text:
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, 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! 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 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, [ 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 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 also recommed reading 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 1 one external link on Justin Raimondo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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
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)

title: Talk:Justin Raimondo


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl hanratty

A stub, at the wrong title, about a fictional character, containing little useful information. Does it really deserve an article? Deb 11:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Misnamed. The man is actually real, so an article on the character is doubly wrong.  Geogre 13:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pity there's no article on the real-life personage, though. Lacrimosus 21:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. AFAIK, he's not real - IIRC, he was a melding of several real-life characters into one for the movie. Ambi 01:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Correction: Ambi's right.  I was misled by the title cards at the end of the movie that said that the hero and "Carl" remain friends.  Geogre 05:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That's odd. I remember listening to a tape recording by the man and reading newspaper articles about his experiences, before the movie came out. Hmm. We definitely need an article now to work out what the real-life situation is. Lacrimosus 23:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Langlade

Langlade may refer to:

Places

 * Langlade, Wisconsin, a town, United States
 * Langlade (community), Wisconsin, an unincorporated community, United States
 * Langlade County, Wisconsin, United States
 * Langlade, Gard, a commune in the Gard département of France
 * Langlade Island, in French Atlantic archipelago of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon

People

 * François Langlade, French catholic priest
 * Augustin Langlade, a French fur-trader
 * Charles Michel de Langlade, a French/Ottawa fur-trader who fought in the French and Indian War
 * Colette Langlade, a French politician; former MP
 * Sieur de Langlade, Jean-Louis-Ignace de La Serre

title: Langlade


text:
Langor Island

Langor (Marshallese: Ļōn̄ar, ) is one of the most populous islands in the Arno Atoll. It is part of the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.

title: Langor Island


text:
Lankin

Lankin may refer to

Surname

 * Dmitriy Lankin (born in 1997), Russian artistic gymnast
 * Eliyahu Lankin (1914–1994), Israeli politician
 * Frances Lankin (born in 1954), Canadian politician

title: Lankin


text:
Lannon

Lannon is a surname. Notable people with that name include:

 * Frances Lannon (born 1945), British historian
 * James Patrick Lannon (1878-1953), American admiral
 * Nyles Lannon, American musician
 * Ryan Lannon (born 1982), American ice hockey player
 * Timothy R. Lannon (born 1952), American university president

Fictional

 * Alex Lannon, character in Dominion

title: Lannon


text:
Conversion (word formation)

In linguistics, conversion, also called zero derivation or null derivation, is a kind of word formation involving the creation of a word (of a new part of speech) from an existing word (of a different part of speech) without any change in form, which is to say, derivation using only zero. For example, the noun green in golf (referring to a putting-green) is derived ultimately from the adjective green.

Conversions from adjectives to nouns and vice versa are both very common and unnotable in English; much more remarked upon is the creation of a verb by converting a noun or other word (for example, the adjective clean becomes the verb to clean).

Verbification
Verbification, or verbing, is the creation of a verb from a noun, adjective or other word.

In English
In English, verbification typically involves simple conversion of a non-verb to a verb. The verbs to verbify and to verb, the first by derivation with an affix and the second by zero derivation, are themselves products of verbification (see autological word), and, as might be guessed, the term to verb is often used more specifically, to refer only to verbification that does not involve a change in form. (Verbing in that specific sense is therefore a kind of anthimeria.)

Examples of verbification in the English language number in the thousands, including some of the most common words such as mail and e-mail, strike, talk, salt, pepper, switch, bed, sleep, ship, train, stop, drink, cup, lure, mutter, dress, dizzy, divorce, fool, merge, to be found throughout the dictionary. Thus, verbification is by no means confined to slang and has furnished English with countless new expressions: "access", as in "access the file", which was previously only a noun, as in "gain access to the file". Similar mainstream examples include "host", as in "host a party", and "chair", as in "chair the meeting". Other formations, such as "gift", are less widespread but still mainstream.

Verbification may have a bad reputation with some English users because it is such a potent source of neologisms. Although some neologism that are products of verbification may meet considerable opposition from prescriptivist authorities (the verb sense of impact is a well-known example), most such derivations have become so central to the language after several centuries of use that they no longer draw notice.

In many cases, the verbs were distinct from their noun counterparts in Old English, and regular sound change has made them the same form: these can be reanalysed as conversion. "Don't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk" is an example of a sentence using those forms.

A modern case of zero derivation in slang from popular culture might be seen in, in the noun sense of "awkwardness, inducement of second-hand embarrassment".

In other languages
In Toki Pona, any content word may function as a noun, verb or adjective depending on syntax; for example, moku may mean food or to eat.

Noun conversion in English
Many English nouns are formed from unmodified verbs: a fisherman's catch, to go for a walk, etc.

Humor
Verbification is sometimes used to create nonce words or joking words. Often, simple conversion is involved, as with formations like beer, as in beer me ("give me a beer") and eye, as in eye it ("look at it"). Sometimes, a verbified form can occur with a prepositional particle, e.g., sex as in sex it up ("make it sexier").

A Calvin and Hobbes strip dealing with this phenomenon concluded with the statement that "Verbing weirds language", demonstrating the verbing of both verb and weird. (The former appears in its use as a gerund.)

title: Conversion (word formation)


text:
Lansdowne

Lansdowne or Lansdown may refer to:

People

 * Lansdown Guilding (1797–1831), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines naturalist and engraver
 * Fenwick Lansdowne (1937–2008), Canadian wildlife artist
 * George Granville, 1st Baron Lansdowne (1666–1735)
 * Marquess of Lansdowne, title in the Peerage of Great Britain
 * William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne, William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne, (1737–1805), prime minister 1782–83
 * Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne (1845–1927), Governor General of Canada, Viceroy of India, Secretary of State for War, and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
 * Zachary Lansdowne (1888–1925), American naval officer and aviator

Australia

 * Lansdowne, New South Wales, Sydney
 * Lansdowne, New South Wales (Mid-Coast Council)
 * Lansdowne, Northern Territory
 * Lansdowne, Queensland, locality in the Blackall-Tambo Region
 * Lansdowne County, Western Australia

Canada

 * Lansdowne, Edmonton, Alberta
 * Lansdowne, Nova Scotia
 * Lansdowne, Ontario
 * Lansdowne (electoral district), Manitoba
 * Lansdowne Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
 * Lansdowne Park, Ottawa, Ontario
 * Lansdowne Centre, Richmond, British Columbia
 * Lansdowne, Yukon

India

 * Lansdowne, India, cantonment town in Uttarakhand
 * Lansdowne (Uttarakhand Assembly constituency)
 * Lansdowne Road, Kolkata, now known as Sarat Bose Road

Ireland

 * Lansdowne Road, a former sports stadium in Dublin whose site is occupied by the current Aviva Stadium

New Caledonia

 * Lansdowne Bank

New Zealand

 * Lansdowne, Christchurch, a locality south of Christchurch
 * Lansdowne, Masterton

South Africa

 * Lansdowne, Cape Town

United Kingdom

 * Lansdown, Bath
 * Lansdown Crescent, Bath
 * Lansdown, Charlcombe, hamlet near Bath
 * Lansdowne, Bournemouth
 * Lansdown, Cheltenham
 * Lansdowne Crescent, London
 * Lansdowne House, London
 * Lansdowne School, London
 * Lansdowne College, London
 * Lansdowne Club, London
 * Lansdowne Primary School, Cardiff, Wales

United States

 * Lansdowne, Lexington, Kentucky
 * Lansdowne, Maryland
 * Lansdowne (Centreville, Maryland)
 * Lansdowne-Baltimore Highlands, Maryland
 * Lansdowne (Natchez, Mississippi), a plantation
 * Lansdowne station (MBTA) on MBTA Commuter Rail's Framingham/Worcester Line
 * Lansdowne, New Jersey
 * Lansdown (Pittstown, New Jersey), nearby historic house listed on the NRHP
 * Lansdowne Airport, Ohio
 * Lansdowne House (Greenville, Ohio)
 * Lansdowne, Pennsylvania
 * East Lansdowne, Pennsylvania
 * Lansdowne, Virginia
 * Lansdowne (Urbanna, Virginia), a historic home
 * Lansdowne (Fredericksburg, Virginia), a historic home

Other uses

 * Battle of Lansdowne, 1643
 * Lansdown (film), 2002 film
 * Lansdowne Bridge (Pakistan)
 * Lansdown Cricket Club, Bath, England
 * Lansdowne Football Club, rugby football club in Ireland
 * Lansdowne Letter, written by Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne
 * Lansdowne manuscripts, a named collection of the British Library
 * Lansdowne portrait, of George Washington
 * Lansdowne Press, Australian publishing house
 * Lansdowne Road, former stadium in Dublin, Ireland
 * Lansdowne station (disambiguation), stations of the name
 * SS Lansdowne, railroad car ferry and floating restaurant
 * USS Lansdowne (DD-486), a Gleaves-class destroyer

title: Lansdowne


text:
Talk:Freedom to roam

Article Name
I think this article should be moved to a new name, preferably something that works for all the three countries. It seems that the finnish jokamiehen oikeudet is usually translated to everyman's rights, would this be an acceptable name? -- Jniemenmaa 11:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think no one can question your logic Gunnar Larsson 20:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no question about the need to change the name of the article to something in English, but it may be important to try to find the most fitting or suitable term. Personally, I would go for something more descriptive as for instance
 * Public Access to Uncultivated Land and Water,
 * General Rights to Public Access of the Wilderness, or
 * Public Access to the Wilderness (in the Nordic countries).
 * In that latter case, the Danish/Icelandic exceptions must of course be prominently mentioned. Of course with plenty of redirects from jokamiehen oikeudet, allemansret, allemandsret, everyman's rights, etc, etc...
 * /Magnus Hansen, Malmö

 * I think we should use a translation that is officially used. Then we have, from what I can find: everyman's rights and the Right of Public Access.The latter has more hits on google (2800 vs 300) and might therefore be better, but both is preferable to the current state. Gunnar Larsson 19:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the name ought to be changed. IMHO, the "Right of Public Access" sounds better than a literal translation. -- Mic 15:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Right of Public Access to what?
 * Could be useful for Offentlighetsprincipen also.
 * I would support Right of Public Access to the Wilderness.
 * /Tuomas 15:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Denmark/Iceland
Do these countries not have the right of public access? Right now, the article implies that they do not, but it isn't stated explicitly.

 * I have a vague memory of hearing on Danish radio last Summer (2004) that they had been trying right of public access locally somewhere in Denmark, that it went fine and were now going to extend the experiment to other places. Does someone know? --Erik J 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * However it is not a tradition there, yet 193.65.112.51 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

open access
Since this is linked from an "Open Access" disambiguation page, shouldn't something like "Commons" be there instead? This seems like an issue related to open access more than anything.

Citation needed
Do we really need a citation specifically for Scotland having greater access rights than England and Wales? Finding a citation for such an explicit comparison is going to be tricky, and we've now got citations for each of the relevant acts which I think is enough. --VinceBowdren 09:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Sweden
The information in this article is not correct with respect to Allemansrätten in Sweden. In Sweden, it does cover the right to make a fire, if this can be done safely, and there are no restrictions on commercial activities such as picking berries for commercial purposes, as long as they do not cause any harm. Spakoj 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In Sweden there are many private roads which are open for general traffic. On these roads it is permitted to drive.--GerhardNL (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Finland
''Furthermore, everyman's right does not include commercial exploitation of the land. For example, getting immigrant workers to pick berries is legal only with the landowner's permit.'' This sentence is not correct about the jokamiehenoikeus in Finland. You can also pick berries and mushroom in commercial way. Since it is not true in Finland or in Sweden, i suggest removal of the sentence. 193.65.112.51 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems
This article begins with stating that this "convention" is particular to the Nordic countries (in adition to some other places). I see Madagaskar has been stapled on the end of the intro. But then the history section seem to be mostly describing UK conditions and perspectives. This article started out as an attemt to describe the Nordic allemannsrett, but has been twisted by several passers-by (including me). Ideally it should have a general introduction section on the Nordic tradition followed by descriptions of the spesifics in each country and then a description of similar conventions in other parts of the world. Inge 15:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Nice to see several people wanted to improve this article. Doing it at the same time was a bit inconvenient though :). I have made some general changes and added a section on Norway. I feel if each country is to get an equally long bit they will repeat each other. I went in such detail on Norway because if we are to describe this topic in detail it is best to let the reader know where the spesific information is relevant. Other country sections should show their differences, but not re list rules that are the same as in Norway. Inge 20:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name needs to be revisited
Yes Inge is correct; the topic has worldwide significance. For that reason i propose a title change of the article. The name Freedom to roam seems like a better article title. First of all its the only term commonly used in the United Kingdom. Secondly it is far more used in the literature (roughly 1000 time more google hits than present name). Thirdly it is not so much of a mouthful. And fourthly, isnt the topic broader than wilderness? Joan-of-arc 02:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think Right to Roam is a more commonly used term in the UK isn't it? --VinceBowdren 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, right to roam is common in the UK but i think joan of arc's idea is a good one. Freedom to roam gives very high google hits and is probably the most NPOV term and also doesnt single out one country's name for the phenomenon.  I support the name change to Freedom to roam. Anlace 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, but since the name Freedom to roam is already a redirect we have to do this the formal way with a vote and then get an administrator to move the article for us. Otherwise I gather the article history and probably some other things will get messed up.Inge 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move Duja 08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Right of public access to the wilderness → Freedom to roam — Has been suggested on the talk page to be a better name for the article Inge 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.
 * Support mostly because I don't like the present name and its use of the word wilderness. Inge 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support since it is more NPOV, more universal to a variety of country designations and much higher google hits. Anlace 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments:
 * neutral - I don't particularly have a problem with the current name, but nor do I think the name change would be worse in any way. --VinceBowdren 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Naming
I am sorry to bring up the naming question again, but this article should be named "Law of Commons". The name allemansrätten is an alteration of allmänningsrätten, i.e. the "Law of Commons. Such laws exist and existed in England and other countries.--Berig 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think "Law of Commons" would be a very good name. In English law, a common is something quite different; it is a distinct piece of property which has specific rights attached to it (limited to specific people), rather than a set of rights which apply to all property of a certain type, applicable to all people. --VinceBowdren 10:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * concur with vincebowdren. Anlace 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Feudalism?
Do we have any sources to the influence of feudalism in the UK (and other countries) in establishing strong property rights and preventing open access? Or could it have been the enclosures process of the 18th and 19th centuries? Without sources, the historical statements in the article are little more than speculation. --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Removing 'feudalism' language. --macrakis (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Belarus
I'm a bit confused about the new paragraph about Belarus - it says that countryside is publicly owned, but doesn't say anything about access rights. Anybody know enough russian to read the reference, or happen to know any more about it? --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Text about access rights to forest added. More difficult to document right to roam on agricultural land.  It's frequently used for walking and off-road cycling routes, but access rights may not be codified. --John.roseman (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

 * Angling interests successfully lobbied for the exclusion of rivers in England and Wales from CROW, leaving other river users such as swimmers and canoeists with restricted access to less than 2% of navigable water.

This is ambiguous - is access to less 2% of navigable water restricted (so the other >98% is accessible), or is restricted access granted to less than 2% (so the other >98% is inaccessible)? Hairy Dude (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

North America?
Am I right in thinking that freedom to roam is normally allowed on Canadian Crown land? As well what about the USA -- do they have the equivalent of Crown Land?

Also the article ignores much of the world (Australia I note also has Crown Land). Rwood128 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not right to think that, no. There is no "right to roam" anywhere in Canada. 70.29.99.120 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Value of husbandry by traditional dwellers
It seems a bit one sided to mention the problems with Malagasy rainforest without also mentioning the benefits of traditional management. For instance

Fire Over Ahwahnee: John Muir and the Decline of Yosemite

And of course the Malagasy example is one of many issues like that though a particularly tragic one I agree.

Hope this helps. Robert Walker (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation issue
I just ran into an issue when searching. A "song" title Freedom to Roam (later creation date) has the same title name with just a capitalization difference. Otr500 (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Forgive us
The United States section does not mention the word "trespass". This seems odd considering the articles on "invitee" and "licensee" both refer to it as a third category of visitor. Woodshed (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

needs to be de-editorialized
It starts out by saying, "the right of the public to do this thing".

In other words "let me tell you want (my) completely (made up) factual position on this subject is called".

OK, maybe it is called that, but that doesn't make it true.

TOO PREACHY. I don't need individuals disguised as "the wiki community" to stealth push their opinion about rights down my throat.

I don't think people should be allowed to just walk all over my property. I'm not sure how someone else's view is any better. 174.109.186.3 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Fishy sentence
"Regardless of who owns the land, freshwater fishing activities may only be conducted with the permission of the landowner or by those in possession of a fishing licence"

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Regardless of who owns the land, but only with the permission of the landowner? How is that supposed to work?

--93.212.236.146 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 * A little lost in translation perhaps. Hopefully it is now clearer.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

...and the kitchen sink!
This article has become a laundry list of countries with no "right to roam". Why are there entries for the US, Canada, Australia and the UK? There is no such right in any of these countries, and trying to re-cast privileges accorded by the Crown/State with "rights" is disingenuous. This article needs to be scrubbed by an editor with the guts (and probably, the political clout within Wikipedia...as if that should even fuckin' matter!) to do so and make it stick. 70.29.99.120 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many lists like this and other ones keeps extending whether there are reliable sources relevant to actual subject or not. Try improving article yourself, article can be edited by you. My Lord (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to add, the OP has a point, but not in respect of the UK inasmuch as it includes Scotland, which certainly does have a genuine right to roam.Grinner (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Assessment
I hate Philoserf to be critical re the "B" assessment, but this article is still tagged with several banners asking for improvement. Rwood128 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , not a problem. To C it is. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Serfdom in Estonia
The arcticle states: "Today, the right to roam has survived in perhaps its purest form in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden." As one possible explanation it says that feudalism and serfdom were not established in those five countries. In this respect Estonia actually is an exception: serfdom was the norm there prior and after the Swedish rule. See e.g. Serfs and the Market: Second Serfdom and the East-West goods exchange, 1579-1857 I suggest the explanation be removed or at least made more precise by including only the four Nordic Countries mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringme2 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Just Northern Europe?
Re the "World-wide View" banner, I have tried in vain to find information for Asia in particular, but with no luck. I suspect, however, that in totalitarian countries, including Russia and China, the right doesn't exist and that in many jungles and deserts, including the Sahara there is probably no real access problem. Does anyone have any information re, say India, Thailand, South America, The Philippines, Japan, Africa, or any country not mentioned in the current article? Rwood128 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that this "right" seems to be a limited cultural phenomenon of Northern Europe, with limited rights only in other English speaking countries, I suggest that the "world-wide" banner is not appropriate in this context, and I will remove it unless anyone objects. I suspect that I may in fact have added it! Freedom to roam in certain uninhabited places, such as deserts and jungles, is something quite different. Rwood128 (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

South America
I'm interested if anyone found information for South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bplotkin (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Canada - Accessibility to Public Land
As a resident of southern Ontario, Canada, (aka, the place where approximately every Canadian lives). The Canada section is misleading. Yes, much of Canada/Ontario is technically Crown Land, and much of this crown land allows freedom to roam, but all of this land is a 6-12+ hour drive from where anyone lives.

All of the free access land is so far away from the nearest police station and everyone who might want to use it that if you can get their (a big if) the legality of what you do their is sort of irrelevant. I am sure 99% of the UK public access land is in UK owned Antarctica, but it is so inaccessible that this is irrelevant. Wisnoskij (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 * ✅ that could make this clearer., please be bold and make the changes that you would like to see.  —  Freoh 21:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Finnish topic
The Finnish topic seems a bit inconsistent at the moment. It makes the distinction of including an explicitly gender neutral version of "jokamiehenoikeus", that at least I, as a native Finn have never heard before (jokaisenoikeus), yet the Swedish term of the Finnish "jokamiehenoikeus", "allemansrätten" is translated as (lit.) "everyone's right", even though it isn't as explicitly gender neutral. 2001:708:30:10E0:B457:D263:AB97:584C (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Canada other provinces
We have right of way from the Atlantic ocean to the high tide mark as beaches in Nova Scotia are crown land https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/government/province-house/to-hell-and-back/ 170.10.254.48 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Freedom to roam


text:
Talk:Taelon

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Taelons

Taelons.com
A brief dig through whois shows that both the official efc.com and taelons.com are owned by Chicago Tribune (Tribune Entertainment Company) in Chicago, IL. Naturally taelons.com is a promotional vehicle, not a real website run by actual aliens (frankly, you'd think actual aliens would have a much better website than that). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Castes
I'm not sure if I misheard or not, but in episode 14 of season 1, Rho-ha (I think) mentioned that Da'an suits his caste (of a diplomat) well. So, either I really did mishear it, or there's some information missing from the article, or that part of Taelon society was never re-visited in the series in greater depth. --M.A. 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm pretty sure of it now. Boone expanded that in the same episode by saying: "Taelons divide themselves to functional castes. They have bureocrats, diplomats, scientists, artists,...". --M.A.

 * Yes, the references are correct. Also correct is that the idea was not much developed - some individuals were shown as "scientists", for example, but not explicated as being members of a caste.  Early episodes may have used caste as a guide to "uniform" color, but this is supposition. Voideater 22:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Free Will vs. the Commonality
It is not clear if the various statements that individual Taelons cannot act against the Commonality (the combined majority rule of the Taelon consciousness) is literal or more a moral imperative. If literal, then every action taken by any Taelon is explicitly the will of the majority of the Taelons. It seems more in keeping with the show's early season explorations to view the statement as more an ethical burden than a literal restriction, similar to the statement that, "Vulcans cannot lie" - a generalism born from deep cultural and perhaps biologic imperatives, but not a statement of fact in all cases. Voideater 23:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Da'an.jpg
Image:Da'an.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Da'an.jpg
Image:Da'an.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Taelon.jpg
Image:Taelon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

official website
I am going to remove the link on the article page to the official website since it has been down since early march and as such is leading to a blank page, if the page returns feel free to put it back on but for now I don't see any reason for it to be there. Doctoroxenbriery (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written
This is a pretty poorly written article. It makes bizarre unsubstantiated suppositions, is generally poorly written, and feels far more like a fan site than an encyclopedia entry. I'm not familiar enough with the show to do so, but I would suggest a nearly complete rewrite (seems like the show was popular enough to warrant a good page, but maybe I'm wrong). The section about technology was particularly difficult to read (paraphrased: "they claim their technology is millions of years ahead of us.  That's unlikely.  Although they were definitely a space faring race two million years ago.  But if that were true, we'd have more trouble reverse engineering the stuff."  Says who?  You?  That's not objective in the slightest). But, I'm never going to read the page again, so I really don't care. 207.154.101.184 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, the page is crap. Unfortunately, we don't have enough sources that discuss taelons to make a decent article out of it. I really wish we did. If you can find some, then by all means please add them. The Wordsmith Communicate 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Taelon


text:
Larimer

Larimer may refer to:

Places

 * Larimer County, Colorado
 * Larimer Hill, Indiana
 * Larimer, Pennsylvania
 * Larimer Square, Denver
 * Larimer Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania
 * Larimer (Pittsburgh), a neighborhood in city of Pittsburgh

Other uses

 * Larimer (surname)
 * Larimer Memorial Library, Palatka, Florida, on the National Register of Historic Places
 * Larimer School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on the National Register of Historic Places
 * 12073 Larimer, an asteroid

title: Larimer


text:
AEG R.I

The AEG R.I or Riesenflugzeug 1 (meaning "giant aircraft") was a four-engined biplane bomber aircraft of World War I manufactured by AEG.

Design and development
The R.I was unusual for a multi-engined aircraft in that rather than connecting propellers directly to the engines and mounting the engines in nacelles, the R.I carried all its engines within the fuselage and turned its propellers via a system of drive shafts. A single prototype was completed and flew in 1916. Initial flights were quite successful, the aircraft being considered very manoeuvrable, but on 3 September 1918, a newly assembled propeller, which had not been given sufficient time for glue to cure, disintegrated. The vibrations resulting from that failure caused the complex transmissions and shafting connecting all four engines to both propellers to tear loose, which then cut a center section strut, resulting in the breakup of the aircraft, killing all seven crew on board. Of the seven further AEG R.1 aircraft planned or under production when the war ended, (R.21, R.22, R.59, R.60, R.61, R.62, R.63 and R.64), only R.21 was finished and R.22 partially complete.

title: AEG R.I