Talk:Justin Raimondo

Sexuality

I have no idea what Raimondo's sexuality is, but if you're going to list him in an LGBT category you need to make clear in the article (through provable evidence, of course) that he is gay/bisexual/whatever. Treybien 14:57 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We have him in category:anarchists but is Raimondo actually an anarchist? I mean, in the sense that Rothbard or David Friedman are? - Nat Krause 11:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It depends on how broad your definition is... he calls himself one, at the very least.

Well, that's just the thing: I don't think he does call himself one. - Nat Krause 03:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, he definately does... I've heard him.

Raimondo is not an anarchist. If you look at old Radical Caucus publications it is clear that he considers the entire anarchist-minarchist debate to be irrelevant and annoyingly abstract.

Considering the anarchist-minarchist debate to be irrelevant doesn't neccesarily preclude one from being an anarchist... in fact it probably helps.

Due to the discussion on his forum it seems like he is a Minarchist more than a Anarcho-capitalist, allthough his mentor was is Anarcho-capitalist. Filing him in that category. A human 06:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

questions about policies on sexuality & uncommon knowledge:

I guess I agree with Treybien. I read the article, especially the bit about being anti-gay-rights, assuming that he was straight. Then at the end I saw that he had a husband, not a wife. I know this is a sensitive issue and I apologize if my ignorance comes off as rudeness: I just was wondering what the policies that surround these issues are? Just the abbreviations would do nicely if you want to be succinct. I don't think it is a matter of "outing" a person, and he has taken a public stance on LBGT issues- so I don't see the problem with mentioning that he is gay earlier in the article.

My beef is that you shouldn't get to the end of the article and then be surprised by a major detail that was missing. Is there a policy that counters this? I know in software engineering, we call that the Principle of least astonishment. If there is a WP on the topic, what is it called? In my view, that means the editor moved that information to the end in hopes that the average reader wouldn't get to it. A lot of people just read the summary of an article, make a judgement, and move on. I would say that this is probably the dominant use-case; it happens far more often than a person sitting down and reading the whole article. Finally: if anyone knows what the policy surrounding correcting common misperceptions is- I would love to hear it's name. (For instance is it our responsibility to lead with less common knowledge in a given article?) I apologize for spamming the talk section with my questions. :( I'll remove this spammy comment after I figure this stuff out, I guess. (I'll go hit up the policy pages now, so I can do that sooner rather than later mayhaps.)

Know Einstein (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Real name Dennis?

Is his first name really "Dennis", and is "Justin" just a nickname? If so, does anyone know the reason why he chose "Justin"?

His legal name is Justin Raimondo. It was Dennis at one point, but he had it changed sometime in his early 20's

He changed it earlier. It is unclear why but I will research it further.

Jeremy Sapienza and hyperlinks

From article: "He [Raimondo] was also one of the first internet pundits to make maximum use of the linkability of the web ... He has claimed this tendency as a strength in several columns, even hiring Jeremy Sapienza as senior editor in 2004."

The implicit conection between "Jeremy Sapienza as senior editor" and "extensive use of hyperlinks" is very unclear to me, even after taking a look at Jeremy Sapienza. Can anybody clarify this? -- 19 december 2005

Explictly rejects

• Raimondo often condemns the country and government of Israel though he explicitly rejects anti-Semitism.

Scanning through a Google search I see where Raimondo complains that the term "anti-Semism" is used too broadly,[1] but I don't see where he "explicitly rejects" it. What's our source? -Will Beback 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The following came from this source. Dick Clark 21:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have respect and great affection for the Jewish people. My mentor and teacher, the late Murray N. Rothbard, was Jewish – along with virtually every major libertarian theoretician in modern times. For this reason, the Foxman letter makes me so angry that, for once, I can't even express the depth of my resentment and outrage. What galls me is that this liar has the nerve to sign off with "Sincerely"! I am ceaselessly attacked by real anti-Semites for not facing up to "the Jewish question" – and now I am being smeared by the ADL (and the extremist Jewish Defense League) for supposedly providing "fodder for anti-Semites." That's a pretty good indication I'm on the right track, as far as I'm concerned.

According to the antisemitism article, the term is defined as hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. Given Raimondo's claim that he has "respect and great affection for the Jewish people," it seems that the above source is a clear disavowal of antisemitism by Raimondo. Dick Clark 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the source, maybe it'd be better to write, "he rejects the charge of being anti-Semitic, saying that he has 'respect and great affection for the Jewish people.'" "Rejecting anti-semitism" alone doesn't make it clear what about the term he is rejecting. -Will Beback 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Will, I concur with your take on this. When I inserted that text, I was reverting to the previous wording. I think your suggestion makes sense given the content of the above source. Dick Clark 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. -Will Beback 22:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I added a large number of quotes to this section. It gives a good cross-section of the recurring themes of his articles the past several years and also shows off his writing style. DarthJesus 02:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes belong in our sister project, Wikiquote. A rule of thumb is no more than five quotes in an article here. I'll add the link to the Wikiquotes page to this article so you'll know where to put them. Cheers, -Will Beback

Ive re-added some of the quotes to the article since it seems they have all been deleted from Wikiquote. My, I wonder how that happened? DarthJesus 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, they don't belong here. Please re-create that article rather than posting them back here. -Will Beback 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why dont they belong? "A rule of thumb is no more than five quotes in an article here." Well there are five quotes here so why wouldn't they belong? What rule says you can't have quotes in a regular wikipedia article? DarthJesus 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Views on 9/11

I added the following text which was later deleted: With respect to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Raimondo believes the Israeli government had foreknowledge of the plot and has written extensively on the issue; he even stated that Israel was behind the attacks. His views have been harshly criticized by such individuals as Bill Herbert, Patrick Devenny, Stephen Schwartz, Damian Penny, Stefan Sharkansky, Chris Morris, Abraham H. Foxman, Glenn Reynolds, Richard Poe, Ben Johnson, and others. He has been accused of anti-Semitism and 9/11 conspiracism. Raimondo replies that his anti-Zionism and opposition to Israeli government policies does not entail anti-Semitism and that he supports Jews. Raimondo's critics counter that he conceals his anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism.

I believe that there is no good reason to think that his belief in Israeli foreknowledge and complicity in 9/11 is irrelevant for this article. I believe that the text I added is in accordance with NPOV because it simply describes the POV of Raimondo and others. I also added a FrontPage Magazine external link to an article critical of Raimondo because I believe both sides of the story should be represented. I am neither a propagandist nor a troll (71.131.25.75) but a Wikipedian wishing to make positive contributions to this encyclopedia. -- Huysman^talk 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your bias comes through in this phrase: "he even stated that Israel was behind the attacks." Where? When? How?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.25.75 (talk • contribs) .

My bad. I used to read a lot of Raimondo's work and must have confused him with Michael Rivero or someone like that. -- Huysman^talk 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also: attributing anti-Semitism to Raimondo is obviously biased, and is also demonstrably untrue. As for the Frontpage piece, it is so obviously over-the-top that it doesn't represent an example of credible criticism: caling Raimondo a "neo-fascist" is just bonkers. There is a lot more criticism out there, however, that might prove credible, if only you would do the necessary work and go find it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.25.75 (talk • contribs) .

I did not attribute anti-Semitism to Raimondo; I said that others consider him anti-Semitic, including the national director of the ADL. This is just stating the facts and does not involve any analysis or opinion on my part. -- Huysman^talk 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let the edit war begin

I dont know about the rest of you but I for one and up for a good revert battle. Let the edit war begin!! DarthJesus 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

     Come on 71.131.43.223 at least sign in so we know who you are. DarthJesus 21:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is how "DarthJesus" describes his wiki-activities: "Just a newcomer to Wiki, who only has interest in a few areas. I am an ex-Army member with 4 years of service, with 1 year spent in Iraq." Yeah, his "interest" seems to extend only to this one Wikipedia entry, and his POV is pretty obvious. We don't need a "revert battle"—and you, Darth, need to temper your obsessions and maybe get some help.

Uh-oh! Looks like I struck a nerve. Man I cant tell you how much it pains me to know you disapprove of my work Mr. 71.131.43.223. I mean I dont think I can go on knowing what you think of me. Oh, by the way, the quotes I chose are "very" notable. They give a good cross-section of his mindset and how Mr. Raimondo writes. DarthJesus 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are the quotes I selected POV? Raimondo said them, he meant them, if you asked him today he would say the same thing. He actually wrote an entire book about his believed Isreali connection to 9/11 and he has long stated that Palestinian attacks against Isreal soldiers and settlers are justified, he even explains why in the recent quote. So, I ask again, why are these quotes POV? DarthJesus 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You insert your opinion by saying Raimondo "justifies" murder, for one. Secondly, a notable quote gives some indication of the author's views on a variety of issues—not the narrow focus you've chosen. And, last but hardly least, "man," since you have already declared a "revert war," it doesn't seem likely that you're amenable to mediation, or even reason.

I insert my opinion? What else would you call saying: "and the settlers are clearly involved in an act of aggression, i.e., dispossessing Palestinians of their land." but justification for attacks upon Isreali settlers? A narrow view? These selections give his views on 9/11, the Isreali-Palestinian conflict, and the nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would include more but the administrator Willbeback above had advised me earlier there should be no more than five. But dont worry I restarted the Wikiquote article where I have a huge number of quotes on a wide range of Raimondo's ramblings. Feel free to add to them if you want. And one last thing Mr. 71.131.43.223 (if that is your real name) you are the one hurling personal insults by saying I'm obsessed and need help, not me. DarthJesus 18:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mr. 71.131.43.223 Ill meet you half-way. I removed the murder comment and deleted some of my quotes and added some of yours. Why don't we just call a truce here, ok? I apologize if I've acted rudely towards you. DarthJesus 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

this article needs a photo

Anyone know of a wiki-usable photo of Justin?--Mcasey666 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Maybe from his website, the swarthy person in the polo shirt with the cigarette from his mouth.--User:Renamed user 322127737911:03, 10 May 2007

9/11

Raimondo has written repeatedly that Mossad had advance knowledge of 9/11. The Carl Cameron report has nothing to do with Justin Raimondo so it shouldn't be in the article. If people want to read the citation and find out why Raimondo believes what he believes then they are free to do so. We don't have to go through and list the justifications for every single belief that Raimondo has, we just have to link to the article where he says it. DarthJesus 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, it is factually inaccurate to say that Raimondo thought that "Israel" had foreknowledge. Raimondo is anti-collectivist, so wouldn't attribute knowledge held by the government to the whole nation. It would be more correct to say that he believes that some members of the Israeli government had foreknowledge. Dick Clark 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Carl Cameron report has absolutely nothing to do with Justin Raimondo. Nothing. He did not help write it, he did not do research for it, he did not speak with Carl Cameron before it aired, and his name is never mentioned in the report a single time. It does not belong in this article. The article linked there already has a link to the Cameron report anyway, so we don't need it here.

And he does not say that the Isreali's MAY have had knowledge of the attacks, he says they absolutely did: "Let’s see: a nest of Israeli "ex"-special forces, electronic interception and explosives experts are holed up blocks away from Mohammed Atta and his fellow hijackers. Is it even credible that the former didn’t know about the existence of the latter? Certainly not. And, just as certainly, the Israelis – let’s just call them what they are: spies—had the means at their disposal to not only detect the presence of Al Qaeda operatives, but to find out what they were up to. And that, my friends, is the very least we can surmise…."

How can you read that and say Raimondo thinks that Isreal MAY have had knowledge of 9/11? DarthJesus 05:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Raimondo is watching you wiki-vandals

It appears that Raimondo himself is keeping track of this article. And he even mentions me by name! [2] DarthJesus 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

is there a way to ban vandals and nuts like DarthJesus? He seems to live to arouse arguments on this article. I resent his disrespect of my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.210.157 (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's long gone with the wind. But repeated vandals can be banned by user name and by IP block if necessary. Carol Moore 19:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

have you noticed that the "conspiracy theorists" category added by the vandal greg72 is still there? i haven't read justin raimondo's writings, but i suspect that should be removed? Tjenare 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable relevance

I question the relevance of this article as a biography. Most of the references are to the subject's own website, and the subject does not seem, from an objective standpoint, to have contributed much to a canon of writing in any proportion to the site. Given some of the talk on the discussion page, it might also be a bit of a vanity page, if the subject himself is posting content. If someone wants to argue in favor of this article's relevance, perhaps they would cite that website's relevance, such as through independently confirmed traffic figures, or trackbacks to other sites, or google hits that are not hitting the site itself, etc. Otherwise, this might be a candidate for deletion.NYDCSP 07:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Though there are autobiography issues with this article, I don't think there's any legitimate question about the subject's notability as a blogger and contemporary advocate of conservativism in the U.S. -Will Beback · † · 12:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, Will, and I see you're an administrator. But the content in the article does not convince me. If he's notable, why isn't that objectively explained here? To visit this article, not having heard of this person, you scratch your head by the end of it wondering if he's just notable to people who inhabit a small corner of the internet. He's a blogger? I had no idea from reading this article. There's plenty about what he personally thinks, or what he did here or there (the background section reads like someone's bio on an AOL hometown page or in a college yearbook - how is any of that relevant to the outside world? so what if he joined this party or that club, and at one point failed to organize a "caucus" etc?) I'm just saying, unless you are a close follower of this allegedly notable person, his notabiity is completely lost on the average reader, and for that reason I find this article of very questionable relevance for its length until some real meat is in here, well-sourced (not from the subject's own website) and verifiable.NYDCSP 16:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC) OK I really tried to see something in this article that I might have missed. But the only three references to his "notability" I could find, beyond the fact that he has a website (it isnt a blog, btw, it is a static website with minimal interactivity, much like a publication, and I see nothing in this article that says the subject blogs anywhere - he may be a blogger, it's just not in this article anywhere!) are these: (1) he allegedly got "considerable attention" for being a gay Buchanan supporter, but the reference note points to a very obscure source that says even Buchanan's own state leader never heard of him; (2) he ran against Nancy Pelosi in 1996 and got 13% of the vote; I bet others did too and they remain in obscurity, whether they have their own website or not; (3) well-known writer Christopher Hitchens has allegedly likened his views to Charles Lindbergh, but this statement is not sourced, only Raimondo's opinion of Lindbergh is sourced in the same sentence, again off his own website. So I ask all of the editors who have worked on this article, and the administrator who says there is no legitimate question on the subject's notability—can you please put some verifiable, objective, well-sourced information into this article that shows that? It's a fair question.NYDCSP 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The standards for notability for people to have biographies on Wikipedia are in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Basically, notability is not tied to what one has done but rather how much attention one has received. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". A quick check of Google reveal that Raimondo has been mentioned in numerous blogs (which are not great sources but indicate his importance in the blogosphere), as well as having been the subject of non-blog articles, [3][4][5][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23988]. So you can nominate the article for deletion if you want, but I think there's almost no chance that it'd be deleted. However I'm sure it can be improved and I encourage you to do so. -Will Beback · † · 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair and balanced points in part. But are Front Page Magazine and WorldNetDaily so highly relevant here to justify Wikipedia readers being treated to this subject's club affiliations and personal religious struggles? I don't have much of an interest in trying to dig through this article and improve it because, frankly, so much of the content is so poorly sourced under Wikipedia's own standards that it would probably mean I would be tempting a firestorm of attack from those who believe this subject is relevant (and if there are 5 of them including the subject, that would constitute a firestorm given some of the talk pages on this site) but haven't bothered to prove it here from an objective standpoint. Not tempting at all. But criticism of this kind also has a role to play.NYDCSP 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Raimondo is much more notable than the average blogger, mostly for the sum of various things he's done in his life, most of which would perhaps not be seen as sufficiently notable by themselves. He is the author of multiple published books (probably his single best claim to notability); he was a Republican congressional candidate; he was at various times an associate of Murray Rothbard's; he was a gay Pat Buchanan supporter; he is currently the editorial director and impresario of a website which publishes not only his own work, but that of various other authors who have their own Wikipedia articles. I don't think the coverage of his life here is excessive. You complain, for instance, about coverage of his "personal religious struggles", but I find one sentence (containing exactly 10 words) about his religion, which doesn't seem problematic to me.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CRITICISM: RAIMONDO Trolls Deleting Critiques and Criticism

It appears either Raimondo or his Wiki trolls continue to vandalise Wiki, by way of deletion of any, even minor third-party critiques or cricticsms, that are entered.

Are the Wiki Moderators able to lock critiques from being wiped by Raimondo or his trolls? As it stands, the entry is little more than a tabloid “self-love” entry manufactured by Raimondo or his trolls.

This reduces Wiki to an organ of mere political spin.

It harms Wiki’s credibility.

Most Wiki entries have a “criticism” entry to give readers a view from a variety of angles.

Raimondo is enforcing a policy of censhorship where only “pleasantries,” or bland self-promotion are permitted by such pathological deletions.

If Raimondo or his trolls continue on this path of cenorship and obssessive need for preferential treatment, the entire entry should be deleted rather than remain as little more than tabloid “self-love” hack piece.

It becomes more than a question of "Questionable relevance" but of monumental propognada on behalf of Raimondo and his obviously insatiable, ideological fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sisyphus Aeternal (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Stop vandalizing this page. Please. And get a life....

If you'd simply report the verifiable criticism in a neutral manner then they wouldn't be deleted immediately. Let's go through some of them:

• On Homosexuality, Raimondo’s critics claim he sends mixed politicised gender messages, especially to the active gay community.

What critics? Where's the citation?

• In the broader commentarial community, according to political pundits and commentators, Raimondo's frenetic apologia often borders on the hysterical which tends to diminish his credibility as a voice of sound reason, factual reporting and rational commentary.

Again, which pundits and commentators? Do they actually use the terms "frenetic apologia" or "hysterical"?

• He has been accused of thinly veiled anti-Semitism and xenophobia and causing unneeded emotional stress to the ethnic American Jewish community with racist bait tactics.

Accused by whom? Do they use the term "racist bait tactics"?

• The [ADL] further determined that Raimondo's sensationalism represented a highly “twisted view.”

I checked the source and they do say "twisted view", but not "sensationalism" or "highly".

If you stick with summarizing the actual material that's reasonable. But if your aim is to attack the subject with unsourced, or inaccurate material then it will be deleted promptly. See WP:BLP, among other policies. -Will Beback · † · 05:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Is this the way you lot speak and behave to all new and potentially long-term, contributors and “editors?” I received another private notification which immediately made threats about banning my IP.

Why all this intimidation over this gnat-sized “Raimondo” entry? What are you trying to cover-up?

I admit, I'm no professional writer, but you could have done a minor tidy and, fair enough maybe not to all, but certainly left some with the citations "in tact?" What gives here?

And where is your “helpful” commentary to the troll just above? Who, like some sociopath gave off a maniacal “hahahahaha” freak show vocalization? Along with personalized, paranoid innuendo?

Or vents, “Stop vandalizing this page. Please. And get a life....” just for inserting additional material widely available all over the Net itself?

So if the link you mention above wasn't even checked, why was it immediately deleted?

That sounds like an extremely irrational way to think and act?

I don’t particularly care for the “Raimondo” entry per se. As far as I can gather, Raimondo is just a petty gnat in the wider American political scene trying to engorge himself with the use of tabloid conspiracism, yellow journalism and Jew baiting – as abjectly pathetic as an individual can get. After reading more of his loony ramblings, he’s clearly part of the American fringe, tinfoil hat freak show. Such is my POV.

But the point is, “Raimondo” simply turned out to be the initial “lab-rat” introduction for myself as to how Wiki operates and how now, quite obviously, it can be manipulated into a voice for boring and very desperate political conspiracy crackpot propagandists like has-been Raimondo. Again, that is my thus far, POV formulation.

However, if he wants to blow himself on Wiki; he’s free to do so. I don’t have a problem with honest bigots. What I object to is Wiki zealots censoring and not permitting any critique when objectivity is apparently one of Wake’s supposed goals right?

Given that you raise some fair issues, and I will endeavor to tidy, but some of the comments were linked some weren’t, yet one deliberately neglected to mention the entries deleted that were sourced and cited! Why is that? This action reeks of double-standards.

And if one had time to check links, you had time to do a very quick written revision and leave the “tidied” piece inserted. So why wasn’t that done? One could have led by a genuine example of how to insert a contribution? You apparently chose otherwise. Again, the stench of deliberate bias and prejudice is in the air.

Why for example, was the paragraph from the FrontPage news article removed? This had already been "tidied" up by another editor along with the source cited?

This entire exercise has proved rather fishy and “smelly” – why has the “Raimondo” entry been given such a preferential free pass, free of any critique? And when critique is offered, it is jumped upon and immediately removed? Rather than revised if needed and left in tact? Even if by long-standing allegedly, “competent” Wikipedians?

In one’s opinion, thus far, this exercise has reflected poorly on Wiki’s integrity and the objectivity of some of it's, apparently senior, members.

If other sections required tidying why was no "help" or assistance given immediately to a newbie contributor on how to accomplish that task? Rather, insults and threats issued?

Why were a number of third party external links deleted? To both the ADL / USA Today report and also FrontPage links for example?

Why aren’t links removed in the “Raimondo” entry that link to his crackpot tinfoil hat conspiracy ravings? Or the links that libel and slime US officials in the same breath as “war criminals” - these are just his crackpot personal opinions – in fairness then, why aren’t other opinions, no matter how bizarre, about Raimondo just as valid? How can you permit such gross and obvious inconsistencies?

Why does the “Raimondo” entry receive preferential treatment on criticism?

As a newbie, why was I immediately threatened with IP ban, for simply offering alternative information on the entry?

Why are there insulting troll comments made in the deletion notes? Rather than helpful critique? Who is making these slurs and why has their IP not been revoked or threatened with banishment?

Examples: all originating from the same IP: 75.35.216.148 “(The same nuts are pushing the same POV)” “(Once again staving off the kooks)” “(Weird vandalism—Raimondo a "far right Catholic"? -- reversed. This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.)” “(These vandals are relentless: is there a way to ban them from making "contributions" to Wikipedia?)” “(This vandalism must stop: I am writing to Raimondo and informing him of the situation re: his Wikipedia entry)” and earlier a similair IP, 71.131.25.75 making the same kind of slurs at any criticism placed in the entry.

I suspect now? anyone remotely familiar with Raimondo’s ravings, tactics and numerous secretive Internet “personas,” one mimicing a female apparently and reading the obsessive paranoia, the psychological insecurity and the censorship sentiment from the above troll, would not be surprsed if it truned out to be Raimondo himself. Of course, this is just my personal POV here.

The main point is, that the above Raimondo defensive, and insultive remarks, have been permitted and on-going from this IP for a very considerable length of time unabated. Why?

Thus far, you have given me little confidence in the integrity and objectively of the censorship crowd here? Seeking to silence critique or any alternative view.

I will work on improving the material for inclusion in the entry as you advise.

In the mean time, please provide me with the name of some “Overseeing” individual or body on Wiki. I wish to make a formal complaint about the intimidation I have received to date and to further seek assistance of a genuine “help” variety, to bring this entry some objectivity rather than Wiki being manipulated as little more than an unadulterated propaganda piece with this “love-me-do” moribund and puerile “Raimondo” entry.

I’m all for Wiki “assistance” and whilst we all have a private POV, I do believe in a public multifaceted “NPOV,” but I want that assistance to be objective, not from politicized fan boys of a particular entry or the pathologocally obsessive "entry" itself, as I think is fairly obvious. I’m confident objective “help” will assist with my future entries and edits.

Thanks.

Working towards a balanced article

Okay, I reverted the blatant violations of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:V that were introduced by the previous edit, including a lot of accusations that were improperly sourced. I did not however revert the entire edit, because at least two of the inserted links are clearly notable enough for inclusion. I removed the redundant Discover The Networks rehash of the FrontPageMag article by Schwartz for which there is already an external link. I also removed this blog entry[6] which doesn't seem to pass WP:RS muster. DickClarkMises 14:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is now protected due to further BLP problems. Improperly sourced, or non-neutral, material will be removed immediately. However properly sourced, neutral material may be added. If the anon would like to discuss it with the other editors in orderto find a compromise that everybody can all agree too then we can unprotect the page. Please work towards consensus. -Will Beback · † · 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"References" and "External links"

Hi. By definition in MoS, the two above sections are traditionally reserved for secondary (not primary or Justin's own) sources in "References", and hyperlinks leading to subject-relevant websites on the internet in "External links".

Due to the fact that both contained mere text pointing towards material written by Justin, plus text pointing towards not a single external link, except for the inward link to its own article, I have removed it all, and suggest that a fresh start be made in adding bona fide references by reliable third parties (also tagged as such), and relevant "clickable" external links pertaining rigidly to the subject. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I've done some further work to this so as not to leave it in a bad state; however, the secondary sources don't seem strong yet - please improve (stub added for such), and the external link is repeated four times in linking to facets of Justin's writings earlier in the article, which is a bit concerning (spammish?). But I'll leave others to get on with it for now. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Accused of Vandalism

I have read Raimondo's blog on FrontPage Magazine, and he has called himself under the username "Comrade Sandalio". I also read that he is part Jewish. Why doesn't this info belong in the article? --User:Renamed user 3221277379 posted 11:07PM 10 May 2007

Information about living people must meet the highest standards of sourcing. See WP:BLP. We need reliable sources that make the assertions you'd like to add to the article. -Will Beback · † · 05:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Are Stephen Schwartz (journalist) and FrontPage Magazine reliable sources? What about David Frum and National Review? If I find an article in Pravda written by Raimondo, does that mean I can insert that he is a writer for Pravda?

Is Raimondo Jewish? I want to get this straight once and for all. There were rumors circulating around the internet, especially on neo-Nazi sites that have views on the Iraq war similar to his, that he is Jewish. It's important to mention this fact about someone who writes so much about the Jewish state. Can anyone provide reliable information on his Jewish ancestry, or is it just a smear tactic? Thanks for the help. Please don't delete this comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Renamed user 3221277379 (talk • contribs).

FrontPage Magazine is somewhat fringe, but if the assertion weren't contentious it'd be OK. National Review is OK. If you see an article in PRAVDA you'd need to be sure that it was written for them and not just syndicated (though I think I've seen elsewhere that he's a PRAVDA writer). I don't know anything about his ethnic heritage. -Will Beback .·.·.· 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Renamed user 3221277379

Re:Pravda, Raimondo has written that "Pravda has been posting my articles (no, I'm not going to give them a link), without my permission and in express violation of the copyright notice prominently displayed on Antiwar.com: but, then again, you wouldn't expect Commies (or national socialists, at any rate) to have any respect for property rights." Skarioffszky 15:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

User Jennycite made a vandalizing edit to the page. They accused Mr. Raimondo of among other things being a "neo-nazi", I've reverted to the immediately previous version.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Article link

I put a this reference here, and it has been removed twice, by an anonyous editor, but I'm not sure what is wrong with it.

• Anthony Gancarski "Why I Left the Anti-War Right" FrontPageMagazine.com Monday, February 09, 2004

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Raimondo is described in the lede as a libertarian. What is the support for this claim, and whatever it is, shouldn't it be cited?0nullbinary0 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to cite Raimondo's libertarian credentials? If not I'm going to alter the lede.0nullbinary0 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Exchangemine revisions

Exchangemine posted a critique of Raimondo by journalist Stephen Suleiman Schwartz. While criticism is certainly a useful part to Wikipedia, it is unclear why of all people Schwartz's comments are posted. What about David Horowitz or William Kristol? Neither of these men have anything good to say about Raimondo yet they are an order-of-magnitude more notable than Schwartz is. Either post a reason for why Schwartz's comments are the best or simply create a Criticism section that lists the notable critics with a brief overview.Tejano (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section Vandalised

This section appears to be attacked by Raimondo groupies and lacks a criticism section, as typically characteristic of other Wiki articles of a similar nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archilles last stand (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While it is important to Be Bold, please also remember to Assume Good Faith. The Wikipedia policy regarding Biographies of Living Persons requires that living subjects be treated with care. Controversial assertions must be attributed to Reliable Sources, and should not be made in the encyclopedic voice, which must maintain a Neutral Point of View. With that said, I re-examined the passage in question and it is attributed to Schwartz/FPM, so I was too hasty in reverting. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Paleolibertarian

Recently, an editor applied the new category:paleolibertarians to a number of articles, including those which had no mention of the term. I removed the category from those articles, including this one, and left an explanatory note. Someone, perhaps the same editor, has re-applied the category to this page with a URL in the edit summary: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12475. That leads to a blog posting by the subject entitled "Confessions of an Obama Cultist", in which the subject writes, "... I'm a conservative-paleo-libertarian with a man-crush on Obama." It’s not for me to say whether someone can support Obama and still be a conservative paleo-libertarian. Now that we have a source for the subject characterizing himself that way, if there any other objection to the category? (If there is an "Obama-maniacs" category I guess he goes in that too.)·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have a problem with paleoconservative and couldn't find any WP:RS source for that, only Justin criticizing paleoconservatism here.

Therefore I think it best he should be described in the lead only in his own original way in the article- describes himself as a "conservative-paleo-libertarian". I think category wise conservative and paleolibertarian ok, but not paleoconservative. I'll fix it if you don't want to. Carol Moore 16:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Go ahead. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Israeli art student scam"

I have edited the text regarding the "Israeli art student scam," simplifying it to refer to what Raimondo actually wrote. It is unclear to me what the difference is between the "Israeli art student scam" and what Raimondo's columns on the subject actually describe, which is an Israeli intelligence operation. A "scam" implies some sort of relatively harmless financial scheme. The present version imputes a particular point of view to the entry: that the "scam" was indeed a scam, and not an intelligence operations, as Raimondo claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.11.172 (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Youthful offender"

The material inserted by "Jonund" is potentially libelous. Implying that Raimondo was sent to a "youthful offender facility" by the courts, when the article in question says no such thing—indeed, Raimondo specifically denies he committed any crime "yet"—is grounds for legal action. I have therefore edited Jonund's "contribution" to reflect what Raimondo actually wrote, rather than projecting my own—or Jonund's—POV on the material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.101.61 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reinserted the material with an explanation that Raimondo hadn't committed any crime yet.

The concern that the earlier formulation might be grounds for legal action semms not a little overblown. After all, it's Raimondo himself who tells us explicitly that he was "shipped off to a facility for young offenders...Most of the young inhabitants had been sent there by the courts." Furthermore, offender means either 1. someone who violates the law, or 2. a person who transgresses moral or civil law. (Italics added.) Hence, no crime was implied. It doesn't, however, hurt to say that explicitly.

By the way, I'm on the whole sympathetic to Mr. Raimondo and have no wish to put him in a negative light, and I don't think I have done so. I have all due respect for some one who rises from a troubled youth to become a distinguished writer. --Jonund (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If everyone who was a "youthful offender" in a moral sense was institutionalized, the jails would be full. To the general reader, "youthful offender" means someone has committed a crime: that is not the case with Raimondo. So unless you have information as to the nature of his "offense," I would leave things as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.101.61 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The explicit information that he hadn't committed any crime yet excludes such a misunderstanding. And Raimondo himself describes it as a facility for young offenders. --Jonund (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To say that "he hadn't committed any crime yet" is telling the reader that he has indeed committed crimes. What were they, Jonund? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.101.61 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to ask Mr. Raimondo about that. In his Chronicles article, he writes that he hadn't committed any crime yet, but gives no details. --Jonund (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is Mr. Raimondo speaking. The material you have inserted is libelous. If you persist, I will take you to court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Raimondo (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2012‎ (UTC)

If we're citing the Chronicles article as a source, what are its words? —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The person who claims to be Mr. Raimondo had better explain the contradiction between his comment and what Mr. Raimondo writes in Chronicles, June 2012. Here is the relevant passage:

I was a bad kid, always getting in trouble, although my sort of trouble didn't involve violence of the gangbanger variety so popular nowadays. Without going into the details, suffice it to say that my parents and the school authorities one day decided they'd had quite enough of me, although I hadn't committed any crime (yet). I soon found myself shipped off to a facilty for young offenders, a group home in upstate New York. Most of the young inhabitants had been sent there by the courts.

It was run by the Jesuits, young seminarians for the most part, and the facilities were clean and well kept. In fact, it looked like the high school from which I had just been expelled in a wealthy New York suburb, but for one little detail: I wasn't allowed to leave. Yes, there was a wall - a barbed-wire fence. And another thing: Most of my "classmates" were African-Americans. The rest were Puerto Rican.

I also recommed reading Wikipedia:No legal threats. --Jonund (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be sensitive to the subject of articles. I don't think the material is particularly noteworthy; it seems clear what he was saying - his parents packed him off to the school because they saw him on bad path. He hadn't committed any crime, but if he had stayed on that path he might have done. What you inserted into the article, however, strongly implies he later committed crime - without any form of sourcing. Please do not insert such things again, it is highly inappropriate and you may be blocked for it. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The general rule is that article states needs to reflect what is verifiable in the sources. Any synthesis beyond what's in the source is not allowed; that's why I asked what was in the source, to see what our starting point is. That said, we also need to present that material in a manner that maintains neutral point of view and does not present a biased view. Even though there is a "I hadn't committed any crime (yet)" quotation in the text, that can easily be taken out of context, so it is probably best left out. Likewise, if the facility were to be described in the text as "for young offenders", we need to make clear that he was there voluntarily: at his parents' request (and likely, IMO, their expense) rather than at the order and requirement of the court system.

More often than not, when (an account alleging to be) the subject of an article removes referenced content, it's to present a prettier picture than actual and move away from neutral point of view. This is one of the counter cases: in my opinion, the comment about "for young offenders", even with disclaimer, puts a bias before the reader and moves away from the most neutral path. —C.Fred (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I guess we agree about the current wording. --Jonund (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Justin Raimondo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003163533/http://www.biographicon.com/view/jgmdu/Justin_Raimondo to http://www.biographicon.com/view/jgmdu/Justin_Raimondo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justin Raimondo. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biographicon.com/view/jgmdu/Justin_Raimondo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Raimondo on gay marriage

Drmies removed the following content: "He also is against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and instead favors marriage privatization, both mocking the idea that gays should adopt a heterosexual model of sexual and emotional relationships, and noting that as a libertarian he opposes "State incursion into such private matters." He also has written that after years of persecution by the state, LGBT rights activists seek to "use the battering ram of government power" to actively intervene on behalf of homosexuals." In my opinion, there was no good reason why that content should have been removed. Raimondo's articles are a reliable source for the purpose of establishing what Raimondo believes, and it is not true that secondary sources are required "to determine what goes in an article". Editors can reasonably use their judgment to determine what is significant. I believe Raimondo's views about gay marriage and similar issues are certainly worth mentioning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, in regards to your most recent removal of this content here, I would note that per WP:BRD, it is your responsibility to get consensus for the changes you want to make. At present, you have not done this. Please discuss the issue properly here. I would be willing to ask for a third opinion if discussion stalls. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• That would be a great idea. I stand by my opinion that SELFSOURCE doesn't give us a license to insert whatever opinion a BLP subject may hold. SELFSOURCE is fine for various factual claims but if it gives us a warrant for anything, there is no reason to keep anything out. Secondary sources should decide whether something is worth including or not. I don't doubt that he has this or that opinion on gay marriage or Hillary Clinton or whatever, but as long as others (RS, secondary sources) haven't noticed that he has an opinion on something, it's not worth including. And that he's gay doesn't make his opinion on gay matters notable. He's not notable because he's gay, and he certainly doesn't seem to be notable for his opinion on matters of gayness. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources may be helpful, and I will look for them, but I simply do not believe that secondary sources must be provided in order for primary sources such as something written by the article subject to be used. I have been through WP:SELFSOURCE several times, and there doesn't seem to me to be any way it would support that. The material about Raimondo's views on gay marriage is definitely useful to readers, given that Raimondo is openly gay, and I think that they would be surprised at the reasons given for its removal. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I was easily able to find sources showing that Raimondo's views have attracted attention from independent parties. See this, this, this and this for example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I see you don't really understand WP:RS. I guess you aren't familiar with WP:FART either. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:CIVIL. I have tried to discuss this issue with you politely and calmly, Drmies, but your citing essays with rude names does not contribute to rational or civil discussion. I agree that not all of the sources I listed above would necessarily be considered reliable; I thus added only the sources that seemed most appropriate. More could likely be found. I may well ask for a third opinion, as I suggested I would in the past. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• How am I not polite? In fact, I find you rather impolite, continuing to edit war in a BLP with a complete lack of knowledge of what reliable sources are. Tags, FreeKnowledgeCreator: nine of the 28 references are by the subject, most from his own website. The first ref is a dead link to a website whose reliability cannot be ascertained--it might as well be a wiki. The second one is... figure it out, but at best it copies a primary source (same with 7 and 8). I mean, ref 15 is the FAQ from his own website. Ref 21, a Hitchens column, is a clear attempt to make something out of nothing: Hitchens mentions him as a "preening figure", and whoever wrote this fan piece had Hitchens "compare" his views to Lindbergh's. In fact, I can't find a single secondary source from a major, accepted RS in this list of references; the best is an article from the alternative weekly SF Weekly.

  Sorry, ten of them, over a third, are by the subject himself: the last one, 29, is to an article he wrote himself. Also from his own website of course. Now someone tell me again we're dealing with a well-sourced, objective BLP here--but given the intransigence of the interested editor, I think I may take this up at BLPN. [Drmies--forgot to sign]

You should not be accusing me of edit warring, considering that you did not attempt to gain consensus for your removal of Raimondo's views on same-sex marriage. Your accusation that I have "a complete lack of knowledge of what reliable sources are" is both impolite, and, more importantly, incorrect. When I mentioned that not all the sources would be considered reliable, I meant only the sources that I myself mentioned above, dealing with Raimondo's views on same-sex marriage; the reliability of the article's other sources is, obviously, a different issue. By all means, start a discussion about it if you wish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

But you are edit warring. I haven't reverted your last time, though your sources are lousy. ProCon.org is non-profit organization that runs a website; it's not a scholarly publisher or a newspaper. Their About Us page reads like a We Love Us board and inspires little confidence. Similar with Liberty Fund Inc., which is little more than an announcement of a public discussion--for which your American U link is the user-submitted biography (and thus utterly useless). Finally, Western Journalism--well, I linked the About Us page; it is obviously POV and there is no promise whatsoever that it is reliable. This is not to say that I reject what all of these have to say, it's just that these aren't reliable secondary sources and simply do not prove anything. And that is why I say that you don't seem to know what reliable sources are--because none of the things you link are reliable sources. Sorry, but them's the shakes. My comments on all the other sources isn't really directed at you alone, but since you seem to be such a vigorous proponent of this specific kind of content, with this specific kind of sourcing, yeah. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not edit warred more than you have. You should have taken the issue to the talk page immediately as soon as I reverted you the first time. I would have stopped reverting immediately if you had succeeded in gaining consensus for your views on the talk page, something you made no effort to even attempt to do. I did not use the ProCon.org source in the article, as I agree that it is questionable; it does, however, help to show that Raimondo's views have attracted attention, and that there are people, aside from Raimondo himself, who care what he thinks about same-sex marriage. That Raimondo has debated the issue of same-sex marriage with Jonathan Rauch, likewise, helps to show that his views are of some consequence. I have been editing Wikipedia for more than seven years, Drmies, and I got an article through WP:GAN, so frankly who do you think you are fooling when you say that I have no idea what reliable sources are?

I will certainly try to find more and better sources. However, what I have provided so far does show that there is reason to include Raimondo's views on same-sex marriage in his article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And I hope you will also attempt to find better sourcing for other parts of the article which, as I indicated, need it. Drmies (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

Joel.Miles925 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (FreeKnowledgeCreator)

The issue is simple as I see it. Raimondo is a prominent political commentator and an openly gay man; same-sex marriage is one of the issues he has written about, and it is helpful to readers to mention at least briefly what he has said about the issue. One might argue that Raimondo's views are inconsequential if there were no evidence that anyone had responded to them, but that isn't the case - Raimondo has debated the same-sex marriage issue with Jonathan Rauch. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

An added note: Drmies, could you please not refer to me as your "opponent"? It is not civil language, and I really don't see things that way. We both want to improve the article, even if we have a difference of opinion about how to go about doing that. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project, not a gladiatorial arena. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Drmies)

The issue is indeed simple, though the terms and parameters should be shifted a little bit. Someone's opinions are relevant if they have been noted by secondary sources; that is the essence of this encyclopedia. By now I suppose I have needled my honorable opponent into finding some non-Raimondo sources to report on Mr. Raimondo's opinions, though the sourcing they came up with is really, really thin if WP:RS is the yardstick. My opponent easily combines "political commentator" ("prominent" is an exaggeration) with "openly gay"; however, the man is not notable because he is openly gay nor do his opinions seem to have been picked up by the press. In other words, combining his opinions on gay marriage with his status as a commentator to conclude "his opinions on gay marriage should be included" is a kind of synthesis.

If you look carefully at the list of references, you will see that at best there are two (2) secondary sources. The one is the SF Weekly article, which focuses mainly on his anti-war stance, the other is a single paragraph in Metro, which notes he is gay and Republican. None of these suggest that his on gay marriage are noteworthy; they don't note them either. The sources my opponent gathered are primary sources which establish that once upon a time the subject debated the issue; let one sentence suffice, with those non-Raimondo links (and add this, a paragraph and a half long]). What we have now is a collection of links to the man's own articles masquerading as an article. In short: as a general guideline, someone's opinions should not be inserted until they have secondary sourcing. This person is not important enough and the sourcing not strong enough to make an exception. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion by Joel.Miles925

As I read the sources provided by each of you, I notice exactly what User:Drmies is saying: most of the sources cited by the article and all of the ones cited by User:FreeKnowledgeCreator are either partially or wholly primary. This, as stated by WP:USESPS and as defined by WP:SELFSOURCE, shows that those sources are self-published. Therefore, his opinions on gay marriage (as is stated by Drmies) are likely not notable, and have not received significant coverage. So, Drmies is right in my opinion. However, User:Drmies needs to avoid calling FreeKnowledgeCreator "his opponent" and certainly doesn't need to inflame the situation more than it already is in that way. Thank you. Joel.Miles925 17:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability concerns which topics may have articles created about them, and does not directly limit the content of articles, per WP:NOTE: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." No one was proposing to create an article specifically about Raimondo's views on same-sex marriage. An additional source regarding those views can be seen here, again covering Raimondo's debating the issue with Rauch. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Note that I stated that "his opinions on gay marriage are likely not notable". I did not say anything about creating an article on it nor did Drmies. What I am saying is that those views are not notable enough to be included in this article. As is stated by WP:SELFSOURCE (in the criteria section) "The article is not based primarily on such sources". Unfortunately, it is, and the sources provided by FreeKnowledgeCreator are no different. Those are my reasons for deciding in favor of Drmies. Thank you. Joel.Miles925 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:3O: "This process is neither mandatory nor binding." So your comments have not decided the issue, thank you, although I will not continue to revert if Drimes removes the disputed content again. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Very true. Thank you! Joel.Miles925 13:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I see there is a rather odd debate concerning the relevance of my views on gay marriage, and on homosexuality in general. While I would contend that, as a gay person who has achieved at least some recognition as a writer, my views have some relevance, I would also add that the sources cited are not "self-published," as some here apparently contend. The American Enterprise magazine, journal of the American Enterprise Institute, long ago published my views on these matters - before the issue became a widespread controversy. At least one book devoted to the subject has included my views on gay marriage, including an anthology entitled, I believe, "Both Sides," or "Opposing Viewpoints." The American Conservative published my piece attacking the concept of "gay marriage" -- and also published a piece by me reconsidering my own position (!). -- Justin Raimondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE6:40F0:4D86:EB34:DC4E:BE79 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)