Talk:Roger Stone

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roger Stone article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Template:WikiProject Libertarianism

New York (state)

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Archive box collapsible

New development

According to this, Roger communicated and collaborated with Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks... My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s news that Mueller disclosed his knowledge of it, but it’s not news Stone communicated with them: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/roger-stones-secret-messages-with-wikileaks/554432/ soibangla (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought before it was only about Wikiliks. Guccifer 2.0 is basically the GRU, is not it? And it seems that Wikiliks and Guccifer 2.0 work together, do not they? My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stone spoke with Guccifer 2.0, and Guccifer 2.0 did collaborate with Wikileaks. Stone said he only congratulated Guccifer 2.0 for their hack. I don't know if Guccifer 2.0 told Stone anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This not about anything Stone said. According to the ref (link above), "Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone's communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1, which is WikiLeaks. Previously, the prosecutors had only outlined how Stone attempted to get in touch with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange through intermediaries." Text of the page needs to be modified accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Stone spoke with Guccifer 2.0, and Guccifer 2.0 did collaborate with Wikileaks" This is unsubstantiated nonsense. All parties allegedly involved have denied these claims repeatedly. No supporting evidence has come forth. Why is this being repeated as fact? 8675309 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so-called nicknames

The reported "nicknames within the Republican party" ("The Godfather" and "The Prince of Darkness") do not belong in the Infobox, despite the claim that "The latter is a name Stone himself likes to repeat, as the source states, because these are not his common or universal nicknames. (And, if he does like calling himself "The Prince of Darkness," then adding it is PR advertising for the subject.) Reversing the entries as not encyclopedic or warranted. Mention within the body of the article might be appropriate.Lindenfall (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

expand November 2019 trial details ?

Stone lied to Congress about his efforts to contact WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign because "the truth looked bad for Donald Trump," a federal prosecutor said in his opening statement at Stone's trial. Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said the case wasn't about who hacked the Democratic National Committee, or who communicated with Russians, but "about Roger Stone's false testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in an attempt to obstruct the investigation and to tamper with evidence."

Create "Trials of Roger Stone" article such as Trials of Paul Manafort? X1\ (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Amy Berman Jackson

It's incredibly relevant that the judge in the trial be added. Her name is Judge Amy Berman Jackson. It's of extra import (as a foreigner with no dog in this race) given that she is a political activist judge, and a very open never-Trump-er so the pending outcome of the case may be pre-ordained. --121.210.33.50 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to add the name of the judge to smear her. Gotcha. We won't do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

overcite

There are multiple examples of WP:OVERCITE in the lede and it looks ugly and I am guessing it is a result of WP:TE. Please use WP:CITEBUNDLE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they should bundled, or if the material is already cited int he body of the article, they can be excluded or trimmed to just a few cites.- Mr X 🖋 12:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Convicted felon"

Yes, he is. But in the first sentence of the lede? That is absolutely NOT the thing he is best known for, so it doesn't belong in the lede. --Calton | Talk 07:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See O. J. Simpson as a simple example. It is perhaps the signifying point of his career; that most of what he did was illegal. He finally got caught and convicted. At the moment un-sentenced, he is liable to serve the rest of his life in prison. I'd say that's significant. Trackinfo (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a TERRIBLE example for a variety of reasons, starting with the straight-up falsehoods you just stated. Heisman Trophy winner, professional football player, holder of NFL records, inductee into the College Football Hall of Fame and Pro Football Hall of Fame, Hollywood actor: how much of that was "illegal"? He finally got caught and convicted: what, did his roles in the "Naked Gun" movies finally catch up to him?

After that start, I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the reasons why this analogy is nonsense. Now, do you have a) evidence for your claim about ROGER STONE -- the subject of this article -- being "best known" for being convicted of a felony, as opposed to the LONG history of the shit he's done; b) rationales which are not obviously false from the start? --Calton | Talk 10:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing others in the category of "People convicted of obstruction of justice", such as Stone's fellow Watergate warren, like John Ehrlichman, John Dean and Fred LaRue, convictions are seen in the lead, but not in the opening sentence. Lindenfall (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Stone plead guilty to lying

There is a curious paragraph "Roger Stone plead guilty to lying.....".

It doesn't make sense to me, Stone went to trial, he didn't plead guilty. I think it should simply be deleted, but as I don't understand how it got there, and what it might be referring to, I didn't want to simply remove it without discussion. Magil8216 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]