Talk:LewRockwell.com/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Forum for fringe science?

Other users have expressed concern that the AIDS Denialist/Creationist pieces I have previously quoted, in justification of restoring the 2010-2013 CON that LRC has "provided a forum for fringe science", may be a bad sample size of the overall "body of work" LRC has published on science. To them, I offer the following LRC "Healthy, wealthy and wise" conference, which featured AIDS Denialist Peter Duesberg on HIV/AIDS, Donald Miller on "sickening fluoride", Ron Paul on "Fascist [presumably government] Medicine" and various speakers on "alternative medicine." It would be unencyclopedic to say Lew Rockwell personally believes any of this stuff (though it isn't unreasonable to presume he does), but LRC's providing a forum specifically to fringe science is crystal clear. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert118.html Steeletrap (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If we simply post stuff from LRC to discuss what was presented, we run into a PRIMARY problem. What do SECONDARY sources say about what LRC has posted? I think the AIDS denial material is handled properly -- we have a SECONDARY source which laysout the fact that LRC contains denialist stuff, and I hope we've properly presented the LRC links which verify what the SECONDARY source has referred to. I'd be quite happy if critical SECONDARY sources talked about how creationism, fluoride, anti-vaccine (whatever) materials are posted on LRC. (I've been looking on Highbeam Research.) But I certainly don't want WP to be a WP:LINKFARM for the actual LRC articles. That would only serve to advance those ideas. – S. Rich (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich is correct policy wise. I also added Kalichman describes as her "denialism debut"; to correctly attribute that opinion. Now I left in the primary source podcast (which seems to be a description from LRC and I see no evidence it's from Leung) only because I didn't have time to find an LRC or other article which more directly rebuts the "AIDs denialism" issue. Using primary sources to rebut criticism per WP:BLP is allowed. In fact, I did find one article calling Duesberg a hero or something. So if one wants to bring up this one criticism of LRC from one source, one must allow a defense, per Wikipedia policies. CarolMooreDC🗽

Wikipedia has articles about all kinds of topics. The Flat Earth Society, which promotes the idea of the Flat Earth are two examples. Is WP providing a forum for those people or that idea? Here is a link for all the different booksellers that have articles: {{Bookstore Chains}}. Those businesses sell books about all sorts of topics. Are they promoting books or ideas that are wacky, fringe, despicable, etc.? Are they serving as a "forum"? No. They are simply selling books in the best tradition of freedom (and capitalism). Even so, should we have sections in those WP articles about the fact that these retailers sell such stuff? Well, what if there were Reliable Secondary Sources that said so, and what if those sources were expressing opinions about the propriety of selling such stuff, would it be encyclopedic to include such comments? I hope the answers are obvious. – S. Rich (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

BRD/ Peacock

Srich, please undo your reinsertion of the peacock text I reverted in the lede. It has no clearly defined meaning. The source is marginal at best and the substantive point is made in the Alexa statistics that follow. I feel my removal of this text was appropriate, especially for the lede, but at any rate this should be resolved on talk not by undo. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Acceptable compromise -- achieved?? – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As you stated, resolving by talk is the way to go. So I did a compromise and removed from the lede and removed one of the "Peacock" links. My readdition was done and with the note posted here -- as you had requested. So why was this edit done [1]  ? – S. Rich (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)02:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That phrase is 100% peacock. We know LRC is not primarily a news site, it is analysis, investigation, commentary, and the like. As a fly on the wall here I think some of Lew's fans are too defensive about his excellent website and are overdoing it trying to find reasons to control the material in this article. Anyway, the Peacock language adds no specific or verifiable facts to the more objective statements about web traffic and content. It's just fluff. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We, as editors, don't know anything about the site, we only know what RS has told us. But we have one bit of RS, from a journal that exercises more or less editorial control, and that RS says LRC is a "web-only independent news medium". I don't think we have any other descriptive phrase for LRC other than that's a "libertarian website" sourced by an article that was talking about other subjects. My recommendation is to keep this 4 word description of the site (written by Reed) and drop the rest. (I'll be a very happy camper. (The temptation to add the stuff, simply because I found the stuff, is overpowering! m-u-s-t r-e-s-s-s-i-t!)) – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I just thought it was a secondary source for a primary source like Alexa. However, looking around I see that Alexa ratings actually are used on a lot of website articles and that their use is non-controversial in WP:RS and WP:NPOVN, at least in sites in the under 10,000 range. They do look rather silly when your site is 1, 385,984. Seeing edit conflict, replying to above, I don't think it's a problem to use a WP:RS to describe it, though the phrase is a bit clumbsy. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

21:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)The Alexa stats would only look silly if one assumed their purpose was to peacock rather than objectively represent the traffic of the site. That phrase is not clumsy, and neither is it clumbsy. It is however not the opinion of an expert, nor an RS for the assertion. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue with SPECIFICO and I is the Reed stuff from the Washington Times, not Alexa. With this in mind, I submit that adding one particular description of LRC is accurate, not PEACOCK. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I'm happy to leave Reed out of the article. His data is OBE. (Alexa shows that many more sites link into LRC than the number he has given.) And a further description of LRC by him as being a website does not help much. – S. Rich (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Archives still need fixing

Two problems:

1. There are now three archives with archives in correct order, but they must be misnamed or something because {{talkarchivenav}} isn't working and they don't link to each other. They are: Talk:LewRockwell.com/Archive_1, Talk:Lew_Rockwell/Archive_2 and Talk:LewRockwell.com/Archive_3
2. Also, I don't know how that box is created so it can link to them.

If you don't know how to fix those problems, maybe we should call in an expert. So much code, so little time. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I don't know how to fix. Was not a big priority because this page and the article are so dynamic at present. Sooner or later it'll get fixed and everyone will be in nirvana. – S. Rich (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The good news is archives go someplace now. Still have to double check right archives in right place in at least one case. Later this evening when I'm looking for a fun distraction. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

With help of another editor got it straightened out. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Happy Joy Joy! – S. Rich (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Reception" and "Content" sections

I'll start with the criticism section because it now includes "reception"-type material. "Reception" is what a lot of articles are starting to call "Criticism" sections per criticism section problem per Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-1 which reads:

Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.

So while Napolitano and Paul praise can be put in the lead, it also can be put there. Brian Doherty's comments could stay in content or go there (see more below). Doubtless more research or time will produce more refs. We certainly don't need a separate "Praise" section.

Content section wise, I see no reason to remove the Anderson article. It is a secondary source discussion of the contents of Anderson's article on LRC. Per the above, I also disagree on removing Ron Paul's article since Reason specifically comments on the article before linking to it which proves its a notable article. Then it's just a matter of quoting some of what Reason considered notable enough to quote. I have several examples like both of those and they are perfectly fine to use per WP:RS.

Also while I see I messed up my quoting of Goldberg cause I was tired, I do think it is acceptable to use this content in the article:

Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg of the National Review writes LewRockwell.com features articles about “how the American military is a hotbed of criminal imperialism and murderous warmongering”, calling Abraham Lincoln “a murderous war criminal”, and favoring secession as “a viable option.”[RefGoldberg] And then include examples of such articles (I just temporarily used some lying about; not necessarily best examples.)

These comments can be used in reception but also are relevant to comment, so that's a judgement call.

Goldberg wrote that LewRockwell.com "features regular diatribes against National Review, neoconservatives, The Weekly Standard, William F. Buckley, and other icons of what most people consider mainstream conservatism in America".[RefGoldberg] The American Conservative noted that Lew Rockwell himself has talked of “red-state fascism” among the US Republican Party base. LewRockwell.com writers have called social conservative groups “Falwellofascists” “neoconofascist.”[RefAntle]

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 03:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WRT the Paul & Napolitano comments, they are basically promotional in that they contribute to LRC. ("Of course sliced bread is wonderful, I work for Wonder Bread and know all about it!") So I'd keep them out of the lede.

WRT the Goldberg and Antle descriptions, I'm most hesitant. Once we start specifying particular LRC topics or themes, even if supported by RS, we let the camel's nose under the tent. That is, do we then start linking particular LRC articles? That entails going through LRC archives and finding stuff about Lincoln, Buckley, criminal imperialism, warmongering, etc. Are we then to suppose that Goldberg or Antle had those particular articles in mind? Sounds like OR is at play. Moreover, we must watch out for the WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTSOAP issues that arise. I submit that their comments, supported by quotes in the footnotes, is quite sufficient. – S. Rich (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WRT Anderson (Orange County Register), I can't comment because we don't have a citation. I've looked at the OCR website and it looks like their print archives stop at 2006. The "e-Register" online search does not give a result for "lewrockwell.com" for December 2010. For now I think I'll editor comment-out the paragraph as lacking WP:V. – S. Rich (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The Orange County Register paragraph is now covered by <!--Editor's comment-->. I cant find any verification of what the OCR wrote. Searches were done with "Bill Anderson" & "William Anderson" – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Paul & Napolitano, out of lead, fine - but why in "criticism"??
2. I get your OR point, but don't understand "submit that their comments, supported by quotes in the footnotes, is quite sufficient." You mean repeat what was quoted in full?
3. Re: Anderson. Please put a verification tag on to give people a chance to ref things; it's too close to edit warring to just remove material unless it is vs. BLP or obvious vandalism. And it causes the need for unnecessary reverts, plus editors have to search around in old diffs to find what link was used. (See this diff.) Obviously I goofed and used the same link twice. The correct link is this. (Yes, I use that same stern school teacherist voice with everyone! But here's a smiley face to make it not hurt so much. :-)
4. Waiting for comments on renaming Criticism to reception and using Goldberg in ways described above. (Again, a discuss or some other tag is a better way to go than just deleting material. Like you did with Ron Paul paragraph.) CarolMooreDC🗽 19:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

1. As you've suggested, I think we can rename the criticism section -- it is getting to the point where is has balance.
2. No repeat of what they say is needed or desired. Simply that the critics get a short paraphrase in the text and then support with more specific footnoted text.
3. OCR is resolved.
4. I thought we were in the "D" phase of BRD on the Ron Paul Boston Bombing aftermath. I took it out as a "R", and posted my thoughts on the talk page. In any event, the case for keeping it out has been stated. Whatever consensus (or compromise) comes about from that discussion will suit me fine. – S. Rich (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right on BRD; I tend to be more cautious when there are active editors than when no one's been at an article lately. Do I need to requote what Reason said re: Ron Paul? I thought it was rather amusing. And the article itself is edgy. (Poor Richard A. Falk took hell for similar comments.) And we do need content. But back to finishing off my real life article and no editing articles themselves allowed til then. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap has revised the section heading for "Criticisms" and I agree with the rationale. But "Responses" is not quite accurate either. Both Paul and Napolitano are contributors, so can we say they are responding to LRC or its' content? – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reception is proper term. I'm still annoyed that content related material keeps getting deleted. But I guess from now I'll just worry about BLP issues. If rest of article is uninformative or just looks like it's overwhelmed with criticism because WP:RS related to content removed, so be it. We'll just keep the unbalanced tag there. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

off-topic remarks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please confine your remarks on the article talk page to content, not personal remarks about yourself or others. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Please stop criticizing me for every tiny little thing you accuse me of thinking or writing. It's getting ridiculous. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Please confine your remarks on the article talk page to content, not personal remarks about yourself or others. Please exercise care not to misrepresent any statement of mine, as you did above. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Back on track here after taking a wikibreak on this article; I see that Specifico renamed the more commonly titled "Recpetion" section to "Responses"- at this diff, though you have to compare those two diffs to see it, for whatever reason. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding [at same diff even if editors have a problem detailing notable mentions of content on LewRockwell.com, they certainly can't object to something like "LewRockwell.com" have been noted at publications like (mention a few with ref) and reprinted in whole or part at (Name a few with ref). This is quite typical in many articles. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)