Talk:Lawrence Auster

message: 1. Neutrality, the sources are not reliable and unbiased.
2. It needs more sources from unbiased sources.
3. Notability? How so? I do not think having a few links on sites that linked backed to the person in question would count as notable, let alone reliable.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 06:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality, Sources and Notability 

message: The citations for this article include his own professionally published book (with ISBN number), and another book, frequently cited as a key foundational text of the modern anti-immigration movement that discusses him.  It also includes about 1/2 a dozen articles in periodicals, including Huffington Post and Human Events, that are either about him, or written by him.  He was also featured in an SPLC magazine article.  I am quite certain that there are many more articles about him, particularly his passing, in many political magazines.   This seems to merit the claim of notability.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Does anyone know what he does for a living?TGGP 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is for Nathan (who flagged the page), but also anyone else who agrees with him.  Please let me know what your problems with the page are.  
Auster is notable as among a handful of authors who brought forth the modern immigration debate, in Auster's case mainly via The Path to National Suicide, although Auster has written quite a bit about immigration and multiculturalism.  (He wrote at least one article, The Forbidden Topic, published in National Review shortly after Path was published.)  This was an important, national debate.  It is still relevant.
I have added Brimelow's assessment of Path (which is in a wikipedia-accepted form, his book).  There are other conservatives who laud it, but not in wikipedia-approved places.  (i.e. Derbyshire writing at The Corner, a blog, here.  Or, also not acceptable is that Auster writes on his blog that Pat Buchanan sent him a dedicated copy of Buchanan's book thanking him for Path 15 years before.)  You can find quite many references to Auster/Path at Google books (reliable sources!), but these mostly do not comment on it per se; they merely mention it as emblematic of the "anti immigrant" movement, in some cases summarizing some of its arguments.  I do not know I might reference such diffuse references.  If you have any suggestions on this score I am listening.  
As for "independent, reliable sources", most of the references on this page are to the subject's own blog.  As such, they are considered usable on wikipedia for purposes of attesting to the subject himself, which they are.  I can see no way to remove these references without gutting the page.  
Please let me know what sort of changes you think the page needs.  -Leonard (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, a BLP needs independent sources to both establish notability and to reference all of its contents. At the moment, virtually everything in the article is either referenced to the subjects own work or unreferenced. Without improved referencing, the article could be stubbed... but when it comes to BLPs, given the heightened scrutiny we apply, it makes more sense to delete them until the subject generates more coverage. Nathan  T   03:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

text: By the way, you might want to have another read of WP:SELFPUB. Nathan  T   03:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at this article for a while but my impression is that there are plenty of independent reliable sources out there to establish notability as a writer and commentator.  That makes it preferable to remove contentious material than to delete the article.  The exception is if the article is in such bad shape that it's better to delete it and start from the beginning, or if removing all of the bad material would leave an article too brief and uninformative to stand on its own.  A BLP does not need reliable sources for all of its contents, only the contentious ones.  And it does need independent reliable sources to support notability.  Generally we can count on people to self-report something like their hometown.  On the other hand, a person's self-reporting on their reasons for a religious conversion, or marital status, are a little less reliable.  Plenty of people have been known to describe such things inaccurately or fancifully.  In short, this article does need a lot more independent sourcing.  That's the best thing to do right now.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

text: This article seems very promotional to me. The Writings section comes across as a mirror of his work, rather than an independent overview of it. When we write about bloggers, we have to be more careful than when we write about traditional authors. Authors rely on people buying things, bloggers rely on page views and Internet distribution. I'm aware that he's dead and won't be profiting from this article, but someone probably will continue to. I've cleaned up the External Links a bit, and will consider doing more. But if anyone else wants to beat me to it, go ahead. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

text: There was less work than I thought. Looks cleaner now. Still a few minor facts that seem like they're only here so they can be linked to an article of his, such as not being a lawyer, and not being married. Shouldn't Wikipedia be about what is? I'll let someone else decide. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the deletion proposal 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: From his blog, http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024277.html
"In addition to the metastasized pancreatic cancer in my abdomen that I have survived for almost three years, I have metastasized pancreatic cancer in the brain, and highly likely cancer in the spine. My oncologists say I will be dead in a few months. The treatment is meant to slow the advance of the disease and lessen the symptoms (which without the treatment would immediately become very grave), not to eliminate it. It’s way too late for dietary or emotional solutions."
204.111.97.162 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  imminent death 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lawrence Auster. 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/20060831214740/http://www.paulauster.co.uk:80/faq.htm to http://www.paulauster.co.uk/faq.htm
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 09:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: He usually described himself as a traditionalist or a conservative.  He never described himself as a racialist.  And his writings he criticized those who devolved all arguments down to race, characterizing them as "nihlists". 
He took issue with and debated people who fit the description of "racialist", like Richard Spencer.  He was a deeply spiritual person, not a materialist. 
This seems like a non-neutral description of him, given the totality of his work and life, and inaccurate.  
Yes, there is a quote where he accepts that label, but it was clearly part of a discussion, and not the way he described himself.   
Would anyone agree with the top line description of Ernest Hemingway as a "prominent alcoholic"?  That would be technically accurate and could probably be supported with a quote like the one used here to tattoo "racialist" on Auster's legacy, in both cases it's a cheap trick.  
I would favor replacing it with "conservative" or even better "traditionalist". ZeroXero (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version that uses the terminology of "race realist" is not acceptable: that is a euphemism used only by white supremacists to give legitimacy to racist pseudo-science and has no place in a neutral assessment; linking the term to racist science does not convey this directly enough.  It would be better to say something like "...whose writings on immigration and multiculturalism often promoted race pseudo-science." Curtisdozier (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

text: That he wrote "I have always called myself a racialist" is literally in the article, cited to the man himself writing on what was, at the time, his own blog. "He never described himself as a racialist" is not even remotely true. 81.187.27.126 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "racialist" really a fair description of Auster?