Talk:Roger Stone

2005 comments

I would just like to add, that I am a conservative republican and yet everything about Roger Stone that has been discussed here - including the Specter/Kerry signs, the mob during the Florida recount, and more were known to me through Republican party circles prior to reading this article or looking at other websites. From what I've heard, this guy is bad news all around.

This page is terribly biased and frankly, unless some of these allegations can be backed up with evidence, they should be removed.

Jgardner 21:14, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

There is plenty of documentation out there on Roger. See Evans & Novak April 27, 1977 (a story that I "planted") detailing his escapades See Watergate Hearings 1973 documenting his exploits as "Michael McMinoway" Roger's code name at CREEP: Sedan Chair II. He flunked out of George Washington Uinversity and never received a degree. A known racist, at GWU he used to refer to Blacks as "jungle bunnies" and "spear chuckers". Interestingly, in the College Republicans he was a sworn enemy of Karl Rove who was CR head at that time. He along with Terry Dolan (died of AIDS in 1980, a closest gay who attacked other gays) attempted to takeover the CRs but were outsmarted and outmanuervered by Karl. (Karl was a "liberal", "communist" or worse in their eyes) Stone was placed in the National YR Chairman slot by Charlie Black, Richard Viguerie and Peter McPherson. JulianG3

Lede section

Should the lede section include the recently added material about being accused of promoting "false information and conspiracy theories" or is this undue weight or recentism? --Malerooster (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not undue or recentistic given that's made a career out of this. He's written a book accusing LBJ of being behind the JFK assassination. He's written another book advancing wild theories about Watergate. He's claimed, ludicrously, that George H. W. Bush and his family were behind the John Hinckley Jr. assassination attempt. He's written a book about the Clintons that was filled with "spurious accusations" that were "so inflammatory and insubstantially documented that it's impossible to report it with any sort of credulity," see here). This 1986 article in the Washington Post has Stone admitting that he was the catalyst for a fake story about a political opponent. He's "a self-described political hit man." The Guardian describes him as "a noted conspiracy theorist" (see here). One could go on and on. Neutrality^talk 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality - numerous reliable sources describe him as such. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this plays into the discussion between "lie" and "falsehood" I'm interested in exploring. If Wiki isn't willing to put the word "lie" on the page of someone who has lied for decades, then what word is usable? Liberte et paix (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"lie" vs "falsehood"

This plays into a larger conversation, but I don't think that favoring "falsehood" over "lie" because "lie" has connotations about intent, or wiki isn't comfortable with using "lie" because "reliable sources generally don't use the term" makes me uneasy. I think that if something is demonstrably false, it is a lie, regardless of intent. I obviously can't argue about connotations.

Can we find a middle-ground compromise word that is stronger than "falsehood" but not as [whatever] as "lie"?

Liberte et paix (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Stone has promoted a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories."

User:Snooganssnoogans made this edit which added the claim "Stone has promoted a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories" to the article.

First, the single source is an opinion piece and shouldn't be used for factual claims in Wikipedia's voice.

Second, the article doesn't say anything about "a number of falsehoods". It says that one claim by Stone is a "conspiracy theory".

Third, claiming somebody spreads falsehoods or conspiracy theories requires multiple high quality reliable sources per WP:REDFLAG and if the analysis is accurate, you will have no problem finding such sources.

@Snooganssnoogans: while you work on fixing the obvious problems with this sensationalist BLP claim, please self-revert. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I count seven references there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and did you actually read any of them? A Washington Post opinion column, another Washington Post opinion column, a Washington Post blog post, a Washington post STYLE column, and a couple of New York Times articles that don't make this sensational claim.

Sensing a theme here? The claim is unsupported, and if it's true, you'll have no problem finding multiple high quality reliable sources that state it outright. I looked, didn't see. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed unless reliable sources are used, not tabloids or references added only to add a veneer of authenticity (when they in fact do not say what is actually claimed).75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The intro is also using weasel words. Maybe a neutral editor can find a way to re-instate the view that many opinion writers for left-leaning newspapers don't like or believe him.75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roger Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828021909/http://gawker.com/371345/roger-stone-knew-guvs-terrible-secret-according-to-roger-stone to http://gawker.com/371345/roger-stone-knew-guvs-terrible-secret-according-to-roger-stone

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Grammar issues edited

Hi, there were numerous grammar issues in the introduction of the article. They have been corrected. NaturalSelection (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)