This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Libertarianism Low‑importance Paul Craig Roberts is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Im not sure referring to the subject as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of the lede is a good idea. I have no doubt that he is one, but that doesnt seem so important that he should be described as such outright. I think its best to move that info into the 'views' section. Bonewah ( talk) 14:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I agree. While it seems we have sufficient RS to describe him as a conspiracy theorist in WP's own voice, and I don't intrinsically have a problem with CT appearing in the lead in article, I think in this case pushing that term it into the lead is probably UNDUE given the very small portion of the article occupied by his conspiracy theorizing. While it's appropriate in the designated section of the article, the lead seems a bit much. Chetsford ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

A recent blog by Roberts includes pretty flat-out Holocaust Denialism: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/05/15/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/

The post includes most of the common tropes: Hitler was a good guy who was forced into war by Britain and France and mean Treaty of Versaille. Auschwitz and other concentration camps were work camps, not death camps. Crematoriums were only used for disposing of bodies of those dead of "natural causes" or disease.

Seems like it's worth mentioning in his wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.140.40 ( talk • contribs)

Can't seem to find any comment on this in a good secondary source. O3000 ( talk) 20:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

A secondary source would have to mention this; we can't conclude this article engages in Holocaust denial ourselves, even if it's plain and obvious it does, without conducting textual analysis, which is a form of WP:OR. Further, despite its lofty name, Foreign Policy Journal is probably not a WP:RS by virtue of the fact that it has a Holocaust denial article in it. We can't accuse the subject of this article of writing Holocaust denial articles if our only source for such a statement is a Holocaust denial article which, by virtue of its content, is not reliable. If an article can't be trusted with basic historical facts, it also can't be trusted with correctly or truthfully identifying the author who wrote it. We would need a secondary source confirming that Paul Craig Roberts wrote the article signed Paul Craig Roberts. Chetsford ( talk) 01:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Just add some balanced quotes from the article. We can't add an editorial take on what exactly his views constitute. Although we can probably RFC about what categories we can. As for claims it is not a WP:RS. It is according to WP:ABOUTSELF. Moreover there are WP:RS which cite that Paul Craig Roberts writes for Foreign Policy Journal. But more notably, the same article is published on his personal website https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/. Avaya1 ( talk) 02:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

"Just add some balanced quotes from the article." Agreed; a good explanation of the best approach. Chetsford ( talk) 03:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

In the Charges and counter-charges of conspiracy theorizing §, Delamaide is cited for assigning the label 'bona fide conspiracy theorist' to Roberts. However, Delamaide's article provides no support for that assertion and, in fact, the paragraphs following that assertion provide evidence Roberts is not a conspiracy theorist. Can we eliminate Delamaide from this §? Humanengr ( talk) 04:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I disagree. It doesn't matter if the USA Today article doesn't go into detail about why they call him a "bona fide conspiracy theorist"; it's enough that they do for us to use that in the way the article currently does. The following paragraphs in Delamaide's show that was not necessarily wrong in one particular article (it doesn't actually say he was right); it's perfectly consistent with him being a conspiracy theorist in other contexts. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The examples provided in WP:PUBLICFIGURE refer to specific incidents (messy divorce, affair), not to general assignment of a derogatory label without specifics to which the public figure can respond. The non-specific allegation is suitable for a hit piece but not for inclusion in WP. Humanengr ( talk) 05:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

In an article regarding a controversial Florida law banning discussion of race in classrooms that was recently struck down for violating the 1st Amendment by a US federal district judge, Roberts wrote "One hundred years ago Novoa, Rechek, and Judge Walker would have been hung off the nearest tree limb by enraged citizens. But the erosion of white confidence has taken a toll. Today the white majority accepts what is happening to them, hoping that they will be the last sent to the camps." [1] https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/11/25/the-irony-of-all-ironies/ Kochocs ( talk) 14:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

He is indeed an openly Hitlerian racist and white supremacist as revealed in his regular columns for the neo-nazi website the Unz Review where he regularly refers to the U.S. as a "white country" under attack by Jews and "non-Western" "Third World" people of color Dissident socialist ( talk) 05:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply