Talk:George Lincoln Rockwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

This article is now being used, with attribution, by: http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/george_lincoln_rockwell.html — Clarknova 01:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, they're one of our mirror sites, one rated highly compliant with the GFDL - David Gerard 11:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Predominately VS Predominantly 2 Portrait of Rockwell 3 Divorce, Icelandic style 4 Congressman Stanley Tupper 5 Right now, this is a bad article 6 Atlanta connection ? 7 Rockwell and Vietnam 8 Elijah Muhammad & Malcom X 9 Mental Stability 10 Unreliable sources

[edit] Predominately VS Predominantly

Recent changes made to this article have changed the spelling of predominately to an alternative predominantly. My first instinct as I prefer the former was to change it back, but I decided to investige. Both mean the same, and here is what I came up with:

There’s been a lot of scholarly argument about the relative merits of these two words down the years, most of it directed at the linked adjectives, predominate and predominant. Some usage writers have condemned the former as illiterate, arguing that it can only be a verb, never an adjective. History is against all such critics, because predominate as an adjective first appeared as far back as 1591, and is actually older than the verb. The spelling of the adverb as predominately is about a hundred years older than the predominantly form. Predominantly and its related adjective are now much the more common forms, though that doesn’t make the other pair wrong, just less often currently preferred alternatives.

Now this is not biggie and I am not gonna upset editors over this...I prefer predominately. Personally. Anyone else with thoughts on this, and isn't wiki policy to leave unchanged that which is acceptable even if it is not someones preferred spelling? For now, as it affects none of the content I see no reason to change it. Any thoughts though??? Joey James 00:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait of Rockwell

Here is one portrait of Rockwell that could be used for the article.[1]

Other images [2]

[edit] Divorce, Icelandic style

What does this comment mean? The wife throws snowballs at the husband until he goes away?

Butcer GOod point im a icelander and i never heard that term here in Iceland

[edit] Congressman Stanley Tupper

I removed the Congressman Stanley Tupper reference. I did a search on Google and found nothing that connected the two men. If Tupper only knew Rockwell in his youth then the reference is not significant. I found Congressman Tupper supported civil rights legislation in the 60's. This would hardly make Tupper a supporter of Rockwell or his cause. If there is other information of importance regarding Tupper and Rockwell then a paragraph should be developed and included in the article.

According to William Schmaltz's Hate: George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party, Tupper was one of the people he interviewed for the book. During the interview, Tupper talked about how he spent much time with Rockwell in Boothbay and at Hebron Academy. Years later as a US Congressmen, Tupper still maintained a closed door friendship, even though he disapproved of what he was doing. In fact, during their last conversation, Rockwell confided in Tupper that his life was nearing its end.

[edit] Right now, this is a bad article

First of all, this article is awfully long for a basically minor fringe figure. Second of all, parts of it read like a hagiography. There's a whole long paragraph about how as boy he learned courage by standing off a gang of toughs (sole source:Rockwell)... he didn't get into Harvard only because of some screwup with his school records, so he went back for another year of high school, hmmmm... blah blah blah... paragraphs and paragraphs about his deep understanding of philiosophy etc etc. Really bad article. Herostratus 08:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it does read like a Hagiography, it is obvious that some of the contributors to this article are probably sympathetic to his movemement. Even the Skrewdriver website is listed as a source, so clearly pulling from bias sources. It does need much cleaning up and revising, I am particularly too lazy to do it myself, so someone else should have a go at it.

But the length of the article I have no problem with, the more information on any subject can never be bad. xcuref1endx 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you compare it to the Rosa Parks or Malcolm X article?216.174.53.248 02:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rockwell actually isn't a minor fringe figure. His movement was rather large during the civil rights era. He just isn't talked about any longer.

Calling Rockwell a minor fringe figure is a bit of a misnomer. The American Nazi Party was, with regards to political groups, are fairly major event. As it was formed less than twenty years after WW2, one can't help but think of it has being of some historical note. However, Rockwell's group never was too large. It maintained a fairly limited membership, even during the civil rights era.

Also, I'd like one to explain why we would ever compare Rockwell's article to Rosa Parks' ?

Rosa Parks = Sweet Old Black Lady, Rockwell = Paranoid Pipe Smoking Bastard, oh sure, there are SO many comparisons... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Atlanta connection ?

I removed the section on the Atlanta demonstration and the synagogue bombing. In Rockwell's autobiography he thought the Feds would try to connect him to the event. A separate article titled 1958 Atlanta temple bombing should be created and perhaps a reference to Rockwell be added. 216.174.52.242 10:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockwell and Vietnam

Rockwell was not an opponent of the Vietnam War. I made the correct changes.216.174.52.13 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elijah Muhammad & Malcom X

At the same time, Rockwell reached out to form friendly associations with the Nation of Islam, for its shared belief in racial separation. He also had great respect for Elijah Muhammad as the "Black people's Hitler," for doing the best job promoting integrity and pride among his people. Finally, he admired Malcolm X, as his black equivalent and the next true leader for Black America, even after his split from the Black Muslim organization.

Can we find the sources for this, if there are sources? --Liberlogos 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this will help.[3]67.72.98.45 01:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mental Stability

I find it intresting that non of the articles dealing with racist/white hate leaders explain the cause of these individual's deillusions of "Communist jews" or "massive mixing conspiricy", neurologically. I mean, these people HAD to have something very wrong with them to make them believe this crazy sh*t. It just dos'nt make sense and its pissing me off, why the hell wont they just leave us alone? 69.250.130.215 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum, go find one and then post what you want... but not here. Shadowy Crafter 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, well f**k you.

[edit] Unreliable sources

Large portions of this article are sourced not from the references listed in the References section, but from sources that seem to me to be unreliable. In some cases these are for claims that shouldn't be controversial, but other cases look a little problematic. Consider this paragraph for instance:

Rockwell's next tactic was to hold a rally in Union Square in New York City. He went there to demand a permit to speak and soon found himself surrounded by his archenemies: the Jews. A near riot erupted as Rockwell began to answer reporters' questions. Rockwell said that 80 percent of the Jewish population in America were Communist sympathizers and therefore traitors who should be gassed, on the basis that most of the convicted spies happened to be Jewish. The crowd went wild, demanding Rockwell be killed on the spot. He was given a protected escort out of New York City and never received the permit to hold the rally. 15

The linked source is, in fact, a chapter of Rockwell's book This Time The World, as published on a UK racist Web site. Since this is a work of political opinion, it is a reliable source for what Rockwell or other neo-Nazis think but it is not reliable for what happened in New York.

Chiefly, the claim that he "found himself surrounded by his archenemies: the Jews" and the claim that "the crowd went wild, demanding Rockwell be killed on the spot" seem to be the sort of unreliable claims that come from using unreliable sources. --FOo 10:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)