company. Shall we discuss that? After all, LRC did have articles about gold and such. We could add Camino's "A" Accredited Business BBB rating as one of the interesting facts.
4. Also, Blumert was chairman of LvMI. Should we have material that points out controversy related simply to LvMI even though the controversies do not relate to LRC?
5. Napolitano set up Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Should that fact be mentioned? There's lots of stuff about him & his work with Fox News. That should go into the article, even though none of it deals with LRC.
6. The other 50 contributors have activities that do not deal, do not have any connection to LRC. If they have been criticized (or praised) because of non-LRC activities, should those criticisms be mentioned? (Yes, I'd truly love to see more info about Kane (wrestler) and the material he has added to LRC!) What is so special about Lew Rockwell's editorship?
7. At most his connection to the newsletters merits a footnote, along the lines suggested by Carolmooredc. (I've added a short footnote about Rockwell in the lede.) If we add more, then, in the interest of balance, we must put in a caveat that says "the RP newsletters never published the Ron Paul newsletters, the critics of the Ron Paul newsletters never mentioned LRC, Lew Rockwell never used LRC to defend himself regarding the RP newsletters, etc." That caveat is necessary to explain there is no connection between LRC itself and the newsletters. And once we add that caveat, the WP:OFFTOPIC nature of this info becomes obvious. As the guidance says, the links will allow interested readers to find stuff they are interested in. – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Fringe Science/AIDS Denial

Why on earth is this stuff being removes? LRC has published fringe science/denialist views on a copious number of occasions . See, for example (these lists are copy/pasted from a Facebook group I found, but can easily be verified by reading below):

Evolution: -Outright Denial http://www.lewrockwell.com/chernikov/chernikov19.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan132.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi158.html

Health: -HIV doesn't cause AIDS http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye9.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scheff3.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/22/163-dissent-on-hivaids/

-Vitamins cure cancer http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi144.html

-Vitamins cure everything else http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi153.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi151.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi23.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi33.html

Physics: -Gravity doesn't create stars/planets http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan5.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html

-The World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds7.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/reynolds5.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/phillips-huff1.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/ventura-not-allowed-to-ask-about-911.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis205.html Steeletrap (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So? ... What improvements to the article do you suggest? ... Do you seek to debunk these claims? (Or do you object to the fact that LRC has provided a Speaker's Corner for all kinds of people and ideas?) If so, WP is not the place to do it. See: WP:RGW. – S. Rich (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I want the fact -- which was apparently CON for literally years (since mid 2010) before I came here, before being deleted with (as far as I can see) no justification whatsoever -- that LRC has often provided a forum for fringe science restored. Our readers are smart enough to make their own value judgments regarding whether they agree with your apparent opinion that Rockwell's publishing denialist scientific articles is equivalent to Hyde Park or not; our job is to present the facts. I am really concerned about NPOV in the last edits; not only do they remove any mention of the fact that LRC has provided a forum for AIDS Denial, but uncritically present (false/denialist) claims from the AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers, and only list the academic credentials of Duesberg and the fact that he was "alleged" to be an AIDS Denialist by two unnotable people, when in fact virtually the entire scientific community community thinks he's a Denialist. Steeletrap (talk)

And what do you propose for the article? Something like: "Author XYZ posted his theory that the earth is hollow on LRC,^[1] but Skeptoid and Myth Busters have proven that the earth is solid.^[2][3]" – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Something like: "The website has often provided a forum for fringe science, including Evolution Denialism, AIDS Denialism, etc." (Having just looked at the history of this page, I can see that the FS description was up for years before it was "cleansed" without justification.) There is no need to say LRC is publishing erroneous science claims for the same reason you don't have to say Holocaust Denial is erroneous history. Adding such a passage (the fringe science one) would increase the information of our user, who right now (given the completely un-NPOV edit) could assume that House of Numbers is not an AIDS Denialist Film and only a couple, non-notable people think Duesberg is a denier. Steeletrap (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have WP:SECONDARY that says so, you can add them. But WP:BALANCE comes into play. E.g., we need secondary sources which comment on the good stuff that LRC posts. Why? Because we are admonished to "describe both approaches and work for balance." (Moreover, a section that seeks to post all of the good stuff and bad stuff easily becomes unencyclopedic!) Also, if an editor seeks only to push one view, then those edits contradict the goal of achieving neutrality. (See: WP:Neutral point of view/Examples and WP:NPOV tutorial. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, as I wrote above: we aren't supposed to cherry pick which LRC articles we want to make notable and which we want to ignore but use WP:RS comments. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. However, when those comments become WP:Undue (i.e., establishment types writing lots of nasty things about a tiny section of articles ignoring the topic of the great majority) then it's ok to add a few of the typical articles for balance sake. Also, if a WP:RS mentions it publishes articles on a topic (and because the site describes itself as "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market") it's appropriate to mention and link to a couple of the more representative articles on LRC which are examples of whatever the overall topic is. [[ CarolMooreDC🗽 16:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't at all agree. There is no OR or SYN in saying that AIDS Denial and Creationism are Fringe Science anymore than in saying that they relate to science. At the very least please correct your mischaracterization of Duesberg as an accused denialist (listing his credentials is appropriate, but like Holocaust Denying historian Henry Eller Barnes (who was a professor at a Columbia, a prestigious university) he's a Denialist, not "accused"). Am fully confident in my reading of WP rules and that this will get reverted eventually. As the NPOV WP piece indicates, "balance" is not required -- and indeed is inappropriate -- when one position (such as AIDS Denial) has no academic or scientific merit. Steeletrap (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are addressing my post. In any case, all you need is a source that says AIDS Denial and Creationism are Fringe Science if you want to say that. (There's "creationist" stuff in LRC? Or just questions about some theories of evolution which is done by a variety of people who aren't bible thumpers? (We must be precise on Wikipedia and not go throwing our own broad generalizations about.) I have lots of opinions about stuff shared with millions of others but unless they are something like "the sky is blue" I have to ref them to get them in an article. Its all about references NOT what you and 2.3 million other people might agree on. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Just questions about some theories of evolution." I am at a loss as to your description of this, and your insinuation that people's being secular is evidence that they are not Denialists. (Should we spend all day parsing the statements of Holocaust Denialists as well? This is preposterous.) Will wait for other editors to come in. Regarding Creationism/Evolution, also see this Diddy by LRC science columnnist Bill Sardi: http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi158.html "From the Genesis Garden to Galapagos and Back." Not this passage: "A behavior, an act of disobedience, [Adam's eating the forbidden fruit] was said to have caused all succeeding generations to suffer the consequences — humans were now mortal. Did this act of defiance forever alter the human epigenome, just as the offspring of agouti mice were forever doomed to develop obesity, diabetes and cancer, and un-nurtured mice who were prone to stress and anxiety?"Steeletrap (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please look at WP:ONEWAY. There must be an independent and reliable source that connects the two topics. E.g., LRC and the fringe. We cannot go and say, on our own, there is some connection between LRC and the fringe nonsense, even if we find the nonsense in LRC. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Geez, what noticeboard to you take someone to who refuses to admit that you have to WP:Verify through WP:Reliable sources any statement on wikipedia??? Not to mention Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Let me quote Failure or refusal to "get the point":

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted...

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

Oh, yeah, I know where to go if this nonsense keeps up. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go there right now so this can end. I am trying to educate you guys on WP rules and you just aren't listening. You don't need an RS to call a cigar a cigar, to say Paris is in France, or to say Evolution/AIDS Denial (like HOlcoaust Denial) are fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, something that unfortunately Wikipedia:Consensus does NOT explicitly state is that editors on a web page can't overturn the community consensus on policy, like that you have to WP:Verify through WP:Reliable sources any statement on wikipedia. Just because people have ignored for years some policy violating sentence, doesn't mean it was a consensus or it should stand. Policy consensus trumps both inadvertent policy violations and article talk page consensus. And there isn't a consensus here anyway. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go to DR, noting the 2010 history of the page (and how that stood up until a couple weeks ago), the copious science-denialist articles ON LRC (copy and pasting my list above here to let people judge for themselves would be advisable). See if they agree that your dropping of the Fringe Science characterization is accurate. Also note how they react to your characterization of Duesberg as someone who is accused of denialism by two people and uncritical presentation of House of Numbers. Also note whether they think calling AIDS Denial/Creationism fringe science is "OR" or as common-sense a description as saying Paris is in France without citation. Steeletrap (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What's DR? CarolMooreDC🗽 02:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous addition/unexplaineddeletion regarding Peter Duesberg

Although numerous "science writers" have promoted AIDS Denialism on LRC, (for the tip of the iceberg, see the links above) there is no evidence that Duesberg has published there. (am at a loss as to why this change was made) However he was, according to the Denying AIDS, Conspiracy Theories, Psuedoscience, and Human Tragedy RS, a a speaker at a 2006 conference on "science" issues hosted by LRC, where he promoted AIDS Denialist views. (am at a loss as to why -- as usual, without justification -- this was deleted) Steeletrap (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

did you follow the link to actual relevant pages of the source you provided? (Which I've now linked to pages.) See p 21 where authors say Duesberg published an article on LRC. Now if you search LRC and Duesenberg's name, you probably won't find an article which means either it was removed (which I doubt) or the source was wrong (which also brings his mention of a conference into question; if more on LRC presenting conferences is ref'd then conference statement might be more relevant). Others have mentioned Duesenberg on LRC. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not provide the source. It was provided in 2010 and the paraphrase of LRC as providing a forum for AIDS Denial drawn from it upheld per WP:Con, before being "cleansed" by one of you or Srich without any reason given. I may edit this page later since, in the process of realizing that impersonal accusations of libel (i.e. you libeled B, says A) are not prohibited in Wikipedia, I realized that neither you nor srich ae not admins and have no power whatsoever beyond ythe our reading of the rules. Knowing the rules, I feel completely fine in overruling and changing edits that deviate from NPOV so radically and years of WP:Con without any justification. Steeletrap (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW here is more evidence of the 2006 conference whose mention was "cleansed" from the article. http://www.duesberg.com/quiz.html and the full itinerary from LRC themselves http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert118.html (I wish I could have heard Ron Paul's speech "Concentration Camps? Fascist Medicine? What Lies Ahead").

And since you're apparently having trouble understanding the Denialist insinuations (this may be easier for me since I took science classes as an undergraduate) see this piece, which explicitly poses the rhetorical question "Still Not Convinced HIV is bogus?" http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye8.1.1.html Steeletrap.

If you used a ref you are as responsible for it as the original person. Sometimes that means you actually have to double check it and make sure it says what the original person says it says, which is what I did. If you have reliable sources on something add it in a way that doesn't violate the various Wikipedia policies. Otherwise, I'm getting sick of the personal attacks of insinuations of something or other negative and nasty. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

PA? What on earth are you referring to? Despite my immense frustration, I have completely avoided PA. Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: And since you're apparently having trouble understanding the Denialist insinuations (this may be easier for me since I took science classes as an undergraduate) see this piece, which explicitly poses the rhetorical question "Still Not Convinced HIV is bogus?"

That's like my writing: You apparently have problems listening to any thing a female says and this female took classes in communication to be really good at communicating. It assumes ignorance on the others' part, not that they may be discussing a completely different issue of Wikipedia policy which you choose to ignore. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

lol no: it is not a personal attack to suggest that because one has taken a lot of science classes as an UG (I minored in a physical science) that one may be especially familiar with the manner in which fringe science presents itself. Your analogy makes no logical sense. Ignorance is a harsh word. I prefer to say that it is my training in science which allows me to realize that, as a matter of fact/common sense, AIDS Denialism/Evolution Denial are fringe and can be characterized as such. Steeletrap (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Posted to noticeboard on fringe science

Since this dialogue has not been productive, I have sought more opinions. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Presentation_of_AIDS_Denialists_on_LewRockwell.com_page Steeletrap (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My reply concisely explains the problems we are having here :-) CarolMooreDC🗽 18:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Your reply is off topic. The post is about your and srich's edits, not anyone's personal beahvior. Please post something to the proper forum if you are under the impression I PA'd you above. Steeletrap (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Jared Taylor mention removed

I am open to the idea that this is OR or SYN, which is why I didn't re-add it. However, I don't see specifically how it is. If we simply state the Taylor has published for LRC (which he has) and that he is a segregationist activist (which he is), without drawing any inferences or connections, is not this both topical (in the context of a criticism of their columnists as homophobes/racists/antisemites) and non-OR? Steeletrap (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I didn't find any current link to his being published being published there. What is it? Second we use WP:RS to say something is notable enough to mention. If we didn't I'd have a separate paragraph on my dozen favorite LRC articles, after I searched around for a big list of all his articles. But such "cherry picking" is a no no.

But if you want to have fun here's Jared Taylor on Scarborough Country in 2004. For starters. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a contextual difference between publishing someone's columns and having someone on a talk show to debate him or her. The "Taylor archives" have been removed (I believe they were after the connection a segregationist was criticized), but one of Taylor's LRC "originals" (on hate crimes laws) be seen here: http://web.archive.org/web/20010210034921/http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/taylor2.html Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

All that matters here is what the WP:RS say and they don't link LRC with him yet in a notable fashion. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

IOW, we don't have non-LRC RS that says 'Taylor wrote in/for LRC'. Nor does LRC list him as a "columnist". (Hence, his named does not get listed in the "Notable contributors" section.) Seems to me Taylor's LRC comments could be listed/referenced in his article, and that would be all. And any mention of LRC in his article would be subject to WP Content Standards analysis in that article. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fringe & BLP topics – proposed resolution

Keeping in mind that WP:CCC, I propose we compromise and resolve this as follows:

1. No fringe topics or fringe topic forum section be allowed.
2. ✓ The contributors section be revised to include a brief description of the authors that comports with their article bio descriptions. (This allows us to say certain authors with fringe ideas got published, without expounding on their fringe – or heterodox – or mainstream – ideas. All of those ideas get enough space on WP in their own articles.)
3. ✓ As the only source for the contributors section at present is the LRC "Columnists" reference, we leave that ref as is.
4. Additional names of notable people can be added if there are non-LRC references to support inclusion.
5. The link to LRC's official page shall remain. If there are links to editorial positions adopted by LRC as an organization, they might be posted in order to describe LRC's editorial positions. Such links will not be used to post positions or views held by Lew Rockwell himself. (Such links or views or positions can be posted on his article page.)
6. ✓ Of course, Content Standards remain in place – this means that WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:BLP/WP:NOR/WP:AT is required for each entry

✓ = Looks like we have agreement or already implemented. (As of: 22:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC))

As an example, Harvey Bialy is not listed at present. We can include his name as follows:

• "Harvey Bialy – American molecular biologist and AIDS sceptic^{[reference – from a non-LRC source]}"
  • We say "AIDS sceptic" because that is the description in his WP article. If that article description changes, then the description here can be changed. We do not wikilink descriptions, much less with WP:EGG links. That is, Bialy does not get a [[HIV/AIDS denialism|AIDS sceptic]] description.

If there are other notable people who have written in LRC, their names can be added here, but without using LRC or their LRC articles as a reference. Reason – we thereby avoid WP:LINKFARM and/or WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:COATRACK problems. (The WP articles for those people can use LRC citations to show that they wrote in LRC, but the inclusion of those LRC citations is a matter for those articles.) Those other names must have references (LRC or otherwise) to show that they wrote in LRC.

Finally, we "hat" some of the earlier discussion threads (and/or those sections) that got off-topic, and we archive this talkpage to shorten it up. – S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)20:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

---

[insert]: Better just archive them at least up to end of 2011. Policy and participants have changed too much. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree because we have an RS that discusses extensively LRC's syndication of AIDS Denialism, and because promotion of fringe science generally is a fairly regular -- and relevant -- feature of the site. I have created a new noticeboard entry regarding NPOV concerns here. I ask that the editors (rich and Carol) who have previously disagreed with me on this keep comments concise and limited (I certainly was bad about this on the other thread!) so others can chime in. We don't want to recreate the problems we had on the other thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com Steeletrap (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking again, I was being too accommodating mentioning the cherry picked Brent Leung podcast, unless Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass mention him by name or say LRC has had "others" with those views on. With or without Leung, I do think the below sentence is properly referenced for the criticism section and could be slightly re-written to say:

The website has featured articles on the subject of HIV/AIDS by Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass label an "HIV/AIDS denialist".[14]

Now technically after that we could mention the title of a couple of Duesberg's articles and links to them, but they can't just be the "nuttiest" sounding ones, if any are nutty (I haven't read any of them and don't particularly care to). If there are saner ones we can do the sanest and the nuttiest, for example;in other words WHICH ones to link to in an NPOV manner is something editors can decide by consensus. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the Kalichman book does not discuss just one AIDS Denialist contribution to LRC. rather, it discussing LRC publishing three AIDS Denialists: Peter Duesberg, Rebecca Culshaw, and Harvey Bialy. Also note that in the case of Duesberg, it notes that he note only has published AIDS Denialist stuff on LRC, but been allowed to present his views on HIV/AIDS in a 2006 LRC conference. Steeletrap (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• The proposal is that a source like Kalichman be used to WP:V that particular people had contributed to LRC. We don't get into the merits of the contributions one way or the other. Nor do we get into the merits of any other contributor's material, i.e, the non-fringe peole. As for Duesberg, we do not have a foundation in the article that shows LRC was hosting conferences. Once that is done, we can footnote Duesberg's list notation to the effect that he was at/presented at the conference.
• We must limit the descriptions to the WP article descriptions from the article ledes, nothing more. To allow otherwise creates a camel's nose problem. – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If you object to "fringe science", fine. But why object to AIDS Denial? That's what the articles were about (and what the RS says they were about), and it's not POV to say that (any more than it's POV to say that someone who says the Armenian Genocide did not happen is an "Armenian Genocide Denialist." It's our job to report ideas in the most accurate, NPOV way, and "denialism" fits the bill in this context.) Steeletrap (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I object to adding any actual subject material to the descriptions, not just fringe or AIDS denial. For example, Cindy Sheehan's description gets limited to "American anti-war activist." We don't get into what she wrote on LRC or the merits of the war, etc. The only way to manage this article, keeping it on-focus as to the topic of lewrockwell.com, is to maintain very narrow descriptions of the authors/contributors/columnists. We don't allow this article to become a forum in and of itself for discussion of what people wrote.

BTW, I've requested page protection for the article. If it is imposed, we can discuss the article on the talk page, but not make any edits to the article text. – S. Rich (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe look at the way Drudge or for that matter Huffington Post are described. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Drudge Report is done fairly properly in the two stories sections. An example more appropriate here, i.e., no need for sections, just paragraphs, is Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs which has sourced info on the various issues it has covered. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Two of the 15 references in the Notable stories for Drudge use the report itself as a reference. (Whether doing so is proper is a topic for another talk page.) Now if LRC has its' own editorial position on different topics, we can describe those positions and perhaps use LRC references. But we cannot assume that LRC's editorial position and the views expressed by other, non-LRC people are one-and-the-same. Many journals and newspapers publish materials or op-ed pieces from non-editorial staff personalities. Indeed, they may do so to provide balance. Would it be proper to say "such and such newspaper is a forum for XYZ politicians/political parties" without proper sourcing or balance? No. I've made changes to the proposed compromise which allow for descriptions of LRC's own editorial position. Rockwell's own positions can be described on his article page. If a columnist/contributor has said something about a particular topic, we use non-LRC sources to describe what they said on the LRC website. That way we can avoid using LRC links to describe the positions that have been posted by the scores of contributors on perhaps hundreds of subjects. – S. Rich (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say all of Drudge examples are good; just that it actually talks about articles at Drudge and some of it comes from WP:RS descriptions making it notable. Once that's established primary sourc examples can be used.

Back to your original listing, the only thing I question/disagree with is:

• "The contributors section be revised to include a brief description of the authors that comports with their article bio descriptions." I think it's more important to have a ref that they actually publish there per WP:BLP, either that they are listed in the contributors list at LRC, or their archive page or a link to an article published. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article listing already has a reference to LRC which shows the people as contributors columnists. If there are people who have contributed, but who are not noted in the LRC reference, they can be added. Non-notable people (such as Mr. Tuggle) should not be listed, even with a redlink.— Preceding unsigned comment added by srich32977 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I missed that [3] is different than [4]. The question is, are they the same list and do they see some difference between columnists and writers or are they even aware there are two different pages or what? I'm getting a headache. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My cup back at you. I did not notice the two listings either. (My earlier comment was about the columnists, the link to which is listed as a reference in the Notable contributors section.) I'll do a comparison of names. If there significant differences, we can modify the section listing. – S. Rich (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've compared the two pages. The following are notable names from the "About" page which are not listed on the columnists page:

• These names seem legit (e.g., without checking they probably are the usual suspects):
  • James Altucher
  • Doug Casey
  • Gerald Celente
  • Tom Engelhardt
  • Kane (wrestler) – got him on a redirect from Glenn Jacobs
  • Andrew Napolitano
  • Mark Sisson
  • Thomas Sowell
• These names need verification:
  • David Gordon (philosopher) (dab needed)
• These names are associated with other WP articles (they don't have a page of their own):
  • Doug French – President of Ludwig von Mises Institute
  • Jacob Hornberger – Future of Freedom Foundation

Since the total listing of notable contributors is about 55, there is even less reason to link their individual LRC articles. I think we put the 20 "most prominent" names at the top of the section and the remaining 35 "columnists" as a follow-on listing. (Of course my favorite is Kane. I do so much hope he's the Glenn Jacobs!) – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) It is Kane! 21:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. It's best to let LRC take responsibility for errors, not wikipedia, so best thing to do is have separate sections for columnists, then writers for anyone not in columnists, and then only have individual refs for notable people not listed on either.

Format wise, I prefer just writing out names with commas, ie: Writers include(Ref) Andrew Napolitano, Mark Sisson, Thomas Sowell, etc. It doesn't stand out quite so prominently and thus there's less chance of editors wandering by saying, "Oh, you don't need all this, takes up too much room, etc., they can go to the web site" and deleting it and then you end up with a big debate.

Also, how about moving this section down to discussion of protection edit below so doesn't get lost? CarolMooreDC🗽 13:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Another proposed solution

As I wrote at WP:NPOVN:

To make a long story short, here's what is acceptable to say in the Criticism section per WP:RS, WP:BLP, and even WP:NPOV etc with current refs and without engaging in WP:OR:

PROPOSED: Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, authors of Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, [added later: write that LewRockwell.com] has featured articles on the subject of AIDS/HIV by Peter Duesberg, [and two other individuals the authors mention] which they label as "HIV/AIDS denialist.

Then it would be permissible to mention the title of and link to an article by each of those mentioned individuals (i.e., it is not cherry picked, because it is introduced by relevant WP:RS material.)

I hope we can agree. Because WP:Original research remains a no no. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Two problems 1) The book says that the articles published by Duesberg (and two other authors) on LRC promotes AIDS Denial, not merely that LRC is publishing AIDS Denialism. 2) Duesberg is virtually universally accepted by the scientific community as an AIDS Denialist, so weasel words like "has been labeled" are inappropriate in this case. If you want to dump the previously Con (since 2010) "forum for fringe science" phrasing, it would be more appropriate to have something like this: Seth Kalichman and Nicoli Nattrass, authors of Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy, claim that LewRockwell.com has published several articles defending AIDS Denialism, including original pieces by famous AIDS Denialist Peter Duesberg. Listing Duesberg's credentials is perfectly acceptable but so is listing his documented Denialism. Steeletrap (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm am cogitating on this at present. Will respond later today. – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Both your problems are your WP:OR/opinion and not related to what the sources say. Now at WP:NPOV you finally go into what the sources say, so why don't you try again looking at that. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not my opinion. You're just factually wrong on the facts of science and the views of the scientific community (There is a reason it's called "denialism" and not merely "dissent.") I suggest you read up on AIDS Denialism and Peter Duesberg. Since you continue to use charged language and have also repeatedly made personal attacks to me and multiple users, I am taking SPECIFICO's lead and stepping out of interactions with you. Steeletrap (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Off topic

What you say about AIDS Denialism is true, but see WP:NOTTRUTH. Also, Carol is not making a PA. You used the words "Two problems". It is clear that she was referring to those problems. And she is encouraging you to re-evaluate. (She needs to be more sensitive about how she expresses herself and you've got to be less sensitive about how you take these remarks.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) In the comment you're responding to, I did not accuse Carol of PA-ing me on this thread, but just of doing so previously and repeatedly, both to me and other users (which is a documented fact). I won't deny being sensitive, which is a justifiable emotion at times. The rage inherent in Carol's comments to me is, as SPECIFICO indicated, impossible to understand (much less work with). Her personal attack of sexism based on SPECIFICO's comment about her posts being rageful (which is not the same as saying she is personally rageful), is akin to me making a personal attack on you as homophobic/transphobic because you think my posts should be less sensitive ("overly-sensitive" is often a stereotype of GBT men, but you would (rightuflly) regard it is unfair and insulting for me to (baselessly) tag you with those charges of bigotry; please hold Carol to that same standard.) She can make her changes to this article as she sees fit (based on her view that it's my "opinion" that AIDS Denialism is, um, denialism and Duesberg a denier), but they'll be changed back eventually by other editors, to the 2010-2013 consensus. But I am done editing this page for awhile. Still, I won't submit my consent to this absurd "consensus" process. Given that most commentators re: AIDS Denial on the discussion pages are sympathetic to my view, the "consensus" basically consists of you and Carol, with the latter trying to render judgment on an issue (AIDS Denial) she is factually wrong on. Steeletrap (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Srich, you wrote: :"She needs to be more sensitive about how she expresses herself and you've got to be less sensitive about how you take these remarks." I don't believe this is WP policy. Personal attacks, as defined, are unacceptable, and when there is a PA, there is no burden on the victim to be less sensitive to it. In fact the standard seems to go more in the opposite direction. The policy has been cited to Carol, and we'll see which way she chooses to proceed. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) If people think something is a personal attack they should quote it as an attack on the individual's talk page and show a diff. And keep the discussion there. For example, someone said I was X on my talk page and I said I thought they might be Y. Great. Keep it there. (And please feel free to show me the diff on my talk page where I called steeletrap "sexist".) We should not junk up this talk page with these discussions. There may be some content point up there but with all the extraneous discussion, I don't feel like figuring it out myself. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP issue regarding Palmer crit of Sobran and Francis

I have to concede that, per WP:BLPSPS (which I just read for the first time), criticisms of LRC for publishing these two figures should be removed. For these criticisms contain unsourced claims about Sobran and Francis. Though the claims are easily confirmable as true, WP is clear that we should "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person." So those go in lieu of an RS that not only points out the Neo-Nazi connections of Sobran/racist beliefs of Francis, but criticizes LRC for publishing them.

I strongly maintain, however, that Palmer's criticism of LRC for publishing North should be kept because Palmer explicitly cites and discusses a source (Reason Magazine) for his claim that North wants to stone gays to death. Palmer invokes Reason -- not himself/his blog -- as his evidence for the claim that North wants to stone gays to death; we are only using Palmer for his criticism of LRC for publishing North, given his views. Steeletrap (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See my reply below, also at this diff with edit summary: Wikipedia:BLPN#Self-published_blog_on_living_person has settled north issue so please drop it unless you find WP:RS) CarolMooreDC🗽 19:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression from WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Self-published_blog_on_living_person that including stuff from Palmer's blog will get the thumbs down because of BLP issues. If this is the case, then we'll have to leave Palmer out. – S. Rich (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw my comments regarding Sobran and Francis. Both are dead so none of this applies. The edits should be restored promptly. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sobran and Francis dead so no BLP issue

Both Joseph Sobran and Samuel T. Francis are dead, so none of the WP:BLP criteria apply. According to WP:BDP, "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. We have such reliable sources (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/books/02sobran.html?_r=0 for Sobran and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54866-2005Feb25.html for Francis), and the only exception to this general rule is a "recent death", defined as someone who died within the last two years maximum (Sobran died two and a half years ago while Francis died 8 years ago). The "BLP" based deletion of Palmer's criticism of LRC for Sobran's publishing as a columnist/enthusiastically linking to the anti-immigration columns of Francis, based on (true) statements from Palmer's personal website about their racist connections, is therefore groundless. It can and should be restored promptly. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize that they were deceased. However, Wikipedia policies should not be considered in isolation. There are still the issues of WP:V and WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT which need to be addressed.

WP:V says:

“ Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. ”

So, the next question is: Is Palmer an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications?

• If the answer is 'no', it should not be included.
• If the answer is 'yes', then the next question is: If the information in question is really worth reporting, why hasn't someone else already have done so? This basically has to do with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, WP:NPOV is a judgment call and requires editors of good faith to arrive at solutions that best serve our readers.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The claims he's making are not contentious, but easily sourcable. The only controversial element of his remarks is his criticism of LRC for publishing Sobran and linking to columns on Francis. There is no reason not to restore this material. Steeletrap (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not that simple. If you're using a personal web site as a source, you need to prove that the author is an established expert who has been previously published by third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

He is and he has. Palmer's Cato Institute profile indicates that he has been published in prestigious journals such as the "Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Ethics, Critical Review, and Constitutional Political Economy", and holds a Ph.D in politics from Oxford. (see: http://www.cato.org/people/tom-palmer) He is no "expert" in the field of criticizing websites for publishing authors with connections to neo-Nazi groups/who want to stone gays to death, because no such field exists, but he's certainly an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I originally only took out North for that reason but you pushed to keep him in so I brought to WP:BLP. (It's back there somewhere in talk but people keep opening new sections on same topic.)

However, as User:A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "There are still the issues of WP:V and WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT which need to be addressed." And now I see more clearly that the problem is that these are hardly dispassionate remarks by an expert but high personal rants meant to damage Lew Rockwell and Lew Rockwell.com particularly, and therefore there reliability is rather questionable. I don't think any real encyclopedia would use them. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

More Palmer BLP discussion

I agree with much of this, but note that there is no clear consensus on the North BLP issue (Carol seems to think it's clear cut but I (and one of the two editors who has commented on the page) disagree. It is clear that the Sobran/Francis material should be deleted, but not North. Steeletrap (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If we can't reach consensus on particular names, such as North, we must leave the item out. This means we leave him in as a contributor on the contributo listing. As to the controversy surrounding him, we seek a separate peace. (Please take a look at WP:BURDEN for more guidance.) Shall I add that proviso (or something similar) to the compromise? (Also, I ask that you comment on the particular provisions of the proposed compromise.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've stated my views on AIDS Denial/North, but obviously WP:Con has to stand in the short-run. (I expect it will be reverted eventually in the long-run, because I believe the facts are on my side) I have a few busy days ahead so may not be commenting as frequently, but following the completion of the relevant discussions, I am fine going with whatever con is. Steeletrap (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget there is Wikipedia:BLPN#Self-published_blog_on_living_person and that a non-involved editor removed using Palmer as being against WP:BLP and using Reason on North without a notation about Lew Rockwell being against BLP and about LRC as being unsourced and irrelevant. Find another WP:RS linking North/LRC on this issue or drop it. There is no getting around policy and further WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT after an NPOVN noticeboard consensus starts getting you into the BLP sanctions area. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

hahhaa. It's difficult to take the above comment seriously when it baselessly threatens sanctions (go ahead and try it; I see no possibility whatsoever that WP rules re "sanctions" say what you say they do), and when you mischaracterize the edit the "non-involved" (I am skeptical of this, given his or her history) editors changes, which related to Sobran/Francis not North. I think I'm going to take SPECIFICO's advice and avoid these conversations in the future. The facts are on the side of keeping North and the AIDS Denial thing; I have offered a compromise but expect that in the long run, someone concerned with the facts will revert the changes to what they were from 2010-2013. Steeletrap (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, WP:BLP sanctions come into play if there is continued reverting back to or putting in of material judged vs. WP:BLP; that even can happen if, say 3 editors want something in, 1 editor disagrees, goes to WP:BLP Noticeboard and an admin there reviews the edits and decides the material and editing behavior is sanctionable. I mean it might be just a 24 hour block; or it might be banning from that article. It all depends on how bad the behavior is judged to be and whether it looks like it will continue.

An "uninvolved editor" is one who is not working on the article that is being discussed at the board.

"Compromises" that continue to violate WP:BLP aren't really regarded as compromises, though with all the off topic back and forth I can barely remember what topic we are on or what specific compromise is offered. It helps to clearly write out the whole alternate text proposed. of course, we have the problem of this being yet another Palmer section. Perhaps we can move it under the other two to keep the discussions together. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Palmer criticisms

Somewhere in the discussion above or in the past article edits, there is concern about Palmer's criticisms. But I've lost track of what the issues are. As I recall, he had critical remarks about North & North having written on LRC. (Those remarks need to be dealt with through a BLP analysis.) But did he make remarks about Sobran and Francis? If so, what were they? As we don't have BLP issues regarding them, I'm thinking we can address what Palmer said. If someone else was saying things about them, who was it? No matter who, what are the citations? – S. Rich (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Joseph Sobran/Samuel T. Francis material was deleted by someone who cited BLP. When I pointed out that there can by definition be no "BLP" for people who have been dead more than two years, other criteria were frantically cited as to why the Palmer criticism had to be cleansed. Before it was deleted, this is what the previous description of Palmer's criticism read: On his personal website, Tom G. Palmer has criticized Lew Rockwell, as well as LewRockwell.com, for publishing columns by ... Joseph Sobran, who Palmer alleges "speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review"; and for "enthusiastic[ally] link[ing] to the columns of" Sam Francis, who before his 2005 death served as newsletter editor the Council of Conservative Citizens, which Palmer criticizes as a racist group. The source for the Sobran allegation is - http://tomgpalmer.com/2004/09/25/gary-north-lew-rockwell-and-the-politics-of-stoning-heretics-and-homosexuals-to-death/ while the source for the Francis allegation is http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/

Both sources actually reference the Francis connection, but the latter is more appropriate to use since "columnist" has a specific definition on the LRC website and Francis does not fit, since he isn't listed as a columnist. Deleted from the previous edit is Palmer's criticism regarding Gary North. (a deletion I don't understand, since his claim about North explicitly comes from a cited piece in Reason (not Palmer's blog), and indeed, the only thing original to his (Palmer's) piece is a criticism of LRC for publishing North, given North's belief system.) Steeletrap (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I put all the Palmer sections together to make it easier to read so I have added this section here. Please try to remember that we create subsections to threads on topics and do not start new ones way below, which just confuses people. Second, there is a WP:BLPN discussion which I'll put in bold to make it easy to find: Wikipedia:BLPN#Self-published_blog_on_living_person

What part of the two comments below from that discussion are not clear? If you think you have an argument, bring it there.

(Quote): Just to be clear, Palmer's web site can only be used as a source about himself, not other people or third-parties, even in his own article. So, Palmer's website cannot be used a source about LewRockwell.com anywhere on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)...

(Quote): Remember that Palmer criticizing both Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com is the crux of the issue, or mentioning Sobran and Francis would not be relevant at all. Plus Palmer's comments are hardly dispassionate remarks by an expert on libertarianism, but highly personal rants meant to damage Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com and therefore their reliability is rather questionable. I don't think any real encyclopedia would use them. CarolMooreDC🗽 12:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap writes "(a deletion I don't understand," - Simple, and to repeat you can't use Palmer because he's not WP:RS for Lew Rockwell and his site LRC; you can't use Reason because it doesn't mention LRS or Lew Rockwell. If you don't understand and don't trust what is said by editors here about this topic, bring it to WP:BLPN. I also asked if someone there [added later: at the existing and still open thread if they can] come and explain it to you. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"I also asked if someone there can come and explain it to you." This is not appropriate use of the BLP Noticeboard process and should be undone in all respects. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

1. I think the comment is misread -- Carol has not said she posted anything to BLPNB or that she will. If she did, she'd notify everyone concerned. Moreover, it looks to me that she is enlisting some help from a third party. (The request could be by talk page or off-wiki.) So there is no problem. 2. She is correct about the sensitive nature of BLP. 3. I thank Steeletrap for reminding us on what and where the Tom Palmer material/blog links are located. Having looked at it, I dare not insert it (as much as I like it). It is a SPS blog involving 3rd parties (and I don't see guidance qualifications that parse living 3rd parties or dead parties). And it is outside of his area of expertise -- he knows a lot of good Cato stuff, but I think he's simply expressing his personal blog opinion re LRC. After all, we do not see it on Cato.org, do we? (If we did, that would be a different issue.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added to the ongoing section which is linked in bold above. Other editors have come over and I was encouraging them. Or Steeletrap can bring further questions there. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It was clear the first time what you did. My initial comment stands. Your action was not appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, your standard doesn't make much sense since no one is an "expert" in criticizing people for wanting to stone gays to death (North)or speaking at neo-nazi conferences (Sobran). Palmer is a credible RS and makes the criticism; the criticism is a value judgment and does not contain any contentious statements (Francis's white nationalism and association with segregationist groups, as well as Sobran's lecturing ("for fear of the jews") at a neo-nazi conference are well documented by RS.) Thus, even if there were experts in this field, it requires no "expertise" to make such a criticism. That it comes from an RS and is a value judgment rooted in verifiable facts (about dead people who do not fall under BLP) plainly should be enough. Yet I doubt it will be, given that one of the editors here is not acting in good faith. (I feel no need to assume this having been personally attacked so many times by carol, and WP rules do not require it in such circumstances. She or he is entitled to "report" me and be told off, as I have documented her or his numerous personal attacks.) Steeletrap (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't want to get into metaphysics here, but all value judgments are "personal opinions" (or inter-subjective opinions). Values are not verifiable or facts, which is why you cannot write something like "Nazi Germany was one of the worst regimes in human history" on a Wikipedia page, even though all morally sensible people probably believe that, though you can cite RS who make this claim. As to the criticism of LRC re: Sobran/Francis, that a notable person *(Palmer) made this criticism of LRC, and did so based on verifiable facts of non-living people, is clearly enough to include his "personal opinion" on the page. Also, and quite ironically, Carol is clearly in violation of WP policy by "asking someone to come in" and "explain" to me why her interpretation of Wikipedia BLP policy is correct to me. That sounds like canvassing, in which an editor solicits "third opinions" with the explicit "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate." Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

First, reminder again about WP:SOAPBOX. We don't want to waste Wikipedia bandwith on [ersonal opinions like who was worse and why: Hitler, Stalin and Mao and other WP:Soapbox about personal value judgements.

Second, the policy is clear as I and another editor have quoted it here and on WP:BLPN, i.e.: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[5] CarolMooreDC🗽 04:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. Sobran and Francis are not "living people" because they are dead. LewRockwell.com is also not a living person. Steeletrap (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

These are the Palmer links you want back in, removed at the diff by another editor as against WP:BLP.

• This one says "columnists for Lew Rockwell include" and "If you associate with Lew Rockwell and co."
• This one says actually titles the article as an attack on "Lew Rockwell". And since it's a self-published blog Palmer can't blame the title on the editor.

Both are clearly attacks on Lew Rockwell himself, a living person who owns the site named after himself. CarolMooreDC🗽

LewRockwell.com (and, by extension, I suppose Lew) are criticized for publishing Sobran/repeatedly linking to columns of Francis. The idea that it's bad to publish people who speak at Nazi conferences and segregationists is a value judgment, not a statement of fact. The statements of facts are verifiable and about dead people; thus no BLP criteria apply. Steeletrap (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Even so, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RGW. And while BLP may not apply as to the corpses, SPS does. – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What does citing a notable criticism of LRC -- a value judgment based on indisputable facts about living people --- have to do with RGW? Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what criticisms are at issue: Criticisms of LRC itself (which are contained in the article) are fine. Criticisms -- in this article -- of people who speak at Nazi conferences, etc., are not. The article is about LRC, not the people who get articles published on LRC. Yes, Palmer has credibility in many important aspects. But editorial judgment, following WP guidelines, is more important. In this regard, SPS, BLP, and even RGW must be considered. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Palmer LRC stuff

I'm going to summarize the deleted material as simply as I can. Perhaps then someone can specifically tell me what's wrong with it, as opposed to citing vague WP guidelines.

In the removed material (which was removed for erroneous "BLP" reasons) Tom G. Palmer, a notable person/RS, is saying that it is wrong for LRC to publish as a columnist someone who speaks at neo-nazi conferences (Sobran) and to link to anti-immigration articles by a segregationist/white nationalist (Francis). This criticism explicitly applies to LewRockwell.com (not merely Lew Rockwell); and it constitutes a value judgment, not a factual assertion. (Just like it's a value judgment for Sam to say Tom is bad because he has brown-hair, even if it is based on an appeal to the fact that Tom does indeed have brown hair.) The facts Palmer appeals to to make the value judgment are about dead people (no BLP) and are demonstrably true. So why not note this criticism on the criticism part of the page? (this is not the same as endorsing the criticism, contrary to odd comments above)? Steeletrap (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

policy quote about talk page layout
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Relevant behavior guideline quoted: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices - Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic. FYI. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an/my/the analysis that applies: 1. Is Palmer a RS? Yes, as a source for economic and political topics. He is well qualified as a Cato Senior Fellow, with PhDs and the like. 2. In what fields is he an established expert? From his WP biography, these are the relevant fields. 3. Where does the particular material that has Palmer created exist? Quite clearly, the material is on his blog, his personal web page. 4. Is this self-published? Well, yes. It certainly is not a Cato publication or WP:NEWSBLOG. 5. What WP Policy applies? In general, the policy is WP:VERIFY. 6. Are there a more specific policies? Yes. In that same policy, we see WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:SELFPUBLISH. 7. So, are Palmers blog comments about LRC within his relevant field? This is a more difficult question. I submit that this article is about the LRC website as a "web-only independent news medium" which has libertarian backing. 8. Is Palmer an expert on websites or journalism? I don't think so. 9. If Palmer is not an expert in the relevant field of websites or journalism, can we use his blog material? No. He simply is expressing his personal disgust that LRC is posting stuff from various people which he has great negative regard for. (9a. Wait, what if there is no 'relevant field' of 'criticizing people for wanting to stone gays to death (North) or speaking at neo-nazi conferences (Sobran)'? Well, if there is no field, then no one can be an expert in it. Even so, the next question is dispositive.) 10. Are there other reasons not to use the material? Yes. If Palmer's material can be read as criticizing third persons (which it most certainly is: "Racism and Bigotry, Delivered Courtesy of Lew Rockwell" & "Gary North, Lew Rockwell, and the Politics of Stoning Heretics and Homosexuals to Death") then it cannot be used. – S. Rich (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You think Fred Reed writing in the Washington Times is an expert authority as to what is an independent news organization, but a Cato scholar can't speak to what's journalism, etc. I don't know that stands up in court? SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected for three days following requests at RfPP. If things are sorted out before then, or if you need an extension, either give me a shout or post again at RfPP. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, gals & guys, we've got 3 days to work this out. It looks like the BLP NB issue is about cleared up, the Fringe NB people don't want to hear our squabble, we all know that POV is an important force for everyone, the editor assistance folks can't help because we are all fairly experienced, we're all going to stop making personal remarks on talk pages. So, with my admonitions in mind, I suggest folks make specific comments as to my proposed compromise. Once it covers all points of concern, we post it as a CONSENSUS article guideline on the talk page. (By leaving off a date-time-stamp it won't get archived.) And we also add an editor's comment to each of the sections that says "Look at the damn talkpage before screwing around with edits to this section!" Let me add that SlimVirgin is one of the top-notch editors/admins on WP. We've had interchange in the past and I hold SlimVirgin in the highest esteem. (So, with my buttering-up effort in place, I'm sure I can get an extension on the page protection.) I ask each of you ("you", being the recent contributors to this debate) to endorse my proposal. Then we can all go on to other efforts. (And I'll take undertake the effort of adding the short descriptions to each of the "contributor" names.) Thanks, all. – S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

---

edit request – no longer an issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request the following (starting with {{col-begin}}) be swapped out for the list of names presently listed in the "Notable contributors" section. This should go immediately below the citation. The descriptions of the people are derived from their articles, with some modifications for consistent stylization. Also, this list implements #2 of my proposed compromise (see above) and is uncontested. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) William L. Anderson – author and Frostburg State University, Maryland, economics professor Jeff Berwick – Canadian entrepreneur, economics, finance, and investment writer, and libertarian and anarcho-capitalist activist Walter Block – Austrian School economist and anarcho-capitalist Bill Bonner – American author on economics and finance James Bovard – libertarian author and lecturer Pat Buchanan – American conservative political commentator, author, syndicated columnist, politician, and broadcaster Thomas DiLorenzo – American economics professor at Loyola University Maryland Paul Gottfried – Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, and Guggenheim Fellowship recipient William Norman Grigg – author of books on Constitutionalism Kevin Gutzman – American constitutional scholar, historian, and James Madison biographer Leon Hadar – global affairs analyst, journalist, blogger and author James Herndon – media psychologist Hans-Hermann Hoppe – German-born libertarian anarcho-capitalist philosopher and Austrian School economist Scott Horton – host of Pacifica Radio's Antiwar Radio Stephan Kinsella – American intellectual property lawyer and libertarian legal theorist Gabriel Kolko – American historian and author Karen Kwiatkowski – American activist and commentator William S. Lind – American military affairs expert and cultural conservatism pundit Jim Lobe – American journalist and Inter Press Service Washington Bureau Chief John Lott – American economist and political commentator Tibor R. Machan – Hungarian-American philosopher Eric Margolis – American-born Canadian journalist and writer Wendy McElroy – Canadian individualist anarchist and individualist feminist Ilana Mercer – South Africa-born Canadian writer Loretta Nall – founder of the US Marijuana Party (USMJP) Gary North – American economic historian and publisher Ron Paul – American physician, author, and former politician John Pilger – Australian journalist based in London Ralph Raico – American historian, libertarian, specializing in European classical liberalism and Austrian Economics Justin Raimondo – American author and editorial director of Antiwar.com Fred Reed – writer and former technology columnist for The Washington Times Charley Reese – American syndicated columnist Morgan Reynolds – former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis Jeff Riggenbach – American libertarian journalist, author, editor, broadcaster, individualist feminist, and educator Paul Craig Roberts – American economist and Creators Syndicate columnist Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) – American economist, historian, and political theorist Peter Schiff – American investment broker, author and financial commentator Hans Sennholz (1922–2007) – German-born Austrian School economist Cindy Sheehan – American antiwar activist Joseph Sobran (1946–2010) – American journalist, writer, and former National Review syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz – American libertarian author Mark Thornton – American Austrian School economist Jeffrey Tucker – executive editor of Laissez Faire Books Ron Unz – former businessman and political activist Jude Wanniski (1936–2005) – American journalist, conservative commentator, and political economist Walter E. Williams – American economist, commentator, and academic Clyde N. Wilson – University of South Carolina professor of history, paleoconservative political commentator, and contributor to Chronicles, Southern Partisan and National Review Thomas Woods – American historian, political analyst, and author Kevin Zeese – American political activist Comments regarding edit request Well, we do need a ref, as I said before, per WP:BLP. be it the LRC listing of writers, an archive ref or a ref to one article. Descriptions usually not done; I'm ambivalent about it myself. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) The reference for these names is the LRC listing/link that exists at the top of the section. (This article used to contain all of the names on the LRC contributors page. It has been culled to leave only wikilinked names.) My proposed compromise has argued against including LRC links for individual LRC articles based on WP:LINKFARM. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Edit conflict. You don't have to link to people who are nonnotable and/or without an article. But WP:BLP overrides considerations of link farm. If someone is linked without a ref they can raise hell. However, it can be divided up into sections like: "Writers/contributors listed at LRC's about page include:" (then list or just type out with commas the writers) and then "Other writers/contributers include:" and then include separate link. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC) I like the idea about saying "W/C listed at LRC's 'about page' include:" But we've got 49 names at present, and they are all listed by LRC; so I think a bullet list is the only way to go. The short descriptions provide context. My proposal for "other names" requires non-LRC RS to substantiate. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Now that I see he has two different page listings, my brain is fried on the topic for today! CarolMooreDC🗽 19:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: Commercial? no.

Just visited the LRC site for the first time. WP infobox says it's not commercial but I see a left column on the splash page that is populated with revenue-generating links.

Is "no" correct? SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. It's not selling services or products, so... And it has a non-profit tax status. – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you've never gotten a newsletter or magazine from a nonprofit? Ever see the adverts? Websites have adverts too. It's not illegal and it's not commercial. This is rather nitpicky, don't you think? CarolMooreDC🗽 03:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Forum for fringe science?

Other users have expressed concern that the AIDS Denialist/Creationist pieces I have previously quoted, in justification of restoring the 2010-2013 CON that LRC has "provided a forum for fringe science", may be a bad sample size of the overall "body of work" LRC has published on science. To them, I offer the following LRC "Healthy, wealthy and wise" conference, which featured AIDS Denialist Peter Duesberg on HIV/AIDS, Donald Miller on "sickening fluoride", Ron Paul on "Fascist [presumably government] Medicine" and various speakers on "alternative medicine." It would be unencyclopedic to say Lew Rockwell personally believes any of this stuff (though it isn't unreasonable to presume he does), but LRC's providing a forum specifically to fringe science is crystal clear. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert118.html Steeletrap (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If we simply post stuff from LRC to discuss what was presented, we run into a PRIMARY problem. What do SECONDARY sources say about what LRC has posted? I think the AIDS denial material is handled properly -- we have a SECONDARY source which laysout the fact that LRC contains denialist stuff, and I hope we've properly presented the LRC links which verify what the SECONDARY source has referred to. I'd be quite happy if critical SECONDARY sources talked about how creationism, fluoride, anti-vaccine (whatever) materials are posted on LRC. (I've been looking on Highbeam Research.) But I certainly don't want WP to be a WP:LINKFARM for the actual LRC articles. That would only serve to advance those ideas. – S. Rich (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich is correct policy wise. I also added Kalichman describes as her "denialism debut"; to correctly attribute that opinion. Now I left in the primary source podcast (which seems to be a description from LRC and I see no evidence it's from Leung) only because I didn't have time to find an LRC or other article which more directly rebuts the "AIDs denialism" issue. Using primary sources to rebut criticism per WP:BLP is allowed. In fact, I did find one article calling Duesberg a hero or something. So if one wants to bring up this one criticism of LRC from one source, one must allow a defense, per Wikipedia policies. CarolMooreDC🗽

Ron Paul April 2013 LRC article

With this edit [5] I removed the paragraph about Ron Paul writing in LRC about the Boston Marathon bombing aftermath. The Reason blog mentions that Paul wrote his stuff in LRC (and quotes Ron Paul), but had nothing of substance about LRC itself. As it was entirely focused on Paul's reaction to the activities, it is off-topic. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As I write below, I disagree on removing Ron Paul's article since Reason specifically comments on the article before linking to it which proves its a notable article. Then it's just a matter of quoting some of what Reason considered notable enough to quote. This sort of thing is perfectly fine to use per WP:RS. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep it out. The Reason piece basically says "Look everybody, Ron Paul wrote about the aftermath here [in LRC] and this is a quote of what he said: "Foo bar, foo bar, foo bar.". It contains nothing about reactions to/impact of Paul's commentary. IOW, that particular piece by Paul in LRC is not particularly notable. Readers already know Paul contributes to LRC. As the Reason piece, itself, has had little impact, I don't think it should be included, much less serve as a rationale for linking that particular bit of Paul commentary. His commentary about the aftermath can be well covered in his article or the aftermath article. And if Paul's LRC comments had significant results they can be commented upon. – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)15:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll propose an NPOV alternative tomorrow. Must press on with this other project. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Reception" and "Content" sections

I'll start with the criticism section because it now includes "reception"-type material. "Reception" is what a lot of articles are starting to call "Criticism" sections per criticism section problem per Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-1 which reads:

Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.

So while Napolitano and Paul praise can be put in the lead, it also can be put there. Brian Doherty's comments could stay in content or go there (see more below). Doubtless more research or time will produce more refs. We certainly don't need a separate "Praise" section.

Content section wise, I see no reason to remove the Anderson article. It is a secondary source discussion of the contents of Anderson's article on LRC. Per the above, I also disagree on removing Ron Paul's article since Reason specifically comments on the article before linking to it which proves its a notable article. Then it's just a matter of quoting some of what Reason considered notable enough to quote. I have several examples like both of those and they are perfectly fine to use per WP:RS.

Also while I see I messed up my quoting of Goldberg cause I was tired, I do think it is acceptable to use this content in the article:

Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg of the National Review writes LewRockwell.com features articles about “how the American military is a hotbed of criminal imperialism and murderous warmongering”, calling Abraham Lincoln “a murderous war criminal”, and favoring secession as “a viable option.”[RefGoldberg] And then include examples of such articles (I just temporarily used some lying about; not necessarily best examples.)

These comments can be used in reception but also are relevant to comment, so that's a judgement call.

Goldberg wrote that LewRockwell.com "features regular diatribes against National Review, neoconservatives, The Weekly Standard, William F. Buckley, and other icons of what most people consider mainstream conservatism in America".[RefGoldberg] The American Conservative noted that Lew Rockwell himself has talked of “red-state fascism” among the US Republican Party base. LewRockwell.com writers have called social conservative groups “Falwellofascists” “neoconofascist.”[RefAntle]

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 03:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WRT the Paul & Napolitano comments, they are basically promotional in that they contribute to LRC. ("Of course sliced bread is wonderful, I work for Wonder Bread and know all about it!") So I'd keep them out of the lede.

WRT the Goldberg and Antle descriptions, I'm most hesitant. Once we start specifying particular LRC topics or themes, even if supported by RS, we let the camel's nose under the tent. That is, do we then start linking particular LRC articles? That entails going through LRC archives and finding stuff about Lincoln, Buckley, criminal imperialism, warmongering, etc. Are we then to suppose that Goldberg or Antle had those particular articles in mind? Sounds like OR is at play. Moreover, we must watch out for the WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTSOAP issues that arise. I submit that their comments, supported by quotes in the footnotes, is quite sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WRT Anderson (Orange County Register), I can't comment because we don't have a citation. I've looked at the OCR website and it looks like their print archives stop at 2006. The "e-Register" online search does not give a result for "lewrockwell.com" for December 2010. For now I think I'll editor comment-out the paragraph as lacking WP:V. – S. Rich (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The Orange County Register paragraph is now covered by <!--Editor's comment-->. I cant find any verification of what the OCR wrote. Searches were done with "Bill Anderson" & "William Anderson" – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Paul & Napolitano, out of lead, fine - but why in "criticism"??
2. I get your OR point, but don't understand "submit that their comments, supported by quotes in the footnotes, is quite sufficient." You mean repeat what was quoted in full?
3. Re: Anderson. Please put a verification tag on to give people a chance to ref things; it's too close to edit warring to just remove material unless it is vs. BLP or obvious vandalism. And it causes the need for unnecessary reverts, plus editors have to search around in old diffs to find what link was used. (See this diff.) Obviously I goofed and used the same link twice. The correct link is this. (Yes, I use that same stern school teacherist voice with everyone! But here's a smiley face to make it not hurt so much. :-)
4. Waiting for comments on renaming Criticism to reception and using Goldberg in ways described above. (Again, a discuss or some other tag is a better way to go than just deleting material. Like you did with Ron Paul paragraph.) CarolMooreDC🗽 19:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

1. As you've suggested, I think we can rename the criticism section -- it is getting to the point where is has balance.
2. No repeat of what they say is needed or desired. Simply that the critics get a short paraphrase in the text and then support with more specific footnoted text.
3. OCR is resolved.
4. I thought we were in the "D" phase of BRD on the Ron Paul Boston Bombing aftermath. I took it out as a "R", and posted my thoughts on the talk page. In any event, the case for keeping it out has been stated. Whatever consensus (or compromise) comes about from that discussion will suit me fine. – S. Rich (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right on BRD; I tend to be more cautious when there are active editors than when no one's been at an article lately. Do I need to requote what Reason said re: Ron Paul? I thought it was rather amusing. And the article itself is edgy. (Poor Richard A. Falk took hell for similar comments.) And we do need content. But back to finishing off my real life article and no editing articles themselves allowed til then. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell (and LRC) no longer paleolibertarian

I think it's wrong to use mistaken 2008 information from Antle to call LRC paleolibertarian when LRC carries a 2008 article where he clearly rejects the label. In fact, even if those mentions are taken out, I think it's necessary to mention this in the articles for those who don't read the Lew Rockwell or paleolibertarian articles which make this clear.

As Lew Rockwell article says:

In a 2007 interview Rockwell revealed he no longer considered himself a "paleolibertarian" and was "happy with the term libertarian." He explained "the term paleolibertarian became confused because of its association with paleoconservative, so it came to mean some sort of socially conservative libertarian, which wasn't the point at all..." See Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian? Rockwell interview from May 25, 2007. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. If not already done, I'll revert -- tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Added wl for paleo-lib. I don't think adding Rockwell's remarks about not being paleo-lib are approprate for article as they are SPS/PRIMARY. They might be appropriate in his article or the paleo-lib article, but those are different issues. – S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

BRD/ Peacock

Srich, please undo your reinsertion of the peacock text I reverted in the lede. It has no clearly defined meaning. The source is marginal at best and the substantive point is made in the Alexa statistics that follow. I feel my removal of this text was appropriate, especially for the lede, but at any rate this should be resolved on talk not by undo. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Acceptable compromise -- achieved?? – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As you stated, resolving by talk is the way to go. So I did a compromise and removed from the lede and removed one of the "Peacock" links. My readdition was done and with the note posted here -- as you had requested. So why was this edit done [6]  ? – S. Rich (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)02:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That phrase is 100% peacock. We know LRC is not primarily a news site, it is analysis, investigation, commentary, and the like. As a fly on the wall here I think some of Lew's fans are too defensive about his excellent website and are overdoing it trying to find reasons to control the material in this article. Anyway, the Peacock language adds no specific or verifiable facts to the more objective statements about web traffic and content. It's just fluff. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We, as editors, don't know anything about the site, we only know what RS has told us. But we have one bit of RS, from a journal that exercises more or less editorial control, and that RS says LRC is a "web-only independent news medium". I don't think we have any other descriptive phrase for LRC other than that's a "libertarian website" sourced by an article that was talking about other subjects. My recommendation is to keep this 4 word description of the site (written by Reed) and drop the rest. (I'll be a very happy camper. (The temptation to add the stuff, simply because I found the stuff, is overpowering! m-u-s-t r-e-s-s-s-i-t!)) – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I just thought it was a secondary source for a primary source like Alexa. However, looking around I see that Alexa ratings actually are used on a lot of website articles and that their use is non-controversial in WP:RS and WP:NPOVN, at least in sites in the under 10,000 range. They do look rather silly when your site is 1, 385,984. Seeing edit conflict, replying to above, I don't think it's a problem to use a WP:RS to describe it, though the phrase is a bit clumbsy. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue with SPECIFICO and I is the Reed stuff from the Washington Times, not Alexa. With this in mind, I submit that adding one particular description of LRC is accurate, not PEACOCK. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Archives still need fixing

Two problems:

1. There are now three archives with archives in correct order, but they must be misnamed or something because {{talkarchivenav}} isn't working and they don't link to each other. They are: Talk:LewRockwell.com/Archive_1, Talk:Lew_Rockwell/Archive_2 and Talk:LewRockwell.com/Archive_3
2. Also, I don't know how that box is created so it can link to them.

If you don't know how to fix those problems, maybe we should call in an expert. So much code, so little time. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I don't know how to fix. Was not a big priority because this page and the article are so dynamic at present. Sooner or later it'll get fixed and everyone will be in nirvana. – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The good news is archives go someplace now. Still have to double check right archives in right place in at least one case. Later this evening when I'm looking for a fun distraction. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)