Talk:LewRockwell.com/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I actually asked Lew himself...

I think we can all agree that with the number of articles that appear on LewRockwell.com that there are bound to be "contributors" that offend somebody, myself included. So I decided to email Lew, and apparently Lew has a disclaimer of sorts on his site. This is an excerpt of Lew's reply, "As I say on the site, I print articles I find interesting and important, but do not necessarily agree with." I personally did not see this disclaimer anywhere however I'll take him at his word. So it doesn't matter if he posts articles from Anti-semites, or known anti-democratic, anti-religion, pro-totalitarian, or even paid-PR persons, it doesn't necessarily mean he subscribes to it. However as others have pointed out, that also doesn't say anything about what LewRockwell.com as the website entity endorses. So I leave it to you all to decide from here on, but I hope this helps a little. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I am sure that we will eventually have more criticisms about LRC at some point. What do folks think about creating a "Criticism" section? Dick Clark 23:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the usual custom. -Will Beback 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Kinsella's notability

Those arguing that Kinsella is non-notable (and therefore not properly cited with regards to this dispute) should review this discussion: [1]. The community clearly voted to keep Kinsella's wiki article, thus validating my claim and the claims of others regarding his notability. The community has spoken, and Kinsella has been deemed notable. Dick Clark 17:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, having a quick look at that debate it's pretty clear that that vote was "no consensus to delete" rather than a clear "keep". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the vote totals (by my hasty count) appear to be 19 to keep and 17 to delete with a few folks abstaining but still making some comment on the AfD. Nonetheless, Kinsella's article remains, and as such should be seen as fair game for linking from other articles if the link and the contextual information to the link are relevant to the article in question. Also, I would note that the admin (User:Eugene van der Pijll) who closed the AfD declared the result to be "Keep" not "No Consensus." Dick Clark 20:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Notability" is not a one-dimensional characteristic. Kinsella may be notable enough for a biography due to his legal writings but that does not mean that he is a notable source for every topic under the sun. It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of an AFD has no bearing on the determination. All that it says is that we should have a biography of him. -Will Beback 23:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, I am happy to agree with your above points. I have in the past (at Talk:Tom G. Palmer and elsewhere) tried to make the case for the inclusion of Kinsella's published opinion when relevant to the issue at hand. For this issue, where LRC is being criticized, it seems that Kinsella's notability (which is at least partly related to his published work at LRC) is pertinent to this particular issue (criticisms of the medium through which he is sometimes published). Kinsella is listed on this page as a "notable contributor" to LRC. It seems topical to note his answer to criticisms directed at an organization with which he is affiliated. Dick Clark 17:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It'd be better not to say that "The Wikipedia community has decided Kinsella is notable, therefore his comments belong in this article, " as this is untrue. If you want to argue that Kinsella is notable in this context because he is a writer for LRC, then that makes logical sense. -Will Beback 21:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, thanks for your correction of my overly broad generalization above. I meant for my remarks to be regarding his notability for particular issues and not in some general sense. It doesn't follow, as you indicate, that simple notability (any instance of notability) equals a carte blanche to add citations to the subject in question on any and every wiki-article. I am indeed arguing that Kinsella's notability as related to this particular topic (also presumably Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell, and various areas within libertarian political philosophy and jurisprudence) is seemingly established, at least given the (admittedly shaky) precedent noted above. Dick Clark 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam Francis

User:CMUAfroAmerStudiesKid claimed in his last edit summary that after searching through LRC I see that Francis is indeed published there. First of all, Kinsella's claim, even if false, would still be notable (and could be seen, if false, as indicative of some greater fault in Kinsella by readers). Second, would you be so kind as to cite a source? There are lots of blog comments on LRC that mention Francis, but I have been unable to find any writings by Sam Francis on LRC. Now, there are several articles that discuss Francis, but that isn't quite the same thing, is it? Please note where you saw the Francis article on LRC. Dick Clark 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kinsella comment is not a criticism so much as a correction. If he is wrong then it is not notable. Can't we find this out, one way or another? It should be easy enough to determine if Francis was ever in the LRC (assuming they don't purge their archives). -Will Beback 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, so far as I can tell there is nothing of Francis' on LRC. First off, he is not listed as a columnist here: [2]. Second, I am performing searches at LRC for "Sam Francis," and the only Francis-related material I can find there is:

• A reply to a book review by Sam Francis, where Paul Gottfried describes Francis' review as a "sea of bile"
• An essay that mentions Francis' passing (although this is not the primary thrust of the article)
• Another article by Gottfried, this time friendlier than the last. It notes where Gottfried feels that he differs with Sam Francis.
• This article briefly mentions Francis (while criticizing the form of an argument and comparing it to an argument previously made by Francis)

Other than the above, almost everything about Francis seems to be from blog comments by others, including Marcus Epstein (whom I know personally), something which Lew Rockwell doesn't bear responsibility for. Dick Clark 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've linked to the Google search for LR.com and rewrote it to reflect that. If there's actual verification of his articles ever being hoested there, then they should be linked. I still think we could remove that entirely, but it might not hurt, for the sake of balance, to show that even the criticisms of the site haven't always been right.

Also, I don't know if it's the same person or not, but Buckley actually goes out of his way to note that he doesn't believe that Sabron is an anti-Semite. I rewrote that section to reflect the truth of the accusation. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, LRC is responsible for what is published on LRC. This article is about LRC, so if contributors are publishing X, Y, or Z on LRC, then this is a relevant place to note it. I'm not sure that anything notable has ever been posted on LRC, but if so then it does not matter whether Lew Rockwell himself wrote it, it is still relevant to the website. -Will Beback 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that anything published on LRC is the responsibility of LRC, but surely you wouldn't suggest that LRC is responsible for comments made on its blog by third parties, right? That is what I am referring to, not the actual content selected by Lew for the main page. Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to argue that Lew as editor isn't responsible for what his columnists say, only that he isn't responsible for what unknown third parties say on his blog. Dick Clark 22:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it fills the bill, but these postings [3][4] by Epstein do not appear to be comments by a non-involved member of the public. Instead they appear to be approved blog entries. -Will Beback 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Epstein is listed as a columnist.[5] So his postings appear to be authorized, not comments from a "third party". However, Epstein is not Francis. Positive mentions of Francis are not the same as a Francis column. -Will Beback 23:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it appears that Marcus Epstein is listed as a columnist of LRC[6], so I suppose the issue of his blog posts being authorized or not isn't quite so important given that his stuff has been posted on the higher-profile LRC main page. I will offer some of my personal knowledge about the blogs, and let you guys decide on this one. I am authorized to post on the Mises.org blog, and I assume that Lew uses the same software for the blog at LRC. All posts are automatically posted to the blog page upon submission by the blogger—there is no moderation mechanism (other than ex post facto moderation). Therefore, anything that Marcus Epstein posts to the blog at LRC has been vetted by his own eyes and whomever he asked for an opinion—that's it. Lew doesn't have to participate at all, although presumably he would revoke authorization for someone who was really getting out of hand (in his view). Dick Clark 23:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is all rather moot since the particular criticism we're discussing claims that LRC runs Francis articles, and none have been found. However, on the general principle, a blog is the sum of its contributions. If an entry is made and not removed then it can been assumed to be approved by the blog. Blogs are responsible for what they publish (less so if it is a third-party comment/reply). If the criticism were that "LRC columnist Epstein posts material sympathetic to Francis" then I think that'd be legitimate. But since no one has said that we're left empty-handed on the Francis front. Rather than take up space in the article with a rather meaningless back and forth over Francis, a non-contributor, I suggest we simply omit him from the Palmer criticism and drop the Kinsella correction. -Will Beback 23:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable (and headache-reducing) solution. Cheers, Dick Clark 23:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sobran & Anti-Semitism, IHR

Here's what William F. Buckley said on the matter: "What needs to be said first is that those who know him know that Sobran is not anti-Semitic....Those who know Joe Sobran know not only that he does not harbor ethnic prejudices, but that he regards such prejudice as sinful, despised by God, and therefore despised by man." You can read the full discussion here. Do not assert in the article that he is accused by WFB as being anti-semetic, it is incorrect and will be reverted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's what IHR has to say about the Holocaust charges: "Detractors of the IHR have often mischaracterized it as a “Holocaust denial” organization. This smear is completely at variance with the facts. The Institute does not “deny the Holocaust.” Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II." You can read the full statement here. You can consider them to be worthless as an organization, you can accuse them yourself, but they do not claim as such, nor is it anything more than an accusation. NPOV, please, as POV edits will be reverted as well. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Institute for Historical Review denies engaging in "Holocaust denial", but they admit engaging in "revision", which is the term preferred by many who substantially deny the Holocaust. Their denial is not widely accepted, from what I have seen. -Will Beback 21:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And where do they say that? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What I wrote to Badlydrawnjeff:

I take the charge of vandalism very seriously. You have been distorting the facts on the LewRockwell.com page. It's easy to find small exerpts to back up a certain POV, but the fact is that the IHR is a group which argues that the Holocaust was conducted on far lesser scale than we currently consider it to have occured at, and IHR also argues that the Holocaust wasn't meant to exterminate Jews but only to put them into camps. Sobran's comments about Jews, found in http://www.marwenmedia.com/articles_images/SobranJewishFaction.html make it clear he is an anti-semite. Please do not distort these facts anymore. --TheDookieMan 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan

You have again accused me of vandalism falsely. Stop, and pay attention to WP:NPA. Your edits are POV and factually incorrect. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the citaiton request tags because the criticism is attributed to Palmer. He is the source of his assertions, also found here:[7]. -Will Beback 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The citation requests should be restored. At no point in that source does he note that Buckley accused Sobran of anti-Semitism. Please edit this page with the facts in mind, this is getting insanely frustrating. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If Palmer does not say that then we should delete it, not cite it. We are noting Palmer's criticism, not making our own. That said, Palmer has made many criticisms like this, interested parties may find other comments by him. Until that happens, we should just summarize the one link that we have, rather than extrapolating. -Will Beback 22:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what my edits have been doing, and they were reverted as "vandalism." You may want to check the history and take a look at the version I put up there: [8]--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made a fresh re-write, based on what Palmer says. -Will Beback 22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Works perfectly for me. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The most recent POV edit by Rogerman, however, does not. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try not to get hung up on the minutiae. "Claims > notes > says". It's all just about the same thing. -Will Beback 12:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree on that, but it's fixed now, so no problem. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Other criticism

I see that David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetwork.org has a lengthy critique of the LRC.[9] They cover different points than Palmer and we should probably summarize that too. Also, there are plenty of positive mentions of the blog and we should try to find a notable one for balance. -Will Beback 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Contributors

Some of the names that are listed on this page don't seem to be regular contributors to LRC. I can't find anything by Jimmy Breslin, or Ted Rall, for example. Perhaps LRC carries some syndicated material from them. Unless the contributions are original they probably aren't worth noting. Seeing as I'm the guilty party who copied the list over here, I'll take the responsibility for removing those whose contributions are not evident. -Will Beback 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a bigger task than I'd thought. As a first pass I'm going to remove the people who do not have an archive at LRC, or are apparently syndicated columnists whose work is carried by several new media. This is the initial pass of names on that basis. It is a coarse screening and I'm sure we can get our list down to those who are actually writing for LRC. If anyone else wants to work on this, maybe someone who knows more of the material, than that'd be a big help. We edit this list, make up a new one from scratch, or just edit the article. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Will, what does your notation with asterisks mean below? I'm glad enough to help with this effort, but I don't want to undo anything you've done. Dick Clark 15:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The asterisks are inconsistently applied to folks who seem to be syndicated. The question marks are names on our list that aren't even list on LRC (anymore). -Will Beback 18:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed these names from the list. We can continue to refine the list as time goes by. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If I strikethrough a person's name below that indicates that I have reinserted his or her name into the article's list. Dick Clark 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

People who don't seem to write for the LRC

• Uri Avnery
• Steve Benson
• Alan Bock
• Peter Brimelow
• Harry Browne

He died, but before he died I think LRC was his main outlet outside his own duplicate publication at his own site. Before that, I think it was World Net Daily.

• Pat Buchanan *
• David Calderwood
• Gene Callahan
• Alexander Cockburn
• Shadia B. Drury
• Richard Ebeling
• Andrew Greeley
• David H. Hackworth
• Nat Hentoff
• Jim Lobe
• John Lott
• Linda McQuaig
• Loretta Nall ?

Nall is still published at LRC, although she is not listed on the columnists page. See Colombia by Loretta Nall and My Day in Court by Loretta Nall. Dick Clark 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Robert Novak
• Jane Orient
• Camille Paglia *
• Ron Paul *

I know for a fact that Rep. Paul and Lew are friends, and Rep. Paul has certainly written for the Free Market and other LvMI outlets before. It is clear from the citations on Paul's LRC articles that many of them are the transcripts of speeches delivered to Congress, etc. Do we have any reason not to believe that any of the others were written for LRC originally? Dick Clark 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

When I looked at his material it appeard to have been syndicated. Speeches to Congress are public domain and so there's nothing special about carrying them. But certainly if we have some sign that he wrote original material for the LRC then he should be included. -Will Beback 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Below are my email to Lew about this and his short reply. Dick Clark 16:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

*****
On Apr 18, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Dick Clark wrote:
Lew,
I'll get those essays to you later today.
I also have an unrelated question (for Wikipedia):
Does Ron Paul write original articles for LRC, or are the articles that you run sydicated somehow? 
I assumed that some were addresses or were otherwise written for other venues, and that some were
LRC-specific contributions. Let me know. I am trying to make sure that Rep. Paul stays on the list 
of LRC's notable contributors if he is one.
Thanks,
Dick
*****
On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:03 AM, Lew Rockwell wrote:
Virtually all of them are Congressional productions, though he asked me to run them, and LRC is his
top web venue by far. And thanks! Lew

• Justin Raimondo

I think he is a link-to guy like Sobran

• Frank Rich
• Jeremy Sapienza ?
• Robert Scheer *
• Norman Solomon
• Jacob Sullum *
• Tom Tomorrow *
• Walter Williams

Only a couple of his writings that were originally published elsewhere were posted to the site. (maybe more. IDK)

Is Sobran really a contributor? I know the site regularly links to his articles, but I don't think I have ever seen a Sobran article with the blue, black and white color scheme hosted at LewRockwell.com.

Well, According to this article[10], Sobran spoke at a conference with proceeds to benefit LRC. DickClarkMises 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Quest for Will

Are you going to deal with including information from David Horowitz's DiscoverTheNetwork.org's critique of LRC?

Rogerman 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman -Rog

Not if I don't have to. -Will Beback 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed passage

The reason that this passage ("[Joe Sobran] was fired from the National Review by William F. Buckley for anti-semitism") is not acceptable and should be removed is that a) to say that someone was fired from the National Review is not, by itself a criticism; a lot of people would say it's a sign of good character; b) to say that he was fired for anti-semitism is an oversimplification of what happened between Sobran and Bill Buckley; and c) the connection between that and LewRockwell.com is tenuous (I'm sure this issue could be profitably covered at Joe Sobran's article). What's more, the passage as it stands is agrammatical after the preceding bit, so those who want it in the article should at least fix that. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And I removed it because d) it isn't included in the criticism that we have cited. -Will Beback 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, North's endorcement of stoning of homosexuals is included in the cited criticism. -Will Beback 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to include information? Since Sobran was fired from the National Review for anti-semitism, why shouldn't that be included in the page...??? Just my 2 cents. TheDookieMan 05:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan

No, the "whole point" of Wikipedia is to provide readers with articles written from the Neutral Point of View that include verifiable claims from notable sources. Your assertion that Buckley fired Sobran for anti-semitism is counter to Buckley's own explanation, an issue which we have addressed already. Dick Clark 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what are you talking about? Buckley DID fire Sobran for anti-semitism and everybody knows it. TheDookieMan 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan

Uh, I'm talking about Buckley's own words. Buckley himself says What needs to be said first is that those who know him know that Sobran is not anti-Semitic.... Those who know Joe Sobran know not only that he does not harbor ethnic prejudices, but that he regards such prejudice as sinful, despised by God, and therefore despised by man.[11] Dick Clark 17:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Everybody except Buckley himself, apparently.St. Jimmy 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Selectively quoting one sentance which Buckley put in to cool things down doesn't change the overall message of his piece. Buckley writes that Sobran "has gone down the dangerous path of considering different people of a particular ethnic group as a collective problem." He goes on to cite how "Sobran ignores the contribution of millions [of Jews]" and suggests an "insidious nature to their religion and culture". That's anti-semitism folks...and Sobran's guilty of it. TheDookieMan 18:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)TheDookieMan

Your opinion of anti-Semitism is POV. It is not neutral or even accepted by the consensus, and it has to go.St. Jimmy 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

DookieMan: Okay, first off, I don't think that your opinion on why Buckley included a particular phrase or sentence in one of his essays has any bearing here. We are writing an encyclopedia article, and all we use for sources here are verifiable, notable sources. See Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Speculation on Buckley's mental processes are not germane to this discussion—what notable sources quote him as saying either verbally or in writing is what matters here. I think there is a mediocre case for labelling Sobran as an "anti-semite" given the some of the broader definitions of the term in the Wikipedia article here. That does't matter, however, since the Buckley quotation above doesn't say anything about firing Sobran for anti-semitism, which is the claim being made by some of the editors working on this article. Dick Clark 19:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Global warming controversy

There seems to be a disagreement here, so I'm discussing this on the talk page here. The article previously stated: The blog's writers also criticize mainstream scientific theories, such as Global warming and AIDS. However, Lordmetroid changed this to: The blog's writers also criticize mainstream views on topics such as Global warming and AIDS, with an edit summary stating, Global warming theory's scientificality is disputed by many scientists.

I reverted this, as there is a strongly established consensus among scientists that global warming is a real, scientific fact. However, this was reverted back by DickClarkMises, directing me to Global warming controversy#Existence of a scientific consensus. I'd like to point out the fact that the section in the link says that the scientific consensus is disputed "outside the scientific community", and that "Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community." (emphasis mine)

I will leave it as is so we don't end up revert warring. Please discuss the issue, rather than just changing it. Remember, be civil and assume good faith. I hope to resolve this issue so we end up with the most encyclopedic version of the two. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 14:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the global warming article needs updating. Many credentialed scientists and climatologists are at odds with the notion that GW is caused by human action (never mind if there is any GW taking place at all). If you like I can provide some citations to support this. As for the wording in the article, isolating critics of these mainstream views from the scientific community is unsupported. Gwen Gale 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would now add that the passage in GW is carefully worded, Outside the scientific community, there are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree, clearly noting that there is dispute within the scientific community. Never mind a reference back to WP content is not support for anything. Gwen Gale 14:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see your citations. Also, "many credentialed scientists" is weasel-wording unless you can back it up with reliable sources. And I mentioned the Wikipedia article because DickClarkMises directed me to it as evidence against global warming, and I was showing that that's not what the article meant. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I share your disdain for weasel-words, but the entire Global Warming article is an exercise in weasel-wording, yet editors who try to apply WP:NPOV guidelines to it get blocked. Anyway, I don't see how "many" can be taken as a weasel-word. "Many" means a large number; as there's really no adequate word to express "a large number, but not a large percentage," "many" seems perfectly appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.244.192 (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthropogenic global warming is widely promoted and disputed by individuals with research degrees in the relevant areas of study. See this as one example (written by a researcher, Philip Stott, but intended for a popular audience). It seems notable enough to mention that LRC's columnists are often skeptical/critical of those who promote this theory. In mentioning this, though, we need to be careful to stick to NPOV. I don't see the need, however, to rehash the Global warming controversy article, which, along with Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, notes that this issue is controversial. I suggest that we link to that article in the mention in this article, thus both noting that this issue is a controversial one and allowing readers to refine their understanding on that basis. DickClarkMises 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Meanwhile these cites [12] [13] [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/science/article_21267753.shtml] [14] [15] are only meant to show that isolating GW skeptics from the scientific community is unsupported. Gwen Gale 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could leave it the way it is. "Issues" doesn't specifically imply that it's not scientific, so although I disagree with your argument, I'm willing to accept the current wording as long as it isn't modified to be wording against global warming.

However, there is a huge amount of evidence supporting scientific consensus on global warming.[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

Still, no need to continue this discussion here, as the issue within the article seems to be resolved. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article in today's NYT clearly dashes any notion that skepticism about anthropogenic GW is isolated from the scientific community. Gwen Gale 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "scientific consensus" is a meaningless phrase. Science doesn't know what a consensus is, and it doesn't care. Science deals with facts. We don't reference consensus in support of the theory of evolution, because we can witness evolution occurring in real-time. It has been given the scientifically-complimentary title of Theory because it has advanced beyond the hypothetical stage. AGW has not yet achieved this, so it leans on phrases like "scientific consensus," when in point of fact it may only correctly be called "the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis." It is still in the data-gathering phase. See scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.244.192 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexa traffic rank

I've updated the number, but is this information even necessary? Barring some automated method, it will require constant manual verifying and updating in order to remain factual. I was going to remove it altogether, but I'll leave it in case someone has a better suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.244.192 (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why it is a bad thing that this will need to be updated. Every single biographical article and every other article about an extant organization will require updates for the foreseeable future. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For sundry reasons, all but the highest Alexa rankings are of almost null meaning. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Says who? I am sure you have your reasons, but surely we ought to discuss sources and rationale for this controversial change. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been widely talked about and looked into, for a long time.[32][33][34][35]. But for the highest ranked websites, Alexa metrics are worthless. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with it having been cut. I just like to have the facts on the table when claims like that are made to support deletion of a citation. DickClarkMises (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting links, thanks. 70.105.244.192 (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

'Scientific consensus' on global warming

'Consensus' is controversial. 'Mainstream' is uncontroversial. What was wrong with the previous description? I will revert this in due course. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do. There is no scientific consensus[36] and asserting so is highly PoV. There is a political consensus which for now has swayed a mainstream consensus so I'm ok with the previous wording too. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is false. The IPCC, the most authorotative climate body in the world, has repeated and vociferiously shown that there is no debate as to whether or not the world is warming, and is causing most of it. Oil-industry funded disinformation aside, the only question left now is how great the rise in temperature will be. Or, to quote our global warming article (where this issue is argued about endlessly) The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[17][18] is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era. Raul654 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul654, what was wrong with the old wording? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because calling it a 'mainstream view' makes it sound like it's a subjective choice from equally valid options (like someone's favorite food or favorite color) rather than objective fact supported by mountains of evidence. At the same time, it gives an air of legitimacy to those who dissent - a dissent, while well funded by the oil industry and distorted by their propaganda, which is not supported by science or any reputable climate scientists. Raul654 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is correct to call it a mainstream view. Whether a scientific consensus exists is less easily verifiable. I will revert this in due course. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not correct.

• The current understanding of anticipated climate change and its effect on ecosystems and societies, uncertainties and all, is not anecdotal. Rather, it is articulated explicitly as a consensus view of a world-wide community of researchers. - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/full/449755a.html
• "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science" http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that I may have unwittingly brought controversy to this article; if this is the case, then I do apologize to its regular maintainers (I only happened onto it in a roundabout way). See here to understand why I believe this to be so (worthy reading in any case, to see what may happen to you if you press this issue). 70.105.244.192 (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a scientific consensus supporting global warming most but not all scientists support it.

Sure, only the credible and honest scientists support it. The opposition are the likes of the people in Gwen Gale's link, who out and out lie to claim global temperature is no longer increasing, and for their false figures cite quack "scientist" Roy Spencer (who given his advocacy of "intelligent design" apparently subscribes to a form of science that doesn't use the scientific method). 75.76.213.106 (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Rockwell's link to David Ray Griffin's accusation that Pres. Bush conspired with Al Qaeda to destroy the WTC

This is a saved copy of Lew Rockwell’s main web site page, from April 13, 2004, in which he links approvingly to a fawning article about conspiracy nut David Ray Griffin and his accusation that President Bush conspired with Al Qaeda to destroy the WTC:[37] (It is the top link, entitled, "White House Complicity? Yes, says Claremont theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor.")

Is that worth mentioning on the article page? NCdave (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your statement on this "fawning article" by someone you characterize as a "conspiracy nut" is in compliance with WP:NPOV. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to articles, not talk pages. NCdave (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh, and that is why I didn't delete your comment, as would be appropriate if it were added as content in the article namespace. However, you said "is that worth mentioning on the article page?" This implied to me, as I think it would to most editors, that you wanted to add a mention of this linked article. It is not clear to me how this could be worked into the article without violating WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Is there some coverage of this issue in a reliable source? DickClarkMises (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Buckley a Neoconservative?

Why do you guys have Buckley listed as a Neoconservative? The man was a fusionist conservative his entire life, and pushed many of the ideas that his friend Frank Meyer pushed for decades. Buckley was never a neoconservative. To list him as such is intellectually dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.228.160 (talk • contribs) (21:14, 13 October 2008)

Checking the source, it looks like an an editor may have misread it.

• 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.

We can fix it by separating neoconservatives and Buckley. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Murray Rothbard really a contributor?

Didn't he die before this site was created?72.95.233.4 (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

He did. However, LewRockwell.com has published a large quantity of Rothbard's writings;—so it depends on how "contributor" is defined. If we consider a contribution to consist only as an original article written specifically for LewRockwell.com, then we must conclude—since Rothbard remains quite dead—that he is not a contributor. However, if a contributor is defined more loosely, e.g., as anyone who has had articles published, then Rothbard qualifies. Considering what an intellectual influence Rothbard's ideas are on the LRC crowd, it only seems fair to adopt a looser definition. :P --darolew 13:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "contributor" should be defined as anybody whose written something specifically for the magazine, that's its usual meaning. It's an important distinction. The fact that Rothbard is an influence should be conveyed by saying that Rothbard's an influence.

Burton Blumert Publisher?

The entry lists Burton Blumert as Publisher, as does the lewrockwell.com website, but Blumert's wikipedia page says he died on March 30, 2009. Does anyone know if there is a new publisher, or how to reference that change in the article? --Frequent LRC Reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Blumert is still listed as publisher, as of this moment. --darolew 09:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

LewRockwell.com has published a number of posts by relatively prominent AIDS denialists, and apparently Peter Duesberg, probably the most prominent of the AIDS denialists, gave a presentation on the subject at the 2006 Lew Rockwell conference in Foster City, California. I believe the posts in question are readily available; more to the point, they are described in the book Denying AIDS, published by Springer - a reliable source which I cited in my edit. I've thus restored the edit, but would welcome discussion about any concerns relating to it. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that your citation mentions nothing about LRC. Publishing a few articles skeptical of some aspects of HIV doesn't mean LRC is a "forum" for AIDS denial. 147.134.45.129 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. The source does mention LewRockwell.com. You can either read the book, or (I believe) search it on Google Books if you're in doubt. The book describes posts to LewRockwell.com promoting AIDS denialism, written by Harvey Bialy and Rebecca Culshaw. It also describes the presentation by Peter Duesberg to which I alluded above; granted, this was at a conference associated with Rockwell rather than on the website. Are you really not seeing the mentions in my citation? As to "forum", I'm open to alternate language if you'd like to propose some. I do think "forum" is appropriate, though - there are very few forums open to AIDS denialism, and LewRockwell.com has been among the most prominent. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The book likely does mention the website one way or another, but the wording of the text is pejorative, highly PoV. It's not clear that any article called HIV altogether "harmless" and "denialism" implies a deep moral lapse, even a crime. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Denialism" is the term widely applied by reputable sources to the phenomenon (it's also the one used by the source I cited), and thus seems more appropriate than an ad hoc editorial euphemism. I would urge you to read the posts in question, rather than speculate on what they say. Culshaw describes HIV as "a virus that most likely does absolutely nothing", "a virus that has never been observed to do much of anything." Donald Miller writes: "The germ theory of AIDS is wrong. HIV is a harmless passenger on the AIDS airplane, not its pilot." That's to say nothing of posts like "Still Not Convinced HIV is Bogus?" These people most certainly do believe that HIV is harmless, and LewRockwell.com provides a forum for such views. I am open to alternate wording if you'd like to propose some. MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording carries big WP:Undue worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the citations in the book and think that you are well-intentioned here, but remember that LRC is an "anti-state" website. Lew publishes all sorts of "fringe" stuff. This is because LRC wants dissenting, anti-establishment voices to be heard on all issues, not because Lew agrees with all of these scientists. (who, btw, are not denying AIDS, but expressing skepticism about mainstream opinions on HIV) I don't think that your characterization is fair or relevant in a description of the website. 147.134.45.129 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine - it's the website's prerogative to publish whatever it likes, fringe or not. It's our job to produce a neutral, encyclopedic article about the website, reflecting the content of reliable sources. In this case, a reliable source highlights the fact that the website has provided a forum for AIDS denialists to state their case, and I'm not seeing a clear rationale for why this sourced, relevant item should be excluded from our article. Please note that I never said nor implied that Lew Rockwell himself "agreed" with the AIDS denialists, only that the website provided a forum for their views - which is a sourced and easily verifiable fact. If your problem is with my wording, then I'm open to hearing alternatives. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

LRC is not a forum for AIDS denialism. It provides a forum for fringe science, which has included Peter Duesberg's theory that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, but also many other things. IT's not fair to call LRC a forum for HIV denialism, since many of Lew's columnists have written about the risks of HIV, and the terrible job the government has done to prevent them. I think "forum" works better as a description of a broader host of fringe/heterodox scientific theories published at LRC, so as to demonstrate that the HIV stuff is not a particular focus or consensus of the site. I hope you find my edit satisfactory, which includes the mention of fringe science (and specifies HIV as an example of this). 147.134.45.159 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I think those are good points. I agree it makes sense to contextualize the site as providing a forum for fringe or heterodox science in general, and to view the AIDS-denialist articles in that context. I think your edit was good; I've tweaked the wording a little bit and added a few wikilinks. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently (literally minutes ago) discussed this matter with one of LRC's columnists (who believes in the mainstream science on this issue) about the fringe science published on LRC. I don't think your choice of wording ("promoted,") is fair. Published is more modest. Additionally, I don't think it's fair to say that they are promoting individual "denialists," but rather, merely publishing individual columnists with fringe views on the HIV AIDS connection. LRC is anti-state, which means publishing all sorts of things ostracized by the mainstream. This doesn't mean they promote these viewpoints or columnists, they just believe (for whatever reason) they deserve a full hearing. Additionally, AIDS Denial is not fair, imo, because it implies to a layman that Duerberg et al are denying the existence of AIDS, which they clearly aren't. It should be clear that these views have been published by LRC. The reader can make their own determination from there.147.134.73.77 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to claim that LRC promoted AIDS denialism (I don't think I wrote that, either). They have published articles which promote AIDS denialism. I think we agree there. On the other hand, I do feel strongly that AIDS denialism is the correct description and wikilink for the views in question. This is the term widely used by reliable sources when discussing the subject, and thus the one we should use. (Note, for example, that the source I cited is entitled Denying AIDS). As an aside, Duesberg does outright deny aspects of AIDS (for example, he denies the existence of the African AIDS epidemic, calling it a "myth"), and he denies HIV's connection to the syndrome. But that's really neither here nor there, as we should use the terminology found in current, reputable sources, particularly those which we cite in the article. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of which term for denying that HIV causes AIDS is most common in literature dealing with the subject - I'll take your word for it that it's "AIDS denialism". But no alternative, POV term ("AIDS dissidence", or whatever) is being promoted here. All that is happening is that the component ideas of the Duesberg hypothesis are being described - that it denies that HIV is the cause, and so forth. That seems perfectly acceptable to me as a matter of style. There's no special need to use the term "AIDS denialism" each time the views of Duesberg or others like him are mentioned on Wikipedia. UserVOBO (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I guess I favor AIDS denialism for two reasons - first, it's the term used by our cited secondary source (Denying AIDS), so it's the closest representation of the source material. Second, we should wikilink to the AIDS denialism article, since that's where our overview of this phenomenon is located. If the consensus is not to use the term "AIDS denialism", then a piped wikilink would be reasonable too. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Some sources are in themselves polemic and it's unhelpful to carry that all the way through into the narrative voice of an article, which should be neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the relevant parts of Kalichman's book on Google Books. It does definitely tie Lew Rockwell's site to Duesberg and writers supportive of him, but it's not altogether clear that it shows the site supports AIDS denialist views other than Duesberg's. If Lew Rockwell.com's connection with AIDS denialism extends only to Duesberg's supporters, then it would probably be best to refer to specifically to the Duesberg hypothesis, and not to use the term "AIDS denialism", since it can include quite distinct views (those of the Perth Group). UserVOBO (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Goldberg's "National Review" column

I have removed Jonah Goldnberg's National Review column as a source from the article, since it is highly biased and doesn't count as a reliable source. Using such a far from neutral source for statements about a group Goldberg is opposed to, without clarifying that the statements are his opinion, doesn't seem acceptable. And just to clarify: the column does not say that LewRockWell.com's philosophical position "is distinguished from neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, and the less ideologically pure libertarianism of the Cato Institute." It refers to the Cato Institute's "optimistic classical liberalism" - and doesn't even identify them as supporting "libertarianism" at all. UserVOBO (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Way too long

Perhaps this page merits a wikipedia entry, but for it to contain these vast summaries is absurd. It is a reasonably high-trafficked personal weblog of the Mises Institue's chairman, but far bigger and more relevant websites don't have such a long summary. Why not include this information on Rockwell's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.80.71 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Science Section really fair?

LRC has published a few oddball pieces on HIV and fringy science, but Slate, The Guardian, Forbes, and a host of mainstream publications have done the same on HIV. Is it really fair to imply LRC hews to these theories because of a small amount of articles? Esp. considering the fact that Lew openly says on the "about" page that he intentionally publishes disparate views.

198.36.194.3 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The only "mainstream" publication I can think of that's published AIDS-denialist material recently is Harper's, in 2006, and they were lambasted for it. I'm not sure what other coverage you're referring to. I don't think we should imply that LewRockwell.com "believes" any particular oddball pseudoscientific claim - but it is a fact that the site publishes such claims, and it's relevant to any reader hoping to obtain an accurate overview of the site. MastCell ^Talk 06:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Science/AIDS Denial

Why on earth is this stuff being removes? LRC has published fringe science/denialist views on a copious number of occasions . See, for example (these lists are copy/pasted from a Facebook group I found, but can easily be verified by reading below):

Evolution: -Outright Denial http://www.lewrockwell.com/chernikov/chernikov19.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan132.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi158.html

Health: -HIV doesn't cause AIDS http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye9.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scheff3.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/22/163-dissent-on-hivaids/

-Vitamins cure cancer http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi144.html

-Vitamins cure everything else http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi153.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi151.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi23.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi33.html

Physics: -Gravity doesn't create stars/planets http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan5.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan1.html

-The World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds7.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/reynolds5.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/phillips-huff1.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/ventura-not-allowed-to-ask-about-911.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis205.html Steeletrap (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So? ... What improvements to the article do you suggest? ... Do you seek to debunk these claims? (Or do you object to the fact that LRC has provided a Speaker's Corner for all kinds of people and ideas?) If so, WP is not the place to do it. See: WP:RGW. – S. Rich (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I want the fact -- which was apparently CON for literally years (since mid 2010) before I came here, before being deleted with (as far as I can see) no justification whatsoever -- that LRC has often provided a forum for fringe science restored. Our readers are smart enough to make their own value judgments regarding whether they agree with your apparent opinion that Rockwell's publishing denialist scientific articles is equivalent to Hyde Park or not; our job is to present the facts. I am really concerned about NPOV in the last edits; not only do they remove any mention of the fact that LRC has provided a forum for AIDS Denial, but uncritically present (false/denialist) claims from the AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers, and only list the academic credentials of Duesberg and the fact that he was "alleged" to be an AIDS Denialist by two unnotable people, when in fact virtually the entire scientific community community thinks he's a Denialist. Steeletrap (talk)

And what do you propose for the article? Something like: "Author XYZ posted his theory that the earth is hollow on LRC,^[1] but Skeptoid and Myth Busters have proven that the earth is solid.^[2][3]" – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Something like: "The website has often provided a forum for fringe science, including Evolution Denialism, AIDS Denialism, etc." (Having just looked at the history of this page, I can see that the FS description was up for years before it was "cleansed" without justification.) There is no need to say LRC is publishing erroneous science claims for the same reason you don't have to say Holocaust Denial is erroneous history. Adding such a passage (the fringe science one) would increase the information of our user, who right now (given the completely un-NPOV edit) could assume that House of Numbers is not an AIDS Denialist Film and only a couple, non-notable people think Duesberg is a denier. Steeletrap (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have WP:SECONDARY that says so, you can add them. But WP:BALANCE comes into play. E.g., we need secondary sources which comment on the good stuff that LRC posts. Why? Because we are admonished to "describe both approaches and work for balance." (Moreover, a section that seeks to post all of the good stuff and bad stuff easily becomes unencyclopedic!) Also, if an editor seeks only to push one view, then those edits contradict the goal of achieving neutrality. (See: WP:Neutral point of view/Examples and WP:NPOV tutorial. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, as I wrote above: we aren't supposed to cherry pick which LRC articles we want to make notable and which we want to ignore but use WP:RS comments. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. However, when those comments become WP:Undue (i.e., establishment types writing lots of nasty things about a tiny section of articles ignoring the topic of the great majority) then it's ok to add a few of the typical articles for balance sake. Also, if a WP:RS mentions it publishes articles on a topic (and because the site describes itself as "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market") it's appropriate to mention and link to a couple of the more representative articles on LRC which are examples of whatever the overall topic is. [[ CarolMooreDC🗽 16:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't at all agree. There is no OR or SYN in saying that AIDS Denial and Creationism are Fringe Science anymore than in saying that they relate to science. At the very least please correct your mischaracterization of Duesberg as an accused denialist (listing his credentials is appropriate, but like Holocaust Denying historian Henry Eller Barnes (who was a professor at a Columbia, a prestigious university) he's a Denialist, not "accused"). Am fully confident in my reading of WP rules and that this will get reverted eventually. As the NPOV WP piece indicates, "balance" is not required -- and indeed is inappropriate -- when one position (such as AIDS Denial) has no academic or scientific merit. Steeletrap (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are addressing my post. In any case, all you need is a source that says AIDS Denial and Creationism are Fringe Science if you want to say that. (There's "creationist" stuff in LRC? Or just questions about some theories of evolution which is done by a variety of people who aren't bible thumpers? (We must be precise on Wikipedia and not go throwing our own broad generalizations about.) I have lots of opinions about stuff shared with millions of others but unless they are something like "the sky is blue" I have to ref them to get them in an article. Its all about references NOT what you and 2.3 million other people might agree on. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Just questions about some theories of evolution." I am at a loss as to your description of this, and your insinuation that people's being secular is evidence that they are not Denialists. (Should we spend all day parsing the statements of Holocaust Denialists as well? This is preposterous.) Will wait for other editors to come in. Regarding Creationism/Evolution, also see this Diddy by LRC science columnnist Bill Sardi: http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi158.html "From the Genesis Garden to Galapagos and Back." Not this passage: "A behavior, an act of disobedience, [Adam's eating the forbidden fruit] was said to have caused all succeeding generations to suffer the consequences — humans were now mortal. Did this act of defiance forever alter the human epigenome, just as the offspring of agouti mice were forever doomed to develop obesity, diabetes and cancer, and un-nurtured mice who were prone to stress and anxiety?"Steeletrap (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please look at WP:ONEWAY. There must be an independent and reliable source that connects the two topics. E.g., LRC and the fringe. We cannot go and say, on our own, there is some connection between LRC and the fringe nonsense, even if we find the nonsense in LRC. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Geez, what noticeboard to you take someone to who refuses to admit that you have to WP:Verify through WP:Reliable sources any statement on wikipedia??? Not to mention Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Let me quote Failure or refusal to "get the point":

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted...

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

Oh, yeah, I know where to go if this nonsense keeps up. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go there right now so this can end. I am trying to educate you guys on WP rules and you just aren't listening. You don't need an RS to call a cigar a cigar, to say Paris is in France, or to say Evolution/AIDS Denial (like HOlcoaust Denial) are fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, something that unfortunately Wikipedia:Consensus does NOT explicitly state is that editors on a web page can't overturn the community consensus on policy, like that you have to WP:Verify through WP:Reliable sources any statement on wikipedia. Just because people have ignored for years some policy violating sentence, doesn't mean it was a consensus or it should stand. Policy consensus trumps both inadvertent policy violations and article talk page consensus. And there isn't a consensus here anyway. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go to DR, noting the 2010 history of the page (and how that stood up until a couple weeks ago), the copious science-denialist articles ON LRC (copy and pasting my list above here to let people judge for themselves would be advisable). See if they agree that your dropping of the Fringe Science characterization is accurate. Also note how they react to your characterization of Duesberg as someone who is accused of denialism by two people and uncritical presentation of House of Numbers. Also note whether they think calling AIDS Denial/Creationism fringe science is "OR" or as common-sense a description as saying Paris is in France without citation. Steeletrap (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What's DR? CarolMooreDC🗽 02:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)