This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I found a page dealing with this, therefore I no longer need your guys' help thanks though TheGreatLiberator 15:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am doing a report on outsourcing, and I used an article of Roberts' creation in it, for background on the man himself, I used this page, does anyone know how I would site this in my Works Cited Page and in Paranthetical citation, in MLA Format? TheGreatLiberator 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC) TheGreatLiberator 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"He is considered to be a Reagan conservative." Is it really fair or accuarate to call this guy a "Reagan conservative" when, according to the article, he believes 9/11 was an "inside job" and that the American media is controlled by Zionists? He sounds a bit more right-wing than Reagan. Not to mention that it makes use of the weasel words "he is considered". I propose that this sentence be removed. MarcusMaximus 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A statement from him: "A number of readers have asked me when did I undergo my epiphany, abandon right-wing Reaganism and become an apostle of truth and justice." -PCR [1]

I've listed, within the article, the same source four times. I'll try to come back and fix it once I remember how. Ufwuct 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

His 911 views are not "a small issue", just look how much space he gives them and complains of the cowardice of people not allowing him to air those views more often [2]. -- Striver 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He is one of the last american patriots. He should run for office w/ Ron Paul and Buchanan. SAVE THE REPUBLIC FROM THE NEOCONS!!!

A great man who cares about the welfare of his nation

"Roberts is also a critic of a potential Bush administration attack on Iran."

This seems like a both hideously unwieldy and potentially misleading statement. Perhaps "...is also a critic of the Bush Administration's aggressive behavior/potentially warlike stance/stated willingness to use force (any of those) towards/against Iran."

As it is, the sentence just makes me want to cry a little, after I laugh at the image of the White House Cabinet charging headlong through the desert shouting warcries. -- 124.176.125.129 11:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, your replacement sentence is a lot less biased. Give me a break. This is supposed to be a freakin encyclopedia.

Someone placed Paul Craig Roberts' name on the List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. Did he really graduate from Georgia Tech; if so, is there a source stating that? Thanks. — Disavian ( ^talk/ _contribs) 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See his bio: [3]. - Will Beback · † · 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know what he majored in? — Disavian ( ^talk/ _contribs) 03:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the "Views" section is lacking in 3rd party sources. For example, there's no indication that anyone noticed or cared about his "Cessation and resumption of journalistic activism", or about his views on the Republican Party. If we can't find 3rd party sources to show that these particular views are noteworthy we should delete or reduce them.   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Moreover mentioning his views on the Republican Party, a method obviously being used by the author of this entry to air criticisms of the Republican Party, without mentioning his views on the Democratic Party is so biased, it makes one laugh at the nonsensical nature of it all.

50.108.51.83 ( talk) 06:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A quote from 4.2 Israel of this article states: "Consider, who do you trust with your civil liberties, the U.S. Department of Justice or the ACLU’s phalanx of Jewish attorneys? [Dr. Roberts according to Who's Who In America is a member of the ACLU, a Jewish organization.]" The ACLU is not a Jewish organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.59.201 ( talk) 11:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Too many parts of this articles is based on Citations/references from Paul Craig Robert's own website or sources he's strongly affiliated with. J03y Fr33dom ( talk) 09:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A user named DadaNeem just edited the summary at the top of the page, only adding a mention of a book written by Paul Craig Roberts. It should have sufficed with a regular citation, since the book is mentioned in the book list at the bottom of the page.

This text (quote below) also give more the feel of a marketing attempt, than fulfilling any need in summarizing the content of the page.

QUOTE "These positions are covered in greater detail in his book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism and the Economic Erosion of the West (2012)." ENDQUOTE J03y Fr33dom ( talk) 10:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Brad Delong is a former under treasury official and a well known blogger and economics prof; menzie chen is also a prof and blogger. at , eg http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/09/monday-smackdown-the-stupidest-paragraph-in-perhaps-the-stupidest-article-ever-published-econbrowser.html

An article on debt by Dr Roberts and co authors is called "the stupidest article ever published" Profs Chen and Delong, and their blogger followers, elaborate on this in the link above if the criticism is valid, it would suggest that Dr Roberts is a fraud, at least in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 ( talk) 15:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

His latest rant is about the Charlie Hebdo massacre being a CIA operation. 99.246.14.66 ( talk) 00:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Paul Craig Roberts. 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/20060913091716/http://www.vdare.com:80/roberts/bio.htm to http://www.vdare.com/roberts/bio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101225054408/http://www.adl.org:80/main_Extremism/paul-craig-roberts-promotes.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/paul-craig-roberts-promotes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090704071424/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/roberts07012009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07012009.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070825101722/http://www.vdare.com:80/roberts/070123_swat.htm to http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070123_swat.htm

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} 14:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it is accurate to call Roberts a "economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate". Is it not more accurate to call him a "conspiracy theorist, columnist and former economist"? Royalcourtier ( talk) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

When did "conspiracy theorist" become a pejorative? Was it when people stopped liking thoughts that disagreed with their own or commonly-held beliefs? This suggestion for a change to the description does not deserve the time of day. 2001:44B8:41CD:3800:8583:577:1AE:42F ( talk) 12:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The above cited statement with the sentence following included:

A number of readers have asked me when did I undergo my epiphany, abandon right-wing Reaganism and become an apostle of truth and justice.

I appreciate the friendly sentiment, but there is a great deal of misconception in the question.

The above referenced article was not mentioned. What is - was - the reason for this omission?

I'm concerned that the entire section on conspiracy theories appears sourced to Roberts' own blog. Undoubtedly the ideas presented here, generally, meet the definition of conspiracy theory, however, we don't seem to currently have secondary WP:RS referring to him as a "conspiracy theorist". Can we use common knowledge of what constitutes a conspiracy theory, combined with the subject's self-published writings, to independently arrive at the conclusion he is a "conspiracy theroist", even in the absence of independent RS making that assertion? Chetsford ( talk) 13:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia itself, conspiracy theorist is a derogatory term. It therefore breaches WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to describe people as such, however how many so-called WP:RS (which is really a codename for mainstream corporate media), level the accusation. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 17:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Chetsford, he's clearly an advocate of conspiracy theories. Problem is, I can't find much of anything about him in reliable sources. There is brief mention here: [4] O3000 ( talk) 18:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This is in contravention to WP:BLPSTYLE. Undoing change. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 20:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No, doesn't look like it. The use of derogatory terms is not barred by WP. O3000 ( talk) 20:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A derogatory term is, by definition, never in "non-partisan manner". — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 20:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So, we can't call a terrorist a terrorist? We can't call Hitler murderous (we do)? No, Wikipedia is not censored. We use the terms used by reliable sources. Sorry, but you misunderstand the meaning of non-partisan. There is nothing partisan about using the term conspiracy theorist about a conspiracy theorist whether on the right or left. O3000 ( talk) 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you misunderstand the meaning of non-partisan. It has nothing whatsoever to do with right or left, necessarily. That, perhaps, is a vice of people who've grown up under political duopoly.

We can't call Hitler murderous (we do)?

Shouldn't. He should be described as a war criminal, as this is a statement of fact; it relates to objective actions he took. Being murderous is not that; it's a qualification. Rather, it's a disqualification. So, no, WP:NPOV means that disparaging even Hitler is not fit for encyclopaedic content (if Godwin's Law serves us well). — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is pointless. Anyone that ridicules the concept of WP:RS on multiple articles is WP:NOTHERE. O3000 ( talk) 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It is. And I am the one ADDING content, and you are the one DESTROYING it. It's you who are WP:NOTHERE. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject believes in gibberish like the Sandy Hook and Pulse attacks being fabricated, the US attacked the Charlie Hebdo, and so on. Numerous reliable sources have described Roberts as a conspiracy theorist because of that, so the article follows suit. Not really much else to discuss. TheValeyard ( talk) 22:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Saying that what he believes is 'gibberish' is a POV, not a statement of fact. Opinion statements from news organisations are NOT reliable sources simply because they come from news organisations. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 22:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In fact they are reliable sources, we do use them in this article, and there's not much you can do, short of heading to the Reliable Source Notice board ( WP:RSN, for your convenience) and challenge the use of a specific source. But good luck with trying to trash USA Today, Reason, and the ADL (who also characterize Roberts as an antisemite, by the way). TheValeyard ( talk) 22:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong. WP:NEWSORG clearly' states:

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. … Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

The ADL doesn't even fall into this category. It's a lobby group. It is certainly NOT a reliable source. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 23:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League is a century-old organization long recognized as a leading voice in antisemitic, anti-democracy, and anti-bigotry. They are cited in dozens of not hundreds articles in the Wikipedia. Their reputation is nigh-impeccable. TheValeyard ( talk) 01:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League is a century-old organization

So is the KKK.

long recognized as a leading voice in antisemitic, anti-democracy, and anti-bigotry

Therefore not a news organisation. It's an interest group.

Their reputation is nigh-impeccable.

Reputation as what? Reputation as an interest group among those whom it interests a reliable source does not make.

They are cited in dozens of not hundreds articles in the Wikipedia.

Exactly, that's the problem: https://archive.org/download/Defamation/Defamation.mp4

— Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 03:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, good luck in your anti-ADL crusade. Lol. :) TheValeyard ( talk) 03:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The crusade is for neutrality, not against the ADL. I would say the same if the BDS movement were listed as a reliable source. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 09:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Tarage: Please don't start an edit war. The neutrality of this article is clearly being debated in this talk page. You are forbidden by Wikipedia policy ( WP:POV) from taking down the notice until the matter is resolved. It clearly isn't. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 23:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The section on Views is almost entirely cited to the subject's own website. I don't believe that WP:FRINGE is satisfied, in that any fringe views be first noted by secondary sources before they are added to an article. I propose that such content is removed. Would there be any objections? K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point Never heard of him before seeing this page. Frankly, it appears that conspiracy theories may be the primary rationale behind any notability. Which is to say, if not for his predilection for such, why does this article exist? There do exist some RS in the article. And, although his own blog is primary, it certainly makes the case. Perhaps we should spend more time looking for more secondary sources. And if we can’t find them, revisit the purpose of the article. O3000 ( talk) 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, he was a reasonably senior official under Reagan, but most people in that job don't have articles and many other jobs at that level are redlinked, so it's a questionable claim. This feels a bit like a WP:COATRACK. Guy ( Help!) 09:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Tried to find more refs. It’s interesting. He’s had a couple op-eds published in the NYTimes. But, I find zero refs to him in the NYT news sections, or any other RS. And op-eds don’t necessarily confer notability as the NYT will publish something thought provoking from a non-notable. If we trimmed out all of the content based only on his blog or articles, I don’t think this article would pass notability. But, AfDs on political COATRACKs seem to usually result in keep. Or maybe that’s just my cynical memory at work. In any case, I’ve tried and failed at finding secondary sources and have to agree that the entire Views section should be removed. O3000 ( talk) 13:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

He is routinely interviewed by both mainstream and alternative English-speaking media channels on geopolitical matters. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 17:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A bunch of YouTube videos by non-RS are not usable by an encyclopedia. WP:IRS. O3000 ( talk) 17:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Many are clips from RS channels (whether they are on youtube, bitchute, vidme, DVD, VHS or 35mm film is largely irrelevant). — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 17:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have sources, provide them. Telling other folks to look for them is not constructive. O3000 ( talk) 18:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Where did I tell anyone to go look for anything? I'm just chipping in. You were looking for mentions on the printed press, and I suggested he's more often on video than printed. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 18:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wisdomtooth32 I think what Objective is saying is that if you want these interviews to be included, the have to be supported by an reliable source. "Many are clips from RS channels (whether they are on youtube, bitchute, vidme, DVD, VHS or 35mm film is largely irrelevant)." There is no YouTube account that is a reliable source, at all. YouTube in it's self, and all of the content it provides is not a reliable source. Boomer Vial ^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 20:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

CNN, BBC, MSNBC, DW, are all on Youtube; are they not RS? Again, whether the video is on Youtube or on VHS is irrelevant. Asking whether Youtube is RS is like asking whether DVD, VHS or paper are reliable sources. They are not sources; they are media. And so is Youtube. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 21:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You didn’t provide any sources. You just provided a search. We aren’t going to plow through a search list, mostly filled with terrible sources like something called "LockThemAllUp", to find an RS. O3000 ( talk) 21:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't. It's just a chip in, not an argument. And that's as far as I'm willing to go on this topic at the moment. — Wisdomtooth32 ( talk) 23:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Craig Roberts. 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/20080215152103/http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html

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) 10:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest blowing it up per WP:TNT and starting over with a brief mention of views of his which are discussed in third-party sources. To wit, start with something like this using the few third-party sources already in that section:

Roberts is a critic of the Federal Reserve System and central banking in general. ^[1] He has also written articles promoting theories that the 9/11 attacks and the Charlie Hebdo attack were false flag operations. ^{[2] [3]}

The "Views" section certainly should not consist of 50 citations to Roberts' own columns, per WP:ABOUTSELF, particularly points #3 & #5: it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source and the article is not based primarily on such sources. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. O3000 ( talk) 15:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that the last two editors who introduced the term " conspiracy theorist" in the lede are banned sock puppets. The first, DarkKing Rayleigh, is a sock puppet of Delotrooladoo, himself a sock puppet of AndresHerutJaim. The second, But muh white genocide is everywhere has also been banned (the pseudo speaks for itself). Furthermore, the edit is sourced to Roberts' own blog! According to policies, such edits must be deleted on sight.-- Allen Nozick ( talk) 15:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

While we can revert socks, we don't have to, but any editor reinstating a sock edit takes on the responsibility of the edit. Policy doesn't say that a subject's blog can't be used as a source, it says "never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." If he calls himself a conspiracy theorist, that's ok. He certainly seems to be a conspiracy theorist. Have you looked for other sources? Doug Weller talk 19:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Where is the source for the alleged Legion of Honour? ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4200:BAA2:7451:4CE1:EB20:8223 ( talk) 05:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)