Talk:Tom G. Palmer

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Too much information?

I recently deleted some information, but was reverted, so would like to request comments here. The info I deleted seemed to be excessive stuff, in two categories:

• Minor info in lists - for example, listing a whole bunch of journals (few of which are notable) that Palmer's written for.
• Ecessive external links - for instance, there are eight in-line links to pages on the cato.org website, and 13(!!) inline links to Palmer's blog - with another five in the "External links" section.

I'd like to clean a bunch of that up, but realize that this is a contested article and would like some assistance/input from others. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge backstory to this page that you're maybe not aware of, SatyrTN. For months someone kept adding the header tag that this page didn't cite any sources. He'd then pepper the whole article with "citation needed" tags.

So... various people added more and more and more citations until no one could possibly doubt that there were enough. Those of us who watch it are reluctant to remove any source citations at all, because those pesky "citation needed" tags will just come right on back. I wouldn't mind deleting the references to less-notable journals, but ONLY if they are not used to prove any substantive claim in the article. Otherwise they should stay in to preserve the high standards that "someone" obviously demands here. Kuznicki 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism"

Why did we have a link to this article? Palmer's name is never mentioned, and the paragraph referring to him (as a "longtime top official of the Washington-based Cato Institute") doesn't offer any substantive criticism of his actions or views. We learn that he's a "butt-boy of the neocons," that he "has enlisted in an army of banshees bent on blood," that he's "part of what Pope Benedict XVI describes as a satanic force," and he implies Palmer's cab ride from the Baghdad airport cost taxpayers money. But when you strip away the name-calling, all that's left is that Palmer went to Iraq and gave some lectures. It's apparent that Raimondo doesn't approve of this, but he never explains why. I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia articles to link to sources that amount to little more than vacuous name-calling. Binarybits (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

BB: It is clear that the Raimondo article meets the definition of "criticism," which Merriam-Webster defines as "1 : to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate; 2 : to find fault with : point out the faults of." Certainly the Raimondo article, which lumps Palmer in with neocons on foreign policy, is a criticism of Palmer. Raimondo describes Palmer as a part of a group that the article is criticizing. It is just disingenuous to say that the only criticisms leveled at Palmer in the article are the crude ones you cite. However, I naturally agree that the verbiage you include above is not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If someone were arguing that those lines be quoted in the text of the article, I would oppose that action. However, Palmer has been the subject of criticism by a notable commentator, and it should be noted. Let's let the readers decide whether the criticism is meritorious or not. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Antiwar.com is a reliable source in general. It may be a reliable source for the words of Raimondo, and if we're going to assert thereis criticism then we should attribute it to the critic. However the current text is rather weak: "His involvement in the Middle East has been applauded by some[10] and criticized by others[11]." It'd be more informative to describe the praise and criticism rather than simply note its existence. But is calling someone a "butt boy" really a criticism, or is it just name calling?   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, surely the article by Raimondo includes name-calling, but it cannot be said to be exclusively composed of name-calling. Although I have not suggested citing this Raimondo blog post in the article, it may be useful to read the source above in its context, which was as a continuation of Raimondo's ongoing substantive criticism of what he understood to be Palmer's positions on the Iraq War, withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, etc. As for Antiwar.com not being a reliable source, we aren't using it to back-up controversial assertions about Palmer. We are simply citing an Antiwar article written by a notable critic of Palmer. It may be helpful too to note that Palmer found Raimondo's critique notable enough to respond to it here. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Palmer simply responded that Raimondo hadn't reported his views accurately. That's very different than responding to the substance of Raimondo's criticism. And I'm still not convinced that there is any substance to Raimondo's criticism besides falsely claiming that Palmer supported the Iraq war.Binarybits (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So only criticisms that you believe are factually correct should be permitted in the article? Surely the fact that you personally disagree with a criticism can't be relevant to the questions of whether there was such a criticism and whether it is notable enough for a cursory mention. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Raimondo skipped the "consider the merits and demerits" part and skipped straight to the judging. Precisely which faults does the article point out? The closest he comes to a specific criticism is that his taxi ride from the Baghdad airport cost taxpayers money. That seems a pretty far cry from saying Raimondo "criticized his involvement in the Middle East." Binarybits (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

All we are saying is that Palmer's role was both praised and criticized. This is a neutral, factual assertion. I have provided two additional sources: (1) a previous criticism of Palmer that I am arguing was continued in the disputed source, and (2) a response by Palmer that demonstrates the notability of the Raimondo criticism. Are you really claiming that Raimondo has not criticized Palmer's positions on US involvement in Iraq? It seems easily verifiable that he has. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On top of all the other problems with including Raimondo's criticisms in the article, this seems like a clear case of original research. The Palmer-Raimondo dispute has not, AFAIK, been covered by any reliable sources. There are probably hundreds of blog posts over the years that have praised or criticized Palmer. What makes this one special? Binarybits (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP is pretty clear about using blogs and self-published sources. Let's find a source besides "Antiwar.com" for the criticism.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, I can't agree that antiwar.com as a whole is unsuitable for use as a source on Wikipedia. Are you really making this claim? Here is another non-blog article from that source by Justin Raimondo which substantively criticizes Palmer on Iraqi policy, btw. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a self-published site or not, now that I look at it. But in general, BLPs require stricter sourcing than other articles. Two previous threads at WP:RSN have found it to be an unreliable site: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#antiwar.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Antiwar.com and Globalsecurity.org. We can start a new thread to see if the view has changed.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lewrockwell.com definitely appears to be a self-published source. Is there any evidence to the contrary?   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com is published by a 501(c)(4) organization which involves more people than Lew Rockwell. LRC has thus far been treated as notable enough to have an article of its own. Would we say that editorials written by editors-in-chief at other notable media outlets were "self-published" in the sense that WP:SELFPUB is concerned about? There is an LRC blog, but the Rockwell quote isn't drawn from it. It is drawn from an article, which was published as part of a daily issue. My understanding of the process for publication is that it involves selection by Rockwell (or his occasional replacements at LRC's helm, like Thomas DiLorenzo), substantive copyediting (presumably by the copyeditors listed here), layout, proofing, and publication. Furthermore, Lew Rockwell is certainly recognized by many as an expert on libertarian theory, politics, and policy. This seems to be what he is notable for, after all. Given the fact that LewRockwell.com is not a one-man band with sporadically published editorials by Lew Rockwell, but rather a notable libertarian news and commentary site with a regular publication schedule, hundreds of contributors, and editorial review process, it isn't obvious to me that this is what that section of WP:V is written to avoid. The quoted text from the Rockwell article was selected to simply demonstrate that Palmer's positions on Iraqi policy have been notably criticized by other libertarians, not to suggest that Rockwell's criticism was sound or unsound. My use of the source is intended to support the assertion that such critiques exist. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We have articles on all sorts of unreliable sources, including blogs. In the past, comments by editors-in-chief have been considered self-published. Copyediting implies just checking for spelling and grammar. I certainly sympathize with the problem of articles about people who are prominent in the blogosphere. We can cite what they say on their own blog, but we can't mention what other bloggers say about them. It's asymmetrical, but it's the way Wikipedia has been put together. If there's still a question over whether Rockwell's comments on LRC are adequate for adding critical material to a BLP we can check in with the reliable sources noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, I can't agree that "copyediting implies just checking for spelling and grammar." This could be said of "proofreading," perhaps, however there are degrees of copyediting that range from more invasive, substantive revisions to light copyediting that merely works for formal consistency (spelling, numeral usage, citations, etc.). I don't agree that LRC is merely a self-published source by someone "prominent in the blogosphere" any more than this would be true of the Huffington Post. I am not very familiar with RSN, so if you would care to start the thread there I would be happy to offer points for consideration by the larger community in that context rather than posing them here. My basic position is that LRC is essentially a news and commentary website that has a publishing procedure that is robust enough to avoid the major concerns of WP:V. Of course, using op-ed material to assert controversial facts would almost always be inappropriate, so I wouldn't argue for using LRC pieces for such a purpose. I am arguing simply that when a notable person has a piece published at LRC the article can be reliably attributed to that person. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the history I can find, an FAC reviewer complained about LRC being used as a source.Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Paul/archive3. LRC was the topic here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20# lewrockwell.com, though it appears everyone implicitly agreed it was unreliable and focused instead on minimizing its use. I can't find any other broad discussions, so if there's still a question I suggest we take it to WP:RSN.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The FAC reviewer's complaint was met with one response from someone who disagreed, so that doesn't seem to be much evidence of a consensus that LRC is or is not a reliable source. I agree with Carol Moore's sentiments that you pointed to here, but I don't seem to be able to find the subsequent editing history that you allude to. Again, if you would care to start an RSN thread I would be happy to participate in discussion there. Best, DickClarkMises (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just come across this sentence: 'Raimondo also labels him a "butt-boy of the neocons," describes him as (quoting Pope Benedict XVI) "a satanic force still at work in the world unleashing 'evil energy,'" and complains that Palmer's taxi ride from the Baghdad airport required taxpayer-funded security protection.' How on earth does this series of rants belong in an encyclopedia?Sajita (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Those comments don't, but unfortunately another editor inserted them in contravention of WP:POINT. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is an example of WP:POINT. If Raimondo's piece is worth covering, then it's worth giving the reader an accurate impression of what it says. Systematically editing out all the parts that make him sound crazy gives the reader an inaccurate understanding of the piece. NPOV requires that we represent the piece accurately, not cherry-pick the parts that we like the most. Binarybits (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't select a quote based on "liking" it. I didn't know anything about this antiwar.com article until I saw you and the other editor going back and forth over it. I believe that the quote I selected, from the first sentence of the paragraph about Palmer, is a reasonably good representation of Raimondo's substantive criticisms of Palmer. Readers who want to know more about the dispute can easily click on the links in the footnotes to the back and forth between Raimondo and Palmer. Alternatively, they can go to the Justin Raimondo article and read more about him there. WP:POINT is relevant because you seem to be inserting content into the article to prove a point about a source rather than to improve the article with your changes. DickClarkMises (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've started a thread at RSN to discuss LRC and, secondarily, Antiwar.com. See WP:RSN#LewRockwell.com. I'm sure I left out some important details so please add your own comments and perspectives. If I may make a suggestion, some noticeboard threads end up being continuations of existing arguments with the same participants. The noticeboards are most effecitve when involved parties give their views, and then sit back and let uninvolved editors comment.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Will: Thank you for starting the RSN thread. I'll offer my thoughts there and see what other folks think. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to Atlas

An anonymous user keeps adding two paragraphs that are sourced only by blog posts, contain speculation about Palmer's employment situation that's almost certainly not verifiable, and features original research about the funding of Palmer's new employer, without any obvious tie to Palmer or his work. I think this is pretty clearly out of line, but would be interested in other peoples' opinions. Binarybits (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To expand on this a little bit, the user in question writes that "mentioning Prop. 8 relevant as Palmer is gay and Atlas employment indicates conservative shift." Now, I don't really agree with either of these claims, but that's beside the point. The point is that this is blatant original research. If we think Palmer has undergone a "conservative shift" (whatever that means) then we need to find a reliable source discussing that shift, not cobble together our own dossier to make that point. Binarybits (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tom G. Palmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050928173304/http://www.cato.org/special/berlinwall/palmer1990.html to http://www.cato.org/special/berlinwall/palmer1990.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002021539/http://www.tomgpalmer.com/papers/palmer-cohen-cr-v12n3.pdf to http://www.tomgpalmer.com/papers/palmer-cohen-cr-v12n3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)