Talk:LewRockwell.com

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rockwell section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Removal of half dozen sources saying Lew wrote Ron Paul newsletters 

message: I read through the article, and the last paragraph of the Responses section seemed out of place.  While the material may be well-cited, it doesn't have anything to do with this article's topic which is a website.  In fact, I don't even think the website existed at the time the newsletters were written.  The material, however, would be appropriate in other article's such as Lew Rockwell and perhaps Ron Paul.  I checked those two articles, and this material is covered.  And I see we have an entire article devoted to the newsletters, Ron Paul newsletters.  Therefore, I've removed the paragraph. See WP:COATRACK for more.  Thanks.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think the controversial editorial history of a publication's editor in chief -- whether The NYT or LewRockwell.com -- is notable. I have reverted your change. We should talk this out though. I can understand the opposing view, even though I disagree. Steeletrap (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Side note. Bravo, Steeletrap, for reverting your edit. (I'll review the material and give my 2 cents later.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to exclude biographical information about the founder of this organization.  Also, considering the lack of sources for this article, does anyone think it could be merged into Lew Rockwell?  TFD (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merging sounds pretty reasonable to me, TFD. But don't expect such an effort to succeed. Steeletrap (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The off-topic nature of "(Who Wrote) The Book of Paul was brought up above. The WP:TOPIC of this article is LRC, not Rockwell and certainly not Ron Paul newsletters. Merging into Rockwell's BLP is not such a good idea. This article, which covers a topic distinct from Rockwell's life, is better as a stand alone. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed off-topic paragraph from article 

message: That seems pretty dubious to me. Thoughts? Steeletrap (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That article certainly needs improvement, like adding an Alexa number. But it has achieved "notability" in terms of WP standards. In this article we should do the RS evaluation in terms of FPM as a publication and Laskin as a writer.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Actually, FPM has a higher :Alexa number.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: It is not rs.  It has been brought to RSN about a dozen times and there was little support for it.  A Quest for Knowledge among many others said it was not rs.  TFD (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Is FrontPageMagazine an RS

message: What is so special about an anonymous editorial in the New York Sun? - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an editorial, all of which are "anonymous." It criticizes LRC. I didn't add this, it's been around for awhile, and while your first WP:Bold removal was fine, you really shouldn't be reverting it twice in a matter of minutes without discussion. I agree that the main point of the article is criticizing Sheehan, but there is no policy that suggests that an entity has to be the main point of an article for its wiki page to cite that article. Steeletrap (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions only become significant when secondary sources pick them up.  For example, newspaper endorsements of candidates typically make the news.  When op-eds are covered in the media, reporters examine the facts of the claims made and ask the people mentioned to comment.  Also, they are not reliable for facts.  In this case they are commenting on facts which have not been established in secondary sources, that Sheehan and Tugman wrote for them.  A secondary source for example might write something like, "The Sun, known for its strong pro-war views, criticized the site for publishing articles by anti-war activists.  The site replied that although it did not endorse most of Sheehan's views, it was important to allow expression for anti-war views, regardless of political background."  TFD (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're mistaken, TFD. If a source is reliable and it is independent, we can cite it even if additional media didn't cover what the source said. The question should be whether New York Sun is reliable. Steeletrap (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun may be reliable, but that is not the issue. The Sun is talking about Sheehan, who posted on LRC. If Sheehan had written something in the NYT or other publication, we would not be commenting about her posting in those articles.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: See WP:NEWSORG:  "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."  BTW The Sun is rs.  TFD (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the citation TFD. I am forced to agree with you, given the relevant policy. The other users, however, came to the right conclusion (removing The Sun) for the wrong reasons. Factual assertions about an entity do not need to be the main point of the article for it to be used in that entity's wii page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text:  As a caveat, I should note that if we were to find RS stating what The Sun states (e.g. connections to League of the South by author Tugman), we could publish the Sun's RS criticism of those facts, since we aren't using the Sun to establish them. Steeletrap (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could, but then we would have to establish the weight of the criticism, which is generally established by its coverage in secondary sources.  TFD (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Sun 

message: I've removed the material about LRC as being a tax exempt organization. The AL Sec. of State does not list; the IRS does not list. The CA Sec. of State lists LRC as Entity Number: C3012417; Date Filed: 08/13/2007; Status: Suspended; Agent as Burton Blumert. This info comports with earlier mention that LRC changed status in 2007 because of the Ron Paul campaign. (Those refs from LR.com have been removed from the text.) A corporation in California will go into a "Suspended" status if it does not pay yearly corporation fees to the Sec. of State. Such a status does not imply any misbehavior.  – S. Rich (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax/commercial status notation