Talk:Justin Raimondo

message: I added a large number of quotes to this section.  It gives a good cross-section of the recurring themes of his articles the past several years and also shows off his writing style. DarthJesus 02:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotes belong in our sister project, Wikiquote. A rule of thumb is no more than five quotes in an article here.  I'll add the link to the Wikiquotes page to this article so you'll know where to put them. Cheers, -Will Beback
Ive re-added some of the quotes to the article since it seems they have all been deleted from Wikiquote.  My, I wonder how that happened? DarthJesus 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless, they don't belong here. Please re-create that article rather than posting them back here. -Will Beback 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I added the following text which was later deleted: With respect to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Raimondo believes the Israeli government had foreknowledge of the plot and has written extensively on the issue; he even stated that Israel was behind the attacks. His views have been harshly criticized by such individuals as Bill Herbert, Patrick Devenny, Stephen Schwartz, Damian Penny, Stefan Sharkansky, Chris Morris, Abraham H. Foxman, Glenn Reynolds, Richard Poe, Ben Johnson, and others. He has been accused of anti-Semitism and 9/11 conspiracism. Raimondo replies that his anti-Zionism and opposition to Israeli government policies does not entail anti-Semitism and that he supports Jews. Raimondo's critics counter that he conceals his anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism.
I believe that there is no good reason to think that his belief in Israeli foreknowledge and complicity in 9/11 is irrelevant for this article. I believe that the text I added is in accordance with NPOV because it simply describes the POV of Raimondo and others. I also added a FrontPage Magazine external link to an article critical of Raimondo because I believe both sides of the story should be represented. I am neither a propagandist nor a troll (71.131.25.75) but a Wikipedian wishing to make positive contributions to this encyclopedia. -- Huysmantalk 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I used to read a lot of Raimondo's work and must have confused him with Michael Rivero or someone like that. -- Huysmantalk 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not attribute anti-Semitism to Raimondo; I said that others consider him anti-Semitic, including the national director of the ADL. This is just stating the facts and does not involve any analysis or opinion on my part. -- Huysmantalk 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on 9/11 

message: I dont know about the rest of you but I for one and up for a good revert battle.  Let the edit war begin!! DarthJesus 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let the edit war begin 

message: Anyone know of a wiki-usable photo of Justin?--Mcasey666 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs a photo 

message: Raimondo has written repeatedly that Mossad had advance knowledge of 9/11. The Carl Cameron report has nothing to do with Justin Raimondo so it shouldn't be in the article.  If people want to read the citation and find out why Raimondo believes what he believes then they are free to do so.  We don't have to go through and list the justifications for every single belief that Raimondo has, we just have to link to the article where he says it.  DarthJesus 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, it is factually inaccurate to say that Raimondo thought that "Israel" had foreknowledge. Raimondo is anti-collectivist, so wouldn't attribute knowledge held by the government to the whole nation. It would be more correct to say that he believes that some members of the Israeli government had foreknowledge. Dick Clark 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Carl Cameron report has absolutely nothing to do with Justin Raimondo.  Nothing.  He did not help write it, he did not do research for it, he did not speak with Carl Cameron before it aired, and his name is never mentioned in the report a single time.  It does not belong in this article. The article linked there already has a link to the Cameron report anyway, so we don't need it here.
And he does not say that the Isreali's MAY have had knowledge of the attacks, he says they absolutely did:
"Let’s see: a nest of Israeli "ex"-special forces, electronic interception and explosives experts are holed up blocks away from Mohammed Atta and his fellow hijackers. Is it even credible that the former didn’t know about the existence of the latter? Certainly not. And, just as certainly, the Israelis – let’s just call them what they are: spies—had the means at their disposal to not only detect the presence of Al Qaeda operatives, but to find out what they were up to. And that, my friends, is the very least we can surmise…."
How can you read that and say Raimondo thinks that Isreal MAY have had knowledge of 9/11? DarthJesus 05:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 

message: It appears that Raimondo himself is keeping track of this article.  And he even mentions me by name!
 DarthJesus 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is there a way to ban vandals and nuts like DarthJesus?  He seems to live to arouse arguments on this article.  I resent his disrespect of my time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.210.157 (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like he's long gone with the wind. But repeated vandals can be banned by user name and by IP block if necessary. Carol Moore 19:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: have you noticed that the "conspiracy theorists" category added by the vandal greg72 is still there? i haven't read justin raimondo's writings, but i suspect that should be removed? Tjenare 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raimondo is watching you wiki-vandals 

message: I question the relevance of this article as a biography.  Most of the references are to the subject's own website, and the subject does not seem, from an objective standpoint, to have contributed much to a canon of writing in any proportion to the site.  Given some of the talk on the discussion page, it might also be a bit of a vanity page, if the subject himself is posting content.  If someone wants to argue in favor of this article's relevance, perhaps they would cite that website's relevance, such as through independently confirmed traffic figures, or trackbacks to other sites, or google hits that are not hitting the site itself, etc.  Otherwise,  this might be a candidate for deletion.NYDCSP 07:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though there are autobiography issues with this article, I don't think there's any legitimate question about the subject's notability as a blogger and contemporary advocate of conservativism in the U.S. -Will Beback · † · 12:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the response, Will, and I see you're an administrator.  But the content in the article does not convince me.  If he's notable, why isn't that objectively explained here?  To visit this article, not having heard of this person, you scratch your head by the end of it wondering if he's just notable to people who inhabit a small corner of the internet.  He's a blogger?  I had no idea from reading this article.  There's plenty about what he personally thinks, or what he did here or there (the background section reads like someone's bio on an AOL hometown page or in a college yearbook - how is any of that relevant to the outside world?  so what if he joined this party or that club, and at one point failed to organize a "caucus" etc?)  I'm just saying, unless you are a close follower of this allegedly notable person, his notabiity is completely lost on the average reader, and for that reason I find this article of very questionable relevance for its length until some real meat is in here, well-sourced (not from the subject's own website) and verifiable.NYDCSP 16:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The standards for notability for people to have biographies on Wikipedia are in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Basically, notability is not tied to what one has done but rather how much attention one has received. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". A quick check of Google reveal that Raimondo has been mentioned in numerous blogs (which are not great sources but indicate his importance in the blogosphere), as well as having been the subject of non-blog articles, . So you can nominate the article for deletion if you want, but I think there's almost no chance that it'd be deleted. However I'm sure it can be improved and I encourage you to do so. -Will Beback · † · 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair and balanced points in part.  But are Front Page Magazine and WorldNetDaily so highly relevant here to justify Wikipedia readers being treated to this subject's club affiliations and personal religious struggles?  I don't have much of an interest in trying to dig through this article and improve it because, frankly, so much of the content is so poorly sourced under Wikipedia's own standards that it would probably mean I would be tempting a firestorm of attack from those who believe this subject is relevant (and if there are 5 of them including the subject, that would constitute a firestorm given some of the talk pages on this site) but haven't bothered to prove it here from an objective standpoint.  Not tempting at all.  But criticism of this kind also has a role to play.NYDCSP 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Raimondo is much more notable than the average blogger, mostly for the sum of various things he's done in his life, most of which would perhaps not be seen as sufficiently notable by themselves. He is the author of multiple published books (probably his single best claim to notability); he was a Republican congressional candidate; he was at various times an associate of Murray Rothbard's; he was a gay Pat Buchanan supporter; he is currently the editorial director and impresario of a website which publishes not only his own work, but that of various other authors who have their own Wikipedia articles. I don't think the coverage of his life here is excessive. You complain, for instance, about coverage of his "personal religious struggles", but I find one sentence (containing exactly 10 words) about his religion, which doesn't seem problematic to me.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable relevance 

message: Okay, I reverted the blatant violations of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V that were introduced by the previous edit, including a lot of accusations that were improperly sourced. I did not however revert the entire edit, because at least two of the inserted links are clearly notable enough for inclusion. I removed the redundant Discover The Networks rehash of the FrontPageMag article by Schwartz for which there is already an external link. I also removed this blog entry which doesn't seem to pass WP:RS muster. DickClarkMises 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now protected due to further BLP problems. Improperly sourced, or non-neutral, material will be removed immediately. However properly sourced, neutral material may be added. If the anon would like to discuss it with the other editors in orderto find a compromise that everybody can all agree too then we can unprotect the page. Please work towards consensus. -Will Beback · † · 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working towards a balanced article 

message: Hi. By definition in MoS, the two above sections are traditionally reserved for secondary (not primary or Justin's own) sources in "References", and hyperlinks leading to subject-relevant websites on the internet in "External links".
Due to the fact that both contained mere text pointing towards material written by Justin, plus text pointing towards not a single external link, except for the inward link to its own article, I have removed it all, and suggest that a fresh start be made in adding bona fide references by reliable third parties (also tagged as such), and relevant "clickable" external links pertaining rigidly to the subject. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 12:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I've done some further work to this so as not to leave it in a bad state; however, the secondary sources don't seem strong yet - please improve (stub added for such), and the external link is repeated four times in linking to facets of Justin's writings earlier in the article, which is a bit concerning (spammish?). But I'll leave others to get on with it for now. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 12:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "References" and "External links" 

message: I have read Raimondo's blog on FrontPage Magazine, and he has called himself under the username "Comrade Sandalio". I also read that he is part Jewish. Why doesn't this info belong in the article?
--User:Renamed user 3221277379 posted 11:07PM 10 May 2007
:: Information about living people must meet the highest standards of sourcing. See WP:BLP. We need reliable sources that make the assertions you'd like to add to the article. -Will Beback · † · 05:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FrontPage Magazine is somewhat fringe, but if the assertion weren't contentious it'd be OK. National Review is OK. If you see an article in PRAVDA you'd need to be sure that it was written for them and not just syndicated (though I think I've seen elsewhere that he's a PRAVDA writer). I don't know anything about his ethnic heritage. -Will Beback  .·.·.·  16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Re:Pravda, Raimondo has written that "Pravda has been posting my articles (no, I'm not going to give them a link), without my permission and in express violation of the copyright notice prominently displayed on Antiwar.com: but, then again, you wouldn't expect Commies (or national socialists, at any rate) to have any respect for property rights." Skarioffszky 15:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accused of Vandalism 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating 

message: I put a this reference here, and it has been removed twice, by an anonyous editor, but I'm not sure what is wrong with it.
* Anthony Gancarski "Why I Left the Anti-War Right" FrontPageMagazine.com Monday, February 09, 2004
BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article link 

message: Raimondo is described in the lede as a libertarian. What is the support for this claim, and whatever it is, shouldn't it be cited?0nullbinary0 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone want to cite Raimondo's libertarian credentials? If not I'm going to alter the lede.0nullbinary0 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarianism 

message: Exchangemine posted a critique of Raimondo by journalist Stephen Suleiman Schwartz. While criticism is certainly a useful part to Wikipedia, it is unclear why of all people Schwartz's comments are posted.  What about David Horowitz or William Kristol?  Neither of these men have anything good to say about Raimondo yet they are an order-of-magnitude more notable than Schwartz is.  Either post a reason for why Schwartz's comments are the best or simply create a Criticism section that lists the notable critics with a brief overview.Tejano (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchangemine revisions 

message: This section appears to be attacked by Raimondo groupies and lacks a criticism section, as typically characteristic of other Wiki articles of a similar nature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archilles last stand (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is important to Be Bold, please also remember to Assume Good Faith. The Wikipedia policy regarding Biographies of Living Persons requires that living subjects be treated with care. Controversial assertions must be attributed to Reliable Sources, and should not be made in the encyclopedic voice, which must maintain a Neutral Point of View. With that said, I re-examined the passage in question and it is attributed to Schwartz/FPM, so I was too hasty in reverting. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section Vandalised 

message: I have edited the text regarding the "Israeli art student scam," simplifying it to refer to what Raimondo actually wrote. It is unclear to me what the difference is between the "Israeli art student scam" and what Raimondo's columns on the subject actually describe, which is an Israeli intelligence operation. A "scam" implies some sort of relatively harmless financial scheme. The present version imputes a particular point of view to the entry: that the "scam" was indeed a scam, and not an intelligence operations, as Raimondo claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.11.172 (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israeli art student scam" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Justin Raimondo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003163533/http://www.biographicon.com/view/jgmdu/Justin_Raimondo to http://www.biographicon.com/view/jgmdu/Justin_Raimondo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Justin Raimondo. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biographicon.com/view/jgmdu/Justin_Raimondo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
; Viewpoint by (FreeKnowledgeCreator): The issue is simple as I see it. Raimondo is a prominent political commentator and an openly gay man; same-sex marriage is one of the issues he has written about, and it is helpful to readers to mention at least briefly what he has said about the issue. One might argue that Raimondo's views are inconsequential if there were no evidence that anyone had responded to them, but that isn't the case - Raimondo has debated the same-sex marriage issue with Jonathan Rauch. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An added note: Drmies, could you please not refer to me as your "opponent"? It is not civil language, and I really don't see things that way. We both want to improve the article, even if we have a difference of opinion about how to go about doing that. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project, not a gladiatorial arena. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability concerns which topics may have articles created about them, and does not directly limit the content of articles, per WP:NOTE: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." No one was proposing to create an article specifically about Raimondo's views on same-sex marriage. An additional source regarding those views can be seen here, again covering Raimondo's debating the issue with Rauch. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is irrelevant. Note that I stated that "his opinions on gay marriage are likely not notable". I did not say anything about creating an article on it nor did Drmies. What I am saying is that those views are not notable enough to be included in this article. As is stated by WP:SELFSOURCE (in the criteria section) "The article is not based primarily on such sources". Unfortunately, it is, and the sources provided by FreeKnowledgeCreator are no different. Those are my reasons for deciding in favor of Drmies. Thank you. Joel.Miles925 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:3O: "This process is neither mandatory nor binding." So your comments have not decided the issue, thank you, although I will not continue to revert if Drimes removes the disputed content again. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. Thank you! Joel.Miles925 13:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion