Talk:Jeffrey Tucker

British-born

He says on his blog, that he's not born in America, but in the UK.

"A few weeks ago, I started recording a new podcast with a dear friend of mine, called “From the Outside In.” The title has a double meaning. My co-host and I are French-born and British-born naturalized American citizens and patriots. Not only, then, are we “from the outside (France and the UK) in (USA)” – but also our perspectives are “from the outside in.” We comment on American politics and culture in ways informed by our experiences in other parts of the world."

https://jeffreytucker.me/twitter-demanded-that-i-tell-a-lie/

79.102.67.239 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Anarchist

This article doesn't discuss that he is an anarchist, other than the tag at the bottom. More specifically, he is an Anarcho-Capitalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.230.125 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Not european

Jeffrey Tucker is from Texas, which is of course in the US. This means that he ought not have a stub tag citing his entry as one detailing a "European writer." I just personally confirmed his place of origin with him via AIM about 2 minutes ago. Dick Clark 22:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed an assertion that Tucker is Roman Catholic. He is, without a doubt, Roman Catholic, but someone needs to find a source that indicates that this is a notable fact about him. I also removed him Cat:Palelibertarians because a) no source for the addition was provided, and b) he personally vehemently objects to being called such. While (b) is original research, I believe that (particularly with living subjects) those making positive claims bear the burden of citing sources that live up to WP:RS, and hence that point (a) is sufficient cause for the cat to be removed. I note the results of my own original research not for use as a direct source, but rather as an "off the record" sort of pointer to those who want to delve further and may need a bit of a push in the right direction. DickClarkMises 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Paleolibertarian?

While he has never explicitly called himself a paleolibertarian, if you read through some of his archive at lewrockwell.com, he really sounds like he's ideologically closer to one than Lew Rockwell is now, or even 5 years ago.

It looks, sounds, and acts like a duck, folks.

12.65.132.210 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a claim would require a reliable source. Coming to such a conclusion on our own would constitute a violation of WP:SYN. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Sobran's article classifies him as a paleolibertarian, but I'm not sure if he's ever went on record to call himself one. He's classified that way because he fits in the category. 12.64.216.4 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source cited in that article doesn't support the claim either. It is a potentially controversial claim, and shouldn't be made in the encyclopedic voice without substantiation. What source would you cite as evidence that Tucker is a "paleolibertarian," rather than a plain ole "libertarian"? DickClarkMises (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Laissez-Faire publisher source

Before noticing that a "JATucker" had added the info that Jeffrey Tucker is "publisher and executive editor of Laissez Faire Books" I changed it to just editor per an actual source, i.e., Agora Financial which now owns Laissez Faire. As I note, the link itself is blacklisted for wikipedia for whatever reason. Anyway, if Tucker is in fact the/or a publisher as well and a reliable source can be found that can be added. Let's stick by wikipedia rules on WP:Reliable sources.

As it happens just saw Tucker on RussiaToday and he did a good job and certainly doesn't seem like the type of fellow who would write bad things in Ron Paul newsletters as the Economist (only?) alleged in 2008. Probably not noteworthy enough to be in the article. I'll let others decide. (It would be nice if the author(s) did throw themselves upon public mercy and breast beat etc etc ala Senator Byrd, but whatever. Sigh. End of soapbox.) CarolMooreDC 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul newsletter role

The Reason magazine article says: "Virkkala .. told [R]eason that the names behind the Political Report were widely known ... because ... Bradford, had discussed the newsletters with the principals, and then with his staff. 'I understood that Burton S. Blumert was the moneybags ...' Virkkala said. "... Tucker, assistant, probably a writer; ..." So, this is Sanchez & Weigel saying that Virkkala says that Bradford says that Tucker was probably a writer. The American Spectator post by Lord is based on a blog comment attributed to Dondero. (And Dondero's knowledge is probably limited to his understanding, at the receiving end, of what was going on. But we don't have verification one way or the other in this regard.) This information is a far cry from being a reliably sourced verification that Tucker had "a substantial role" with the newsletters. It should be removed. – S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As is often the case, I am simply puzzled by your suggestions. In lieu of direct photographic/videographic evidence, all reporting is "he said she said." The point of using reliable sources like Reason is that they can verify that "he and she" are reliable. That Reason felt strongly enough about the charges to question Tucker about them and document those charges in print speaks pretty strongly about the notability of the charges. And yes: the claims are "verified" in the article, insofar as they are directly paraphrased from RS (which is what Wikipedia means by "verification"). Nowhere in my edits do I say Tucker wrote them or was involved in them; I just paraphrase the claims of RS that might be interpreted by readers to support that view. Also: you misread the article. Virkkala isn't saying he heard this from someone else. Virkkala is personally asserting these claims, and his mention of Bradford is just a matter of citing how he originally came to his understanding of Tucker's role. There is no evidence that Bradford is his only source/that he didn't further verify Bradford's claims, and indeed, the strength of his assertion indicates the opposite. Steeletrap (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, your comment is misleading insofar as my edit never states that Tucker "played a substantial role in the newsletter." Unlike Rockwell, it is plausible (albeit, in my view, unlikely) that people are just making this up, since for Tucker there is (unlike Rockwell) no physical evidence of him being listed as "editor" of the newsletters; no documented personal admission of involvement; and no documented co-founding of the company which published them. Being cognizant of the possibility that these people are lying, the above-mentioned statement is explicitly attributed to the person who (in an RS) made them. They were, to repeat, published in an RS, which means that they are verified. Reread your WP guidelines. Steeletrap (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Here: [1] you added "substantial role". I see nothing in the sources that indicates a substantial role by Tucker. – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That statement was a paraphrase of Virkkala's comments, which I regard as an obvious implication of his reporting Tucker's role to reason (which he wouldn't do if Tucker was a secretary/played an unsubstantial role). But you can change that to "role" if you're really concerned, since sensible readers will gather it was substantial from the RS. Also, I have now found an article in The Economist that reports that "according to numerous veterans of the libertarian movement, it was an open secret" that Rockwell and Tucker wrote the racist newsletters. Of course, I am going to cite it to provide further evidence for these allegations. I wonder whether you consider the Economist an RS and their claim about Tucker's role to be unsubstantial? http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files#list-comments Steeletrap (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The newsletter material in the article clearly invites the reader to jump to conclusions that are beyond what the evidence supports. Even assuming that these blog sources are reliable sources, the claims of those interviewed were limited to assertions that Tucker was involved with the RP newsletter (at some point over its decades-long run), not that he had any specific involvement with the particular newsletters that contained race-baiting. The sources are offered as if they speak to an "alleged role" in the creation of the controversial newsletters, and they do not. This is a biographical article about a living person, and this newsletter section gives undue weight to a poorly supported and poorly reasoned thesis that conflicts with the more thorough, better-sourced coverage at Ron Paul newsletters. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The material is from reliable sources (Reason, the Economist, and the American Spectator) and clearly establishes Tucker's role in producing the newsletters. He doesn't even deny it. 108.54.160.207 (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYN, WP:LIBEL, WP:GRAPEVINE, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. The fact that someone has told a reporter that Tucker worked for Ron Paul at some time during the long run of the various RP newsletters does not mean that Tucker wrote the particular newsletters that were the subject of the controversy, or that he was even aware of any particular newsletter's content, or that he had anything to do with their production. Yet those are exactly the inferences that are prompted by the POV-pushing synthesis that you keep reinserting, that Tucker is somehow tied directly to the offensive newsletter content. Tucker is mentioned nowhere in the article-length coverage of Ron Paul newsletters. I suggest you and other editors review the thirty-five sources in that article before continuing to reinsert the same flawed, libelous content in this article. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reviewing this paragraph, it seems that the material is indeed thinly sourced.

(1) The statement by Timothy Wirkman Virkkala quoted on the Reason site tells what he heard about Paul's newsletter office.

Timothy Wirkman Virkkala, ... told reason that ... Liberty's late editor-in-chief, Bill Bradford, had discussed the newsletters with the principals, and then with his staff. "I understood that Burton S. Blumert was the moneybags that got all this started, that he was the publisher," Virkkala said. "Lew Rockwell, editor and chief writer; Jeff Tucker, assistant, probably a writer; Murray Rothbard, cheering from the sidelines, probably ghosting now and then."

(2) The statement by Eric Dondero was posted to the American Spectator site in the comment box of a story. That is probably not considered a reliable source for WP.[2]

(3) The unsigned Economist blog "Democracy in America"[3] does not seem to have done much real "reporting"; it cites blogs by Wendy McElroy and Timothy Virkkala, and obtained a no-comment from Tucker.

Recommendation: I don't suggest this paragraph should be tossed altogether. Taking the material at face value, it would be fair to say: Tucker worked for Ron Paul and Associates in the late 1980s and early 1990s, assisting Lew Rockwell, then the editor of Paul's newsletters. In 1996 when Paul campaigned to return to Congress, the newsletters' rhetoric about blacks and gays became an issue, leading to criticism of Paul and Rockwell.

Then I'd add a wikilink to the Ron Paul newsletters article as a "See also" item at the bottom of this story. -- Bistropha (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Following up on the sources: The Economist piece, in regard to Tucker, cites one source, a blog post by Wendy McElroy[4]. McElroy's piece quotes an anonymous blog post from 1/9/2008 [5]. That is obviously not RS. In addition, the Dondero statement was in a reader comment box, which is not acceptable per WP:BLPSPS. Revising accordingly. --Bistropha (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • With recent edits reposting some of the disputed material, I have posted to the BLP noticeboard about it. [6] Bistropha (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Mention in the lead and a sub-section was totally WP:UNDUE. I've cut it back. Fences&Windows 00:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Quotes

Added section appears to be a selection of quotes from old newsletters chosen to present a certain POV, ignoring the overabundance of more recent and relevant material. BLP policy does not permit non-neutral material to be left on a BLP page while it is improved. LiberatorG (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• The list as it stands (24 items, more than 50% of the article length) is overly long. It is also a disorganized jumble. It consists only of criticisms, which makes it unrepresentative of Tucker's writing. It should be sorted by topic and made less repetitive; quotations whose topic is unclear should be dropped. If someone wants to start a more representative collection of quotes, Wikiquote is the place for it. Bistropha (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I've reverted the most recent re-addition of this list of cherry-picked quotes. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You agree until there is a Wikiquote page, and then you complain about that too. Theknightswhosay (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The solution as I've stated is to add more quotes, not delete the section. You keep citing wiki instructions, but they don't support what you're doing. "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals, i. e., to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Incorporate your concerns by introducing your own quotes. Deleting is not a collaborative effort. Also, quotes aren't "non-neutral". It's objective fact that these quotes are his. They are cited. Theknightswhosay (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Part of a netural point of view is balancing aspects. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." All information must of course be verifiable, but in addition it must be given its due weight, which is determined by the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example you may have a reliable source listing each of the classes that Mr. Tucker took in high school, and he may have even published the list himself, but assuming no more than a tiny fraction of the body of reliable sources on Jeffrey Tucker focus on this, its due weight in Wikipedia would effectively be zero and the information does not belong in the article.

Just in the past few years Mr. Tucker has published several hundred if not thousands of articles, not to mention videos, books, television and radio appearances, conference talks, and other projects. Nevertheless, the chosen quotes are all taken from long ago and bear no resemblance to any of that material, and as far as I can tell have little to no weight in the body of reliable sources. Frankly, even if the article was 10x longer, their due weight in Wikipedia would appear to be zero.

Furthermore, articles should be based foremost on reliable, published secondary sources, and only to a lesser extent primary sources (such as quotes by the subject) and tertiary sources, so even if the aspect's due weight actually was over 50%, or many more quotes were added, a large number of quotes would be unacceptable for a Wikipedia article. LiberatorG (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Except that courses taken in high school are much less important to a biography than notable quotes. Learning about a person, especially a writer, has a lot to do with things they've said and written.Theknightswhosay (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what you think is important; Wikipedia articles must be an accurate, neutral summary of the published reliable sources, treating each aspect of the subject "with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject". LiberatorG (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The way this site works is different editors each contribute material they find interesting. The person or people who found these quotes are doing that, and I suggest others join in. It's not an inappropriate weight to some interesting material because all potentially interesting material isn't added all at once. This isn't Encyclopaedia Britannica, and we don't have a publishing deadline. Theknightswhosay (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

To address the specific point above, WP:BLPSTYLE states, "the idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies". However, even if there was no bias at all, and even if this was not a BLP article, a "Quotes" section is simply not encyclopedic content (WP:QUOTEFARM). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiberatorG (talk • contribs) 14:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm tired of seeing edits that refer to consensus. Editors putting something up only for them to be removed by other editors is not consensus. I have tried without success to elicit other quotes. I have also agreed that to streamline this article there should be a wikiquote page where new quotes can be added. Instead of responding positively to these suggestions and collaborating to make a better article, I'm just getting accused of violating and circumventing the rules. Once again, consensus does not mean editors have the right to silence other editors just because the first group might be more numerous. I'm the one trying to work with people here. Theknightswhosay (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, what is objectionable about the "Goodreads" link. I haven't seen that discussed at all. Theknightswhosay (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the Goodreads link is still there, however I just looked at it and it doesn't seem like a good source for finding books where Jeffrey Tucker is a primary author. It is instead showing a few of the numerous books where he has written a Preface, Introduction, or Foreword. Perhaps linking to Amazon would be better? LiberatorG (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It was restored, but that's a good suggestion too. Theknightswhosay (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Worldcat might be a more suitable reference: e-commerce links are prohibited in External Links: [7] Bistropha (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey Tucker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130118224250/http://www.catholic.com/profiles/jeffrey-tucker to http://www.catholic.com/profiles/jeffrey-tucker

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)