Talk:Lew Rockwell

Quotes

The numbered list I just added is a direct quote from an article. Please don't edit the text (aside from elipses and brackets) because these are his words, not mine. If someone knows how to make it look more like one long quote (which it is) they're welcome to fix the formatting. Thanks. Dave 01:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Lew's quotes are certainly relevant but they might find a better home on Wikiquote. (I emailed Lew and offered to add more biographical information if he supplies it.) If it pleases the court I'll move the quotes (although I don't know the technical aspects of Wikiquote but hey we learn.) Paul 07:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. We may want to summarize each point on the main page. Dave [[User_talk:harry491|(talk)]

Anti-semitism

Can anyone provide any proof that Mr. Rockwell is an "anti-Semite"? If not, then the accusation should be retracted. FLafaire 13:12, 4th July, 2005

Moreover, since this is supposed to be a fact-based article, does the opinion of Tom G. Palmer really matter? I'm sure every person with a Wikipedia entry has at least one or two detractors, but unless the criticism is really newsworthy or historically significant (and in this case it doesn't seem to be) it probably doesn't need to be mentioned at all.

It's not really just an opinion, but a general criticism that many others have joined in. Mr. Rockwell is certainly controversial and controversial people get criticized. So it is a fact that he is criticized; that does not make all of the criticism factual, but the fact is that he is criticized. (And since I have looked at his website, he is quick to be critical of others, so it is hardly like he is immune to having it mentioned that he is himself criticized.)

Tom Palmer has hated Lew Rockwell and his friends for decades. This is a personal grudge he has and to mention the "criticism" is to give it too much bearing. As is, Palmer's accusations are more subtle than what has been written on this page, though what he's implying about Rockwell is worse. For example, Palmer has never specifically accused Rockwell of publishing Sam Francis, which he has not done. He mentions them in the same sentence, lets commentators chime in on his blog and falsely say Rockwell publishes Francis, doesn't correct them, and implies that anyone who is friends of friends of Francis's is basically in the KKK. If the criticism is to be mentioned, it should at least accurately reflect what Palmer has said, and, ideally, not have objectively factual errors in it.

If indeed it not really just an opinion, why link to Palmer as the primary source of such criticism?

Please sign and date your talk page contributions.

Regarding Rockwell and Francis, Palmer directly says that one published the other:

• Other columnists for Lew Rockwell include Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review [do a quick Google search on your own; I hate the idea of linking my site to their vile and sickening web site], Sam Francis of the racist Council of Concerned Citizens, and others. [1]

If that is false then we should say so.

Thanks, -Willmcw 21:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have seen no proof of it being true. Rockwell has run many thousands of columns on his site, but, reading it for years, I have NEVER seen a Sam Francis article. Palmer didn't originally make this accusation, but he appears to have, and he appears to say Francis was a "columnist" of Rockwell's, which he wasn't. Sometimes Rockwell links to someone's column or article online, but never have I seen it for Francis, and even if he had, it's not really the same as Francis being a "columnist for Lew Rockwell." If Palmer's allegation is untrue, what's the point of even mentioning it?

The Mises Insitute, of which Rockwell is the founder and president, has a Francis article here:[2]. Without a listing of every Rockwell-run publication it is impossible to prove that Rockwell hasn't carried a particular author. -Willmcw 20:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's not actually a column, but an mp3 file. Palmer appears to be saying Francis was a "columnist" of Rockwell's.

The only mention I could find of Sam Francis on LewRockwell.com were blog entries by Dan McCarthy (of the American Conservative Union) and Marcus Epstein (former grad student at College of William and Mary). Lew Rockwell is not editor of Mises.org, and really has no day-to-day involvement with which articles appear there. As Willmcw says, though, it would be logically impossible to prove that LR has not published a Francis piece without a comprehensive list of LR's publications. However, I think that the burden of proof must lie with the individual making the positive claim. On what grounds is this claim being made? DickClarkMises 18:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Charges of anti-semitism, part deux

I see that the edit summary for my removal of some text concerning Rockwell being accused of being an anti-Semite. The main thing was that the citation was another blog entry by Tom Palmer, and it did not appear to show anyone accusing Rockwell of anti-Semitism. I also wanted to point out that Rockwell's mentor, Murray Rothbard, was himself Jewish. - Nat Krause 22:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I re-edited it to reflect the actual criticism that Palmer makes. Thanks, -Willmcw 01:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Charges of anti-semitism are pretty laughable since Rockwell founded the Mises Institute (Mises was an Austrian Jew) and was a long-time friend/collaborator/colleague of Murray Rothbard, who, as noted above, was also a Jew. Rockwell spends virtually all of his time promoting (directly or indirectly) the works of these two, and has been accused by at least a few people as being guilty of hero-worship (of Mises in particular, but also Rothbard). Rockwell is an anti-Semite like Christians are anti-Jehovah. DickClarkMises 15:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your analogy is incorrect. Christ was a Jew. Were any/some/many/most Christians anti-semitic? Yes, to at least one of those. See also Self-hating Jew. If Rockwell has done or said anti-semitic things then he is an anti-semite even if he admires two particular people who are of Jewish heritage. His reverence for Rothbard and Mises is not a defense. "Some of my best friends..." Let's just summarize the verifiable info in an NPOV manner. I haven't yet seen a notable source calling Rockwell an "anti-semite" and we're not here to decide it for ourselves. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Will, I am not sure that "self-hating Jew" is anything but a slur against Jews who don't conform to the political bent of other Jews. The article to which you referred me includes a mention that "Leftist Jews such as Michael Lerner and Noam Chomsky have charged that some pro-Israel advocates define and apply the label in a manner designed to silence or discredit any Jew who disagrees with their politics regarding Israel." Outside of the very specific context of Jews who actually loathe their heritage/ethnicity/religious-background (such as the "true believer" guy), this term is a purely pejorative term. There is no evidence to suggest that Mises or Rothbard were self-loathers. In fact, Mises fled Europe in order to escape the Reich, which is not something that he needed to do if he was a self-loathing Jew. We know that there are plenty of Jews who collaborated with the National Socialists. Anyway, this is not proof of anyone's internal goings-on, but it can offer a clue as to the likelihood that claims of anti-semitism or self-loathing may be true. None of this biographical info about Mises has any direct bearing on the content of the article. What does have direct bearing, however, is the actual definition of anti-semitism as enumerated here on wikipedia.

• Helen Fein's definition has been particularly influential. She defines anti-Semitism as "a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilisation against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews."

Since Rockwell is anti-collectivist (seeing individuals as such, not as part of some larger collective) and anti-state (therefore against the very possiblity of legal discrimination for anyone, not to mention political mobilization), that rules out anti-semitism on his part at least by this definition.

• Professor Dietz Bering of the University of Cologne further expanded on Professor Fein's definition by describing the structure of anti-Semitic beliefs. To anti-Semites: "Jews are not only partially but totally bad by nature, that is, their bad traits are incorrigible. Because of this bad nature: (1) Jews have to be seen not as individuals but as a collective. (2) Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies. (3) Jews bring disaster on their 'host societies' or on the whole world, they are doing it secretly, therefore the anti-Semites feel obliged to unmask the conspiratorial, bad Jewish character."

Again, Rockwell's life's work is contra collectivism. It is hard to believe that he might secretly be a closet collectivist. Since Rockwell played a role in Rothbard business endeavors, thus supporting Rothbard's lifestyle, to some extent, it seems that he could not have secretly been conspiring to kick the "alien Jew" out of the country.

• If anything (and I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, since I don't think that there is evidence to attribute this view to Rockwell), Sobran, Francis, and other "racialists" argue that Jews (along with Asians) are superior in terms of intelligence scores. If one were to claim that Rockwell was influenced by this racialist thinking (which has usually been the claim here; mostly accusing him of consorting with/promoting such types as Francis, Sobran, et al.), one could hardly claim that Rockwell qua racialist could ALSO be an anti-semite racist. If it is the case that he does believe that such distinctions exists, this dos NOT automatically imply that he is an anti-semite, primarily because racialism is , by itself, value free. It does not speak to the superiority of a particular "race" (which, by the way, I think to be an entirely contrived concept), but only to their objective differences, which, as I say, has no bearing on subjective valuations (such as judgements about the relative value of intelligence, physical prowess, certain colors of hair, etc.). Even if convicted of "racialism", Rockwell would still not be demonstrably guilty of "anti-semitism." I think it is certainly our job as wikipedia editors to use terms as they are defined on wikipedia. You agree, n'est-ce pas? Dick Clark 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

As far as I can tell, the edits by (red link) User:Jstrummer are out-and-out vandalism. He/She removed the sourcing information for the criticism levied by Tom Palmer, and made other changes that obviously violate the NPOV. I'm reverting the page to its pre-vandalism state, which still contains the Palmer criticisms, but represents them as such. DickClarkMises 01:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Palmer blog

On a related entry, (Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute), User:Willmcw notes that my linking to a blog as a source is not sufficient--he thus deleted the reference to it. I see his reasoning. Therefore, I have deleted the "criticism" section since it is based on the fulminations of a blog with a clear vendetta against Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute. A non-blog source is needed for such allegations, as Willmcw points out. Thanks Will. Wikismooches, Stephan Kinsella 01:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian/Paleo and Immigration

An anon user changed the page to eliminate "libertarian" and replace with "paleolibertarian," leaving the impression Lew Rockwell is not libertarian. this is false, and also POV.

He/she also said LR is anti-immigrant. LR has not argued against immigrations, or even immigration to my knowledge; but his site and Institute has published both pro- and anti-immigrATION arguments. See., e.g., this issue, of the Mises Institute's Journal of Libertarian Studies, containing a symposium on immigration, with both pro- and anti-immigration articles.

I don't have a problem with your edit, but remember that this article is about Rockwell, not the Mises Institute. The seminars that they offer are not necessarily indicative of Rockwell's philosophy. -Willmcw 05:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell is President of the Mises Institute. That Institute includes both pro- and anti-immigration theorists. It has published both. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced that Lew Rockwell is anti-immigration, much less anti-immigrant. Wikibearhug, Stephan Kinsella 06:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd never given it much thought, but now that you mention it I see that David Frum has apparently written a column in the National Review Online on the matter (if this copy is correct www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876396/posts). In it he says he received mail that said:

• [Rockwell] gave a frankly nasty speech on immigration. At the end, I asked him how he reconciled his call for closed borders with his opposition to tariffs, and his answer was (to me, surprisingly) evasive: ‘in my ideal libertarian society, all property would be in private hands, so immigration would simply be trespassing.’ This left a nagging suspicion in me that ending immigration was more important to this economist than, say, a return to the gold standard.

Also this article describes paleoconservatism's view as anti-immigration, and associates Rockwell with that movement. [3] So does this page (a blog?).[4] So does this libertarian forum posting, [5] Acording to this blog, Virginia Postrel writes:

• Such anti-state libertarians [notably Rockwell] often slip very quickly into alliances with the anti-trade, anti-immigration, anti-cosmopolitan reactionaries of the left and right."[6].

A blogger says:

• I think the anti-immigration position popular among Misesites is a mistaken application of libertarian principles;[7]

I don't know if any of these rise to the level of a worthwhile source for the article, but they do indicate that there is plenty of chatter about Rockwell being anti-immigration. Since it is a topic that's come up, we should add Rockwell's position on immigration, pro or con. -08:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, there is plenty of chatter. But no primary sources among them! Rockwell is an incredibly prolific writer, and a clear one at that. He writes on a huge array of libertarian topics. If he has a position on immigration policy (not immigrants, but immigration), find one. Simply point to one. Go to his site and fine one. Or find a systematic bias against immigration policy on articles he publishes on his site. If you can't find this, the rest of this is just anecdotal, undocumented, unverifiable hearsay. Even the Frum thing is clearly not objective; note the lack of detail and the use of the term "nasty". I have NO objection to adding Rockwell's "position" on immigration, whatever it is--so go ahead and add it, if you can verify what it is. Let me add a personal note. I know Lew Rockwell personally very well. I know that many scholars affiliated with the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell, such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Ralph Raico, oppose open-borders immigration policy in today's context. Others affiliated with the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell, such as Walter Block, opppose immigration restrictions. I honestly do not know what Rockwell's position is. My guess is he tends to oppose completely open borders, but I cannot ever remember hearing him talk about his own view, nor am I aware of anythign he has published setting forth his views. Therefore, given that we know he and his Mises Institute publish both pro- and anti-immigration articles, there is NO GROUNDS that I am aware of for asserting what Rockwell's position is.

Again, let me be clear: if he has a view on this, sure, mention it, but you need a reliable source, preferably something he has written or other reliable indication, not mere assumptions by those hostile to him or the Mises Institute. He is under no obligation to rebut every false accusation made about him. Stephan Kinsella 14:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Jstrummer has once again deleted the term "libertarian" and replaced it with "paleolibertarian." Rockwell is clearly libertarian; the editor is obviously a libertarian hostile to those he views as "paleos" and does not want to grant him the label "libertarian." Moreover, his bias is evident when he removed "widely read" before the LRC website. It is obviously widely read and very popular, whether modal Jstrummer likes it or not. Its Alexa traffic rank [8] is 4632. Compare it [9] to Cato.org, for example, which is well known; LRC has significantly higher traffic. There is no reaon to delete "widel read." Stephan Kinsella 04:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• • So is Hans Hoppe just blowing hot air when he calls LewRockwell.com "the first and foremost Paleo address"? [10] Rockwell himself calls his mentor, Rothbard, "a staunch paleo-libertarian,"[11], so clearly he doesn't think that it's a bad word. On the other side of the fence "ChronWatch" calls Rockwell the " the leading intellectual influence of the paleo-libertarian right,"[12] Anyway, there's nothing wrong with being a paleo-libertarian.[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b015a6234fc.htm] So probably the way to handle this is to say that he is a libertarian or paleo-libertarian". -Willmcw 04:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I dont deny LR is a paleolibertarian; I just think it was changed to try to insinuat he is NOT a libertarian. Paleol is just one subset of libertarian. Stephan Kinsella 13:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sheehan

• Recently, Lew Rockwell's (both the site and the man) support of Cindy Sheehan has drawn criticism and concern from some Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, who view Sheehan's connections with the far-Left (United for Peace and Justice, International ANSWER) and with the American Nazi movement (David Duke et al) as being at odds with the Libertarian movement in general, due to their totatalitarian and collectivist tendencies.

Who are the "some Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists"? Can we get some specifics? Thanks, -Willmcw 02:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Here we go again. Willow, you have a bee in your bonnet? BTW, Willow, are you gonna try to delete my entry yet again? I myself have doubts to its notability. :) NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 21:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This still appears to be original research, and is not cited. In my view, this version is no more NPOV-compliant than the previous version. I am, however, willing to wait for a response from the contributor before I remove the uncited addition. I hope this demonstrates that I am not editing in a knee-jerk fashion, but rather in good faith. Dick Clark 18:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Whomever made the addition to the Sheehan issue apparently was in such a depressed state of mind that they made some rather bizarre grammatical and syntactical errors. I hope that they may be able to correct this.

MSTCrow 23:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, some masked editor came and deleted the disputed section, so I suppose this is decided. I had been adding to the disputed text to try and make it more useful... (sigh). Dick Clark 21:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Okay, user Theblacklarl has now engaged in vandlism of this article twice in two days. He has inserted unfounded, uncited racist accusations. Hey Thblacklarl, if your position is correct, let's hash it out on the talk page like adults! Dick Clark 15:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, "vandalism" has a specific meaning around here. Wikipedia:vandalism. Please don't use the term for edits which you disagree with, which are improperly sourced, or are POV. Those are different problems. Also, please do not put usernames in headers. We are here to talk about the edits, not the editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I am aware of what vandalism means around here. According to the source which you cite, Wikipedia:vandalism, "vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia," and may include, "Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos." It is also the case that this guideline entry advises that, when dealing with sneaky vandals, one should note that, "often this vandalism can be detected by looking at other edits by the same user." Given that advice, I posted the handle of the unregistered user to the talk page, so as to make monitoring of his edits easier for other editors. Now, it may be that you are concerned that I am taking an otherwise good-faith but unfortunately POV edit the wrong way. After all, the same guideline of course says that, "we must be careful to avoid confusing sneaky vandalism with genuine corrections to an article." My reasons for believing that this is not the case in this instance are:

• The edit in question was made by Theblacklarl on Halloween night at around 11:45pm (Central), was reverted by me at noon, and was then, without comment or explanation, re-inserted at ~8pm (Central) later that day. This could be simple "stubborness" which does not, in itself, demonstrate that the edit is vandalism. It should, however, be seen as a hint that the user in question is not acting in good faith, which is pertinent to this discussion.
• The addition is designed to make the Rockwell article less useful as an encyclopedic entry, and disregards the collaborative nature of a wiki encyclopedia. This clearly meets the criteria for being labelled "vandalism." Dick Clark 20:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Failure to use an edit summary, while regrettable, doesn't mean that an edit is "sneaky". Wikipedia operates on a 24 hour, international basis, so the times of day are irrelevant. While the addition was not sourced, and was probably at least slightly inaccurate, it certainly was not vandalism. If you want to alert editors to monitor a vandal, please make an entry at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Will, please read what I actually wrote. I am not saying that I would, in my own words, describe the edit as sneaky. Rather, I said that the edit seemed to meet the criteria listed in the wiki vandalism guideline under "sneaky" vandalism. This was a source which you advised me to cite. I also didn't say anything about the time of day, other than to indicate the close proximity of one edit to another. I could care less if it was late at night here or not--I only care that the edits were close together, and therefore represented a committed vandal rather than a one-time experimenting newbie, etc. I definitely did not say anything about an edit summary. I said, much more broadly, that he gave no explanation whatsoever for reverting my removal of his insertion. Such explanation could come via an edit summary, or could be on this talk page, which, if you read my first comment on this issue, is what I requested. According to my reading of your comment above, every point you made was against a straw-man, either intentional or unintentional (I am sure it was the latter). Dick Clark 20:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being sure that I unintentionally made straw-man points. I guess it's better to be thought a fool than a liar. Anyway, moving back to the article. I can't find anywhere that the SPLC calls Rockwell a racist or an anti-semite. It does say that he is listed as a founder of the League of the South, which they call racist, but they also note that Rockwell denies being a member. If anyone wants to add an assertion about the SPLC's characterization of Rockwell they should add a citation. -Willmcw 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Will, no need to take offense. I was doing my best to be clear that I wasn't suggesting that you were intentionally being difficult. I was suggesting that you didn't address my points, which I assumed to be a simple mistake. Just assuming good faith, that's all. I concur with your assessment of the SPLC claim. Thanks for your efforts, and again, I meant no offense. Dick Clark 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Multiple Links to Same Source?

Hmm... It seems that the latest addition by Rogue 9 is nearly identical to an already linked article from frontpagemag. The two ext. links in question are listed as "The Trouble with Lew Rockwell," "Discover the Networks' profile of LewRockwell.com." The latter contains many uncited excerpts from the former. It seems to me that one of the two should be dropped from the WP article. I would favor deleting the new addition, since the former is clearly the op-ed work of one author, and is more complete. Willmcw, others, what do you think? Dick Clark 21:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"The Trouble with Lew Rockwell" is on a site that is no longer active. I found a Google-cached copy. [13]. To me the two articles don't appear identical. I think we should hide the "Trouble" until its website comes back, if ever. As for the general principle - the Discover the Networks site would be considered more reliable because it is the work of many. See Wikipedia:reliable sources. -Willmcw 23:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Will, my apologies, but I listed the wrong source above. The identical sources are the DtN source and "The Right's Left Turn: How a von Mises conservative stumbled into the tar pits of the radical left," FrontPage Magazine, 5 October 2005"[14]. I think you will find plenty of identical text between them. Dick Clark 16:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well that's another matter entirely. Yes, I agree that they are substantially the same, and that the FrontPagemag version is clearer than the DtN version. I endorse removing the latter. -Willmcw 22:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Joe Sobran

I made the following post to Lew Rockwell's page:

While no one claims that Lew Rockwell posts specifically anti-semetic material on his own webpage, LewRockwell.com, he has been criticized for posting the material of Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review (an organization which denies the occurance of the Holocaust.

This being my citation: [15] DickClarkMises, if you do not think this should be posted, will you help find an administrator who can make a judgement? At this point I will also provide a link to this book by William F. Buckley: [16] In the book Buckley identifies Joe Sobran as an anti-semite. 16:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Sir, we have hashed this issue out on numerous occassion, both with relation to the LvMI and Lew Rockwell. Dick Clark 16:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that User:Will Beback give his opinion on this. Dick Clark 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(Here's the text of your second insertion: While the concensus is that Lew Rockwell does not post specifically anti-semetic material on his own webpage, LewRockwell.com, he has been criticized for posting the material of Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review (an organization which denies the occurance of the Holocaust) and is associated with convicted Holocaust-denier David Irving.) Dick Clark 16:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When I said that no one accuses Lew Rockwell of posting anti-semetic material himself, I was trying to be fair by not accusing him of anti-semetism. The evidence suggests that Lew Rockwell is not openly anti-semetic (no one can comment on the internal thoughts of others). I changed it as to keep the material without making it seem like Rockwell was himself anti-semetic. Rogerman 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Yeah, but that's like saying, "Well, as far as we can tell, Jim doesn't openly molest children." I mean, you are knowingly casting Lew Rockwell in a particular light that isn't warranted. It is loaded language. It's unencyclopedic. Dick Clark 16:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And btw, it's "anti-semitic," not "anti-semetic." Dick Clark 16:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But my post on the page wasn't that he wasn't openly anti-semetic but rather that the concensus was that he flat out was NOT anti-semetic. Rogerman 17:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Yeah, but everyone assumes that a guy isn't an anti-semite, a rapist, a thief, or whatever. If there is no such accusation, why say, "He isn't accused of anti-semitism." You might as well insert, "Lew Rockwell has never been to the moon"! It is apparent that you are attempting to cast Rockwell as someone who favors anti-semitism. It isn't encyclopedic. Dick Clark 17:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Clark, I have to say I don't understand what your problem is with this post. I'm NOT here to bash Lew Rockwell. I don't think he's anti-semitic (ty for spelling btw), but I do think that his association with Joe Sobran has been a sour point for a great number of people, and therefore is part of the Lew Rockwell story that should be shared on this page. If you can think of a better way to note the Joe Sobran issue on his page, I'd be happy to discuss that.

Also, I think given the information about you listed on your page that you are well aware that Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute are VERY VERY closely associated with each other. Therefore this issue which has as I said been a big sour point among people who are otherwise fans of Lew Rockwell should be posted on the Mises Institute as well, because it is a sour point for people who are otherwise fans of Mises in general. Rogerman 17:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Lew Rockwell, is, as noted in his entry and the LvMI entry, the president of the Institute. He runs LRC independently of the Mises Institute. It is certainly not as though Mr. Rockwell is the central thinker of the Mises Institute. LvMI has a long list of associated scholars. There is no reason to have redundant text blocks like this. Even more outrageous is this "degrees of separation" thing with Irving. Do you really think that it is encyclopedic to talk about how Lew Rockwell knows this guy that knows this guy, and so on and so forth? Dick Clark 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to accept,

While the concensus is that Lew Rockwell does not post specifically anti-semitic material on his own webpage, LewRockwell.com, he has been criticized for posting the material of Joe Sobran, who speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review (an organization which denies the occurance of the Holocaust).? 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

If other editors think that this information merits some mention in the article (I am not convinced of this), I would suggest the following wording as more in line with Wikipedia standards:

Some critics, including Tom Palmer of the Cato Institute(insert link to source here) have expressed concern over Rockwell's association with Joe Sobran, who has been accused by (insert name of notable, published accuser here) of anti-semitism.

As I said, though, I don't think that this criticism is particular notable, and I await the opinion of other editors on this matter. Dick Clark 17:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem with your proposal is that the main evidence for Sobran's anti-semitism is not the accusation by William F. Buckley but rather his writings and his close relationship with the Institute for Historical Review. The Institute of Historical Review self-identifies itself as Holocaust-denying and the writings posted on the site speak of the dangers that Jews pose for American society.

See this info about IHR

"The Institute for Historical Review is a leading voice in the international movement to deny the Holocaust and vindicate Hitler and his Nazi regime." http://www.adl.org/Learn/ext_us/historical_review.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=ihr

To quote from the IHR Wiki page:

"The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is a leading Holocaust denial organization."

I'm not suggesting this info should be put on Lew Rockwell's page but this is why Sobran's work on behalf of this group should be cited as evidence for his anti-semitism in addition to the accusations by William F. Buckley and Norman Podhoretz. 17:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)~Rogerman

Look, you yourself are admitting that this content doesn't belong on Lew Rockwell's article. Go to Joe Sobran's article, see if these claims pass muster there, and then insert a blurb in various essays related to Sobran that point to that entry. Now, you have to understand that there is a difference between "holocaust denial" and out-right anti-semitism (although I am aware that they are frequently related). My point is that Morgan Reynolds is published on Mises.org and LewRockwell.com, but that doesn't mean that Lew Rockwell supports the theory that planes didn't hit the World Trade Center. Likewise, Sobran's having done work for the IHS does not necessarily indicate that he, himself, is anti-semitic. Even if it did, the above seems to be original research, and is therefore in violation of WP:NOR. We need notable, published sources that say this stuff, not your or my deductions. Dick Clark 18:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's the standard then fine.... William F. Buckley is certainly a notable, published source...and in his book he identifies Sobran as an anti-semite. And again, given either your or my proposal, the fact that people actively criticize Rockwell for being associated with Sorban is noted without accusing Rockwell of being an anti-semite himself. Do you have any idea when Will Beback will be checking this out? 18:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

I have asked a few others to talk a look as well. Hopefully we'll get some additional eyes on this shortly. Dick Clark 19:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We've got several different issues intertwined here. Let me try and separate some out:

• 1. Reliable sources: blogs are not suitable as secondary sources, only as primary sources, so anything from a blog must be attributed to the blogger. In this case, since the blogger is a well-known individual whose opinion is notable, we can use the blog as a source for Palmer's opinion.
• 2. Buckley may criticize Sobran, but unless he criticizes Rockwell then he is irrelevant to this article.
• 3. LewRockwell.com might be best spun off into its own article. The long list of contributors, plus other material, is beginning to swamp the biography.
• 4. The Palmer/Rockwell/Sobran matter has been discussed at LvMI, and was eventually removed due to the fact that Rockwell and LRC is not the LvMI, and the criticism is mostly directed at Rockwell/LRC. It is certainly more appropriate here.
• 5. "While the concensus is that..." is a phrase that is probably totally unverifiable unless a poll has been taken of the public.
• 6. Our jobs as Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Reading over the Palmer citation it appears to me that he is making a broad criticism of Rockwell for a number of associations, North being the primary one, followed by Sobran and Francis. If we're going to say that Palmer's criticism is notable we should summarize it accurately, not pick one aspect.

There's another point or two, but I've run out of time. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a fuller listing of the critics. Also Will, as to your idea about a lewrockwell.com article, sounds good but I was writing about people who criticize Rockwell about his association with these individuals, rather than criticizing his site.... - Roger

Also I'd just like to point out that personally I don't have a problem with Lew in general, and have been following his site/writings for a very long time. The fact is however that Palmer is speaking to something felt by many individuals. Many many people like most of Lew's stuff and yet criticize him for his assocation with these individuals. As I said to Dick Clark before, regardless of anyone's feelings about Lew I think this particular critique is part of the Lew Rockwell story that ought to be shared here on Wikipedia.

-Roger

Dick Clark,

I'm glad you didn't just delete my whole entry again, but some of your edits are problematic. This article is about Rockwell, not anti-semitism. The quote from Blumert belongs under the article about anti-semitism, not Lew Rockwell's article.

As to the quotation you post from Callahan, as we've discussed, this article is about Lew Rockwell, not LewRockwell.com or LewRockwell.com columnists. The statement I made in no way called Lew Rockwell an anti-semite at all, so it doesn't make sense why you are posting someone saying that he recieved notes calling him a "Jew lover" due to some of his writings.

-Roger

• 7. "Some, including Tom Palmer of..." If we imply that there are additional people who make this identical criticsm than we should be prepared to name them. Since the criticism is quite specific, including assocaitions with several people, it is doubtful that that is the case. If we only know of Palmer making the criticism than we should omit the "Some, including..." phrase, and simply attribute it to Palmer. -Will Beback 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• 8. We should stick to summarizing the source, rather than embellishing on it. Palmer does not mention Buckley so he does not criticize Rockwell for associating with someone Buckley calls an anti-semite. Further, the main criticism is for associating with North. Sobran and Francis are just extras. I think we can cut the reference down to a sentence. "Rockwell has been criticized by Palmer for his associations with people that Palmer calls the "oddest of the oddballs": Gary North, who calls for the stoning of homosexuals, Sobran, who attends speaks at the supposedly neo-Nazi IHR, and Sam Francis." Something like that. Let's not overplay a short blog entry. -Will Beback 05:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think a solution would be to put these notes after the "notable contributors" section of the site, since this is information about them? -Roger

Though Palmer is criticizing Rockwell, the criticism is based on Rockwell's actions as an editor/publisher, not on his personal writings or personality. So I moved it to the LRC section. I also pared-down the text so it more accurately reflects what Palmer said. -Will Beback 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Palmer of the Cato Institute has criticized Rockwell for publishing figures whom Palmer calls the "oddest of the oddballs": Gary North, who Palmer claims has called for the stoning of homosexuals; Joe Sobran, who speaks at conferences of the "neo-Nazi" Institute for Historical Review; and the late Sam Francis, of what Palmer calls the "racist" Council of Conservative Citizens.[10]

Will--I understand that as an administrator you have a lot of responsibilities, but I've looked into the issue and feel that your last edit doesn't reflect the best information we have. First of all, it's not just Tom Palmer who has criticized Rockwell over this, I think the previous edit which said that Tom Plamer has led the criticism is much more fair. Also it looks like you rushed your descriptions of North, Sobran, and Francis. I actually think it's POV to call Institute of Historial Review "neo-Nazi", much more accurate to simply speak to their admitted Holocaust-revisionism. And just saying that Palmer calls CCC racist is incomplete. They have been identified as racist/anti-semitic by the ADL. Let's paint a clear and fair picture of Rockwell. Rogerman 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Roger

Also, as per my discussion with Dick Clark, he said Wiki needs "notable, published sources that say this stuff". That's why I think it's important to bring William F. Buckley into the Sobran notation. Also, it's very clear that Palmer isn't just claiming that North has called for the stoning of homosexuals. North has made this call very explicitly, and that's why I provided a citation with the significant information. And again, it's not just that Palmer calls CCC racist, it's that they have been identified as white suprememist/racist by a, to use Dick Clark's phrase, "notable, published" source. - Roger 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)~Rogerman

Rogerman - when you make a reversion it's polite to identify it as such. If there are additional critics then let's name them. As for the descriptions of the IHR, I quote Palmer, because it is Palmer whom we are summarizing. Palmer did not mention Buckley, and did not criticize Rockewell due to what Buckley said Sobran said. Let's leave out the extraneous and ad hominem cricitisms. The Buckely reference certainly belongs in the Sobran article, but not here. -Will Beback 23:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Will, please excuse me not noting what I wrote as a revision, I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. However, I feel that the current version does not reflect the best information we have. We have more evidence besides his speaking at IHR, and yes it is cited by Palmer, that Sobran is anti-semitic. Palmer clearly notes the fact that Sobran was identified as an anti-semite by William F. Buckley. You can find that information here: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018243.php. Additionally, Palmer absolutely does mention that IHR denies the Holocaust, so it is important to put that fact there. As to Francis, Palmer doesn't call CCC racist, he cites the fact that the ADL and other organizations branded it as white supremeisist. I'm not a vandal here trying to ruin this article. I've said it before and I've said it again, readers deserve a full picture of Rockwell. I think this article needs to be expanded in general, including a lot more of Rockwell's libertarian accomplishments. I invite Dick Clark, who works for Rockwell, to include more information on Rockwell's libertarian work. I will too. But we shouldn't mute criticisms of Rockwell by describing them in a shortened version that doesn't give all the information we can. 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

The other info about Sobran belongs in the Sobran article, not here. Your opening clause, "has led the criticism" is a POV assertion. Where does Pamer mention the Holocaust? He calls the CCC racist: "Sam Francis of the racist Council of Concerned Citizens," no cite of the ADL. Are we looking at the same source? http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014604.php? -Will Beback 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea proposed by Will Beback that the Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com articles be divided. Dick Clark 22:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against creating an LRC article if you really think it's best, but I still think the criticism belongs under Rockwell's page. The criticism is aimed at Rockwell himself for publishing these individuals and his other associations with them. 22:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman (just putting this comment in this area of the talk page as well)

Alexa

Just wondering about this little detail: "one out of 4,000 Alexa users daily"

First of all, where is the proof of that statement? Second of all, why is it relavant? Thanks for ya'lls time. CMUAfroAmerStudiesKid

Follow the link for the proof. Alexa is a page ranking service, so it is an indication of the relative popularity of the site. -Will Beback 23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Palmer again

Will, first of all it's time that another administrator come and comment on this. It's clear that you've had a relationship with DickClarkMises for a long time, and I'm not sure that you're able to look at this objectively. Please have another administrator take a look at the page. The fact is that your edits are not giving the full picture of the situation.

First of all, without any explanation why, you took out my info where I noted that Palmer had cited the fact that William F. Buckley had written that Joe Sobran was an anti-semite. If you look, I provided the citation to this fact. You have no grounds for removing this information.

On Gary North, you say that "Palmer claims has called for the stoning of homosexuals". Without providing additional information, you imply to readers that Palmer's claims are baseless. However North has made the fact that he believes homosexuals, and women who promote the use of abortions, for that matter, ought to be stoned to death. And if you look at my edit you will see that I cited that fact [17].

You do the same thing with Sam Francis that you do with Gary North. "Sam Francis, of what Palmer calls the "racist" Council of Conservative Citizens"". First of all, Francis wasn't just "of" the CCC, he led the group, so why do you keep on removing that point? Second of all, the CCC isn't just some random group that Francis called racist. It's been identified as racist/anti-semitic/white supremeisist by numerous groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, which is a notable and published source. Additionally, Palmer notes here http://www.pjdoland.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=21918 that the CCC is connected to the KKK.

And if you revert the page again you may be blocked from editing.

Rogerman 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

No, in the cited source the name "Buckley" never appears, nor does the word "Holocaust", nor the name "ADL". You'll have to quote the lines here where you see him writng those words. We're just summarizing Palmer's blog, not bringing in everything that other people say about the 3rd parties involved. Please don't go beyond what Palmer says unless you introduce another critic of Rockwell who says these things. As for my views on Rockwell, I am not a sympathizer. -Will Beback 18:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

1. You'll notice that in the newer version, I've removed any reference to the ADL. 2. As to Buckley being mentioned, he is. Palmer provides the evidence that Buckley fired Joe Sobran from the National Review for Anti-Semitism. It happens here: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018243.php as is cited in my edit. Furthermore, if you want to see the evidence that Palmer is citing, go here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n5_v44/ai_12037683, which is the artile that Palmer is citing. 20:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Blogs are barely reliable sources, and then only for the opinions of the blogger. The citation you give for Buckley is not even part of a proper blog entry [18], but is in a comment responding to other comments on a blog. That's stretching it very thinly. We've already established that Palmer is a critic of Rockwell, and we've indicated that it is not because of any ideology but simply because Rockwell publishes or associates with disreputable scholars. It is not necessary to spend space in this article on the details of why the scholars are disreputable. Each has a biography of his own in which their flaws are covered at length. Rather than trying to "paint a fuller picture of Rockwell", this appears to be an effort to pile on negatives about people with whom Rockwell associates. I don't see how doing so imprives the article. It'd be more valuable to find critics who comment on Rockwell's scholarship, different scholars who have criticized Rockwell for the same things as Palmer, or criticisms from Palmer that are more developed (i.e. published in a reliable source). Just pulling more blogged criticisms, or comments on them, lowers the standards we're trying to keep on Wikipedia. -Will Beback 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to just pile on negatives about people with whom Rockwell associates. I just think that if you look at the writings about Rockwell on the internet and elsewhere, you will see he has many people who support him vehemently but also an equal amount, if not greater amount, of detractors. Therefore I am trying to set up this article whereby both points of views are represented. Rogerman 23:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Good. Let's all work towards the most verifiable, NPOV material here and elsewhere. I think this particular passage is much better now, thanks for working on it. I think it is time tomove the LRC material to a new article, and that this passage should go with it. We should leave a stub here that says something like "Rockwell operates LRC, a widely-read website that publishes anarcho-capitalist, libertarian articles and blogs. It is among the leading online sources for the Austrian School and has attracted criticisms for carrying far-right columnists." - or whatever. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against creating an LRC article if you really think it's best, but I still think the criticism belongs under Rockwell's page. The criticism is aimed at Rockwell himself for publishing these individuals and his other associations with them. 22:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

If the criticism is about publishing, then it'd be better attached to the publication. -Will Beback 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would again state that I favor the division of the biographical part of the article and the LRC part of the article into separate entries. There are many criticisms that may be levied at LRC as an organization that are not as appropriate in the "Lew Rockwell" article. I also concur with Will Beback's assessment of the present article length as being another factor that should be considered. I think there is enough content about both topics to warrant separate articles. Also, Rogerman: I would like to point out to you sir that, at least initially, User:Will Beback (formerly User:Willmcw) acted as a check on my overzealous edits that were sometimes questionable with regards to their conformance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I consider Will to be a darn good editor, and someone who I know disagrees with me ideologically. This latter quality gives him a perspective that I don't have, and thus sometimes allows him to be more neutral in his work, including critiques/reverts/modifications of my contributions (in those areas where I have strong opinions/beliefs). Dick Clark 21:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of LRC and Lew Rockwell

Rockwell has become a center of controversy due to his association with certain infamous individuals. More information regarding this can be found at the LewRockwell.com article.

I would argue that the word "infamous" is not compatible with WP:NPOV. Other than that, I would say that a brief reference to the LRC article may (or may not) be warranted in the criticism section. Now, we just divided the LRC and Lew Rockwell articles, so I am not so sure, but I am interested to hear what other editors would regard as most appropriate. Dick Clark 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rogerman edited a portion of the article to say the following:

Rockwell has come under attack due to his association with numerous controversial individuals. More information regarding this can be found at the LewRockwell.com article.

I replaced the text with the following:

Rockwell has come under attack from Tom G. Palmer due to his association with individuals viewed by Palmer as controversial. More information regarding this can be found at the LewRockwell.com article.

We need to cite sources of contentious claims. Tom Palmer is in this case the source. Deleting any mention of Palmer deprives readers of useful information, Now, I am not suggesting that we rehash the controversy here and at LewRockwell.com. I would suggest that the claim here ought not appear any stronger than the full explanation of the controversy in the relevent article. Also, the word "numerous" is needlessly vague and so gives what is likely to be a mistaken impression of the claims that have so far been specifically related to Rockwell's alleged association with only two or three people. Please cite a notable, verifiable source, as per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, if you wish to make a stronger claim. I would remind you that this article was divided from LewRockwell.com in order to avoid reader confusion between criticisms of LewRockwell.com and criticisms of Lew Rockwell himself. Read previous discussions on this talk page for pertinent information on this. Dick Clark 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

POV check

In its current state, this article fails the criteria in Wp:neutrality#Undue_weight because about half the article is about criticism of his position on the Iraq War, from a non-notable, and not particularly intelligent, source. It takes up a lot of space just to convey the general, and inaccurate, description by Bush Administration fans that anyone who opposes Bush Administration policies is "far left". It also bothers to describe criticism from a Cato Institute fellow and names names, but gives no clue as to what the criticism was about, leaving this passage empty of any real information. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 02:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of the problems stem from a meatpuppet incident a few months ago. If I don't get a clear shot to look it over and fix it in the next day or so, feel free to do what you need to with it, I hadn't remembered this article until right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the section. Intangible 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Moy/Morgan assertion of adultery

Okay, I removed the assertion inserted by MSTCrow on the basis of the source not being properly cited. I reviewed the material referred to in the edit summary and discovered that such claims are made by Moy/Morgan in American Mourning .PDF. The claims though, are as unsubstantiated as they are bombastic. My question is: Should this mention be added to the encyclopedia in light of WP:RS and WP:BLP? WP:RS clearly states that, "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues." It seems that this particular claim falls under that umbrella. Thoughts? DickClarkMises 17:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that it is an exceptional claim. At least one more independent source should be provided. -Will Beback 17:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It being published on FrontPageMag already raised my eyebrows. Even if a second independent source makes this claim, it isn't really worth mentioning in this article. Intangible 18:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read the chapter in question. It's highly defamatory of Sheehan, and also defamatory of Rockwel, claiming that he had an adulterous affair. If the latter allegation is true then I'm sure that one or both of the participants will reveal their activities in a future memoir. But until it's well-established we shouldn't rush to repeat the gossip. -Will Beback 00:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and the author apparently has an agenda. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Melanie_Morgan -Will Beback 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, duh she has an "agenda," she's in politics. - MSTCrow 02:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I did find two sources. How many do you want? - MSTCrow 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Freerepublic reference was just another copy of the same material. -Will Beback 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

50% same author, not the same material. Should I find 0% same author source? - MSTCrow 03:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an independent source that is not in any way the same source as the one already provided. -Will Beback 03:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Keep User:HarvestDancer has suggested that Lew Rockwell and LewRockwell.com be merged. My first inclination is to suggest that everyone review past discussion on this issue. I believe the primary reason it is important that these pages stay separate is because putting them together tends to cause confusion in the criticism sections about which criticisms are of Rockwell personally and which are general criticisms of people who are published on LRC. HarvestDancer, what is your reason for wanting to merge? DickClarkMises 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep I concur. Also, LRC is alot more than just Lew Rockwell and therefore separate articles makes sense. No one would suggest merging Turner Classic Movies with Ted Turner... —Per Hedetun 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Most of the content is duplicated in each other, and what little isn't could easily be merged into this article. This is a clear case of redundancy. Harvestdancer 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate. The website is different, no need to merge the two. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Categories work best when separable entities are treated as stubs than when they're combined. Could we categorize Rockwell as a "blog"? That'd be weird. For that reason I think it's better to keep them apart, even if both articles are short. -Will Beback · † · 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is leaning against me. How long should we keep the discussion going before I admit defeat? I did look at the history and it appears that not only is the content redundant, some of the conflicts are redundant as well, but oh well. Harvestdancer 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Federalism and secession

Aren't these entirely contradictory ideas? What is a federation if you can secede? Wouldn't such a thing be as powerless and as lacking in moral authority as the U.N.? Yet according to his article, Lew Rockwell espouses both. How do you account for it? Jason

Well, according to de Tocqueville and other observers, the ideas weren't necessarily mutually exclusive. More importantly here, Rockwell's columnists often argue points based on the fact that the US Gov't system is a federal one and that this therefore necessarily means that certain things are not under the authority of either the federal gov't or that of the states. I agree, though, that the current verbiage may confuse, and a rewording may be in order. DickClarkMises 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A good example of why federalism with the right to secede cannot work is the American Civil War. If a federation is supposed to protect the rights of minorities, and states secede as soon as the federation steps in to protect minorities therein, how then can these rights be enforced. The South in this example saw that slavery was going to be abolished, so they seceded, and the federal government could not protect the rights of slaves except by declaring civil war. In the same way, the U.N. cannot, and will not, protect the rights of ordinary people when communist leaders oppress them. As for lack of mutual exlusivity, the same could be said about federalism versus states' rights. Jason

Well, <bragging> as someone actually referenced in the article </bragging> a federation should indeed have clearly delineated authority between the separate parts. Certain powers belong solely to the federal government, certain powers belong solely to the states, certain powers are shared by both, certain powers are forbidden to both. Moreover the initial assumption used by writers on the website is that the federal government is a creation of and in theory an agent of the states. A federation is supposed to represent the members of the federation, nothing less and nothing more. Protection of minorities is an aspect of some federations, and not an aspect of others. As per the slavery issue, the consensus among LRC writers is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Harvestdancer 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The federal government could just as easily abridge rights as protect them. In these cases it would make sense to secede. For instance if the federal government forced people into military service (draft). I believe to ignore the right to secede when your liberties are being infringed upon would be against the whole idea of the U.S. in the first place. Did we not "secede" from the British after all? --Jayson Virissimo 06:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Federalism in no way destroys secession, if anything, the decentralization of power found in a federalist structure of government would lend itself to secession more so than not. (Though obviously not so much as a confederation) Considering that New York and Texas BOTH entered the union only under explicit terms that the right to leave the union be guaranteed for their state should display that the governing minds of the time did not find any contradiction --Darrin 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

eponymous & photos/libertarianism box & Reason article

• First, hopefully didn't mess up anything else in article when somehow double copied material by mistake here instead of my saftey copy in wordprocessor.
• I am removing eponymous AGAIN because it is WP:OR and only described thusly at one non-noteable site. Who keeps putting it back there?
• Why not put the photo to left and libertarianism box to right? I think looks better, but will wait for others' opinions.
• I think we can venture another sentence or two of what Reason says and controversy; definitely a more accurate description of what they say. Yes, I'm quoted there and believe IF he's responsible he should confess, but NOT anti-Rockwell and just want balanced and accurate article.

Carol Moore 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

As for images, they should be thumbified (which is default right) with no size declaration, since what looks ok on one browser more than likely doesn't look ok on even the same browser on a different OS with a different screen resolution. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "eponymous," I reverted you, Carol, and then found this and reverted myself. It does not appear correct to use "eponymous" in this context. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of this word seems to date back to Wikipedia's early days. The 4th Earl of Sandwich is the eponym of the word sandwich. Julius Caeser is the eponym of the word/title kaiser. Mr Rockwell would be the eponym of rockwellian if this ever came to mean any Austrian school libertarian, but Lewrockwell.com, being a thing directly associated with Lew Rockwell himself, not a word or title, cannot have an eponym and cannot be eponymous. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Carol: With the regards to the Reason article, it is my understanding that it asserts that the "half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" all agree that Lew Rockwell was _a_ ghostwriter/speechwriter--perhaps the most frequent one, by some accounts--during the time period at issue. I am not aware of any first-hand account identifying Rockwell as the writer of the specific newsletters under review. Am I missing something? DickClarkMises (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss how to put in NPOV description of controversial newsletter

I'm bringin this up just to avoid revert wars and to work within WIKI policy. I agree with the current reverts but also believe there are ways that factual accusations can be summarized in a sentence or so in an NPOV fashion and might even do so myself at some point if no one else does. So discussion of NPOV way to do it to get to a consensus would be helpful. Carol Moore 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP: This is a very short article which could quickly be overwhelmed by "current events" reporting of political sniping. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But the truth is if you web-google Lew you don't find many news stories on the first pages, and most of them are about this. Having followed his career for 28 years I can safely say this is the biggest national news he's made. i.e., all those recent relatively mainstream google news stories. Plus describing the controversy is legitimate and necessary, since there are all sorts of controversies that it might refer to. (And knowing libertarian libertines, who knows what people might imagine?) And most people will not think to click on [Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy|Ron Paul] to find the link to the article about the newsletter controversy there. However, because of WP:BLP it's best to avoid possibility of libel by using a good, balanced descriptive phrase from some reliable source (i.e., not a minor blog), like from the recent Reason article.

For example:

On January 16, 2008 libertarian publication Reason claimed "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of several controversial, anonymously written articles published in Ron Paul newsletters from "roughly 1989 to 1994." Online copies of some issues had revealed some "bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays." However, the magazine also noted Rockwell has denied responsibility for the articles and "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"

Since I was quoted in the article I'm not rushing to insert anything controversial (as opposed to factual) so at this point just suggesting. Carol Moore 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Non-denial of Reason charges

The fact that Rockwell refused to discuss the newsletter controversy with Reason seems pretty significant to me. The previous version gives the misleading impression that he denied the allegations when confronted by Reason, which is false. Binarybits (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He already denied it to the TNR author. You personal opinion of his unwillingness to talk to Reason is not germane to this article. The fact is that he has denied authorship. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have no objection to including that fact in the article. It's also a fact that he declined to discuss the matter with Reason. I don't see why his non-denial to Reason is any less significant than his denial to TNR. Binarybits (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

But the inclusion of it in this article implies that it is relevant to this article's coverage. It is understandable that Reason would note that their information was not first hand since they were relying on third party sources. That journalistic consideration by Reason does not seem relevant to this discussion. DickClarkMises (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DickClarkMises Conflict of Interest

DickClarkMises is a former staffer at the Lew Rockwell "Ludwig von Mises Institute," and a rabid partisan supporter of Lew Rockwell, as noted on his personal page, and elsewhere. This is not his pet article that he can do whatever he wants with. He should be banned from editing this article due to blatant conflict of interest, malignant intent, and a track record of edit warring facts deleterious to the personage of Lew Rockwell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually there only has been one point of contention, whether it is relevant/important that Rockwell refused to comment on Ron Paul newsletters to Reason. Why not just settle that here, rather than assume COI one just one controversial point? I don't have much of an opinion myself, so let's hear both sides. Carol Moore 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Proposed move to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Is there any opposition to moving the content of this article to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. ? The use of a nickname in an article title is inconsistent with general practice on WP as far as I can tell. I will move the article and make the current article redirect to the new one if consensus in favor of this action could be generated.PStrait (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do. (see below) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"general practice on WP", aka Wikipedia's naming conventions for people has two central ideas:

"1. The name that is most generally recognisable"

"2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles"

Neither the current title nor the proposed title bring up any disambiguation issues, so it comes down to which title is "the most generally recognisable". Google registers 519,000 hits for "Lew Rockwell", with 25,300 for "Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.". This does not seem to support your rationale. Regards, скоморохъ 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this, I was mistaken. Given the written policy and that he does publish as Llewellyn H. Rockwell (without the Jr), it does seem to me any move would take a clear consensus of many experienced editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, do you think we should take this to Requested moves? скоморохъ 12:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia's naming conventions for people the consensus to move would have to show up on this talk page first and I don't think it will happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly oppose such a move. As скоморохъ has demonstrated, Lew Rockwell is the much more well-known name, as well as the one for which most people are likely to search. On Wikipedia, even a nickname---for example, Moondog rather than Louis Hardin---is used, as long as it is the more well-known name. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the move, since "Lew Rockwell" is obviously the most common appellation for the article's subject. I don't think it should go to WP:RM. No need to waste further editorial time on this, since the application of WP:NCP is unambiguous in this case. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing Anarchist Classification

Does Rockwell Self-Identify as an anarchist? as a libertarian party activists and former staffer for a republican party politician makes his classification as such very nonsensical. could these links be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.106.124 (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's nonsensical. There are many kinds of anarchy in political and economic thought and the word is not a synonym for chaos. The Austrian school is often considered a form of anarchy (but maybe more helpfully thought of as methodological individualism drawn from praxeology) and is somewhat linked with Anarcho-capitalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell is a self-avowed anarchist, according to this interview.

He explains,

The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn't mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalist system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I'm not sure that the term does that well. As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I'm with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I'm completely against that idea.

In an article Rockwell wrote about Rothbard, he quotes Rothbard as saying Then, when I became an anarchist, I was advised, similarly: 'Forget this anarchist stuff. It will injure your career, and ruin your scholarly image as a laissez-faire Austrian.' It seems clear to me that Rockwell is an anarchist of the anarchocapitalist variety.

DickClarkMises (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Economist or not?

I really don't feel like getting in an edit war over this guy, but how is he an economist? If he's an economist, then so is anybody who writes on economic issues. In this vein, Kent Hovind is an evolutionary biologist. I prefer the term economic writer, but User:DickClarkMises keeps reverting. Rockwell has a degree in English. He lacks an advanced degree in economics and he has no serious, scholarly, peer-reviewed publications in economics. I submit that one or the other is necessary for a person to be called an economist. To wit, Joe Stiglitz = economist, Thomas Friedman <> economist, Murray Rothbard = economist, Lew Rockwell <> economist. KrJnX (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)