Talk:Michael Peroutka

Untitled

I might be wrong, but I assume that the term 'Paleoconservative' is a pejorative term that would not be used by the people it refers to. In that case, would using the term (unless specifically attributed to critics or Peroutka) be NPOV?

Willhsmit

I don't think paleoconservative is a pejorative. Neoconservative is a pejorative, and I think paleocon is just an attempt to avoid association with them. At least, I am certain that paleolibertarian is self-applied, and I expect the same is true of paleoconservative. - Nat Krause 02:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Peroutka was also endorsed by the League of The South, a neo-confederate group who has been listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a racist organization." ..... what's the source for this??? —akghetto (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The source has been added to the main article.

took down sentence..

"Peroutka was also endorsed by the League of The South, a neo-confederate group who has been listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a racist organization."

I feel that it's very misleading. Also those civil rights groups obviously have agendas and frankly I dont give them much credibility. This sentence if very one sided. Can we please discuss a more balanced alternative?

JJstroker 19:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

While the SPLC can sometimes be seen as agenda-driven, I feel that, in this case, they are not off-base. The League of the South is far from a historical society; With quotes such as "As a means of making real our vision of a Southern Republic, we must first revitalize our largely Anglo-Celtic culture." [[1]] and "It is The League of the South's assertion that the system of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, unfair trade agreements, outsourcing of jobs, and confiscatory taxation imposed by the American Empire have reduced considerably the Southern people's standard of living." [[2]] show that this organization is in fact a racially driven separatist movement. All in all, I find the SPLC to be very accurate when it states that "while the league of the south maintains it is not a racist organization, the evidence shows otherwise" [[3]]

How is complaining about a "system of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, unfair trade agreements, outsourcing of jobs, and confiscatory taxation" racist? 69.118.97.26 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one last quote for anyone who doubts league of the south's leadership view on race: "On white dominance: In his 1996 "President's Message," Hill said the South sought by the LOS is one "where the interests of the core population of Anglo-Celts is protected from the ravages of so-called multiculturalism and diversity." The "European majority," Hill adds, will accept "productive and sympathetic" people from other ethnic groups — but only "on its own terms."" [[4]]

What would your balanced alternative show in light of this evidence, sir?

Thanks. 0146, 4 February 2006 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.193.87 (talk • contribs) .

One more article from Southern Law Poverty Center [[5]] regarding the actions of the LOS in the wake of Katrina.

Thanks. 0149, 4 February 2006 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.193.87 (talk • contribs) .

Accepting an endorsement from a particular organization does not mean the individual shares the core beliefs as the organization - it is guilt by association. Unless a reliable source is cited that Peroutka himself has racial tendacies in his past, I think the comment of the LOS being a racial organization on Peroutka's bio page is very inflamitory. Have it if you will on the LOS page, something which can be Wiki-linked to and the reader can draw their own conclusions from. What's next after stating the LOS is labeled as raciest, stating an opposing view that the SPLC is accused of being ________? It's just not needed. Also, please remember to sign your comments with "~~~~" at the end. Thanks —akghetto ^talk 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The intent was not to declare peroutka to be racist. However, he was a presidential candidate for a notable party, and furthermore, he recieved the presidential nomination from an organization which has been declared racist/inflammatory (see links above) by a reliable enough source. Do you think if Bush or Kerry had recieved such a nomination at the national convention of LOS that it would not be in their wiki? Why gloss over it? Let's stick to the facts. No one was calling Peroutka racist. However, I was making it clear that he accepted the nomination of a less than desirable (to put it lightly) organization. Now, we were speaking of a compromise: What do you propose, sirs? I won't stand for a complete elimination of the facts; that would be intellectually dishonest, and against what Wiki stands for.

12:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)~ Thanks. 0756, 5 February 2006 (EST)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.124.193.87 (talk • contribs) .

Your intent may not have been to declare Peroutka a racist, however I think we need to keep in mind what the average person who reads this article will infer. If you want to stick to the facts, I think that Peroutka receiving an endorsement/nomination is a matter of fact. That the LOS is accused of being a racist organization though is something that I do not believe needs to be in this bio. As I previously stated - just because a group endorses a particular candidate does not mean that candidate has anything to do with the organizations' beliefs, actions, or other interests. Bush and Kerry both received what I would consider less than desirable endorsements ranging from the Chinese Communist party [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184147/posts] to Pornographers [6] and even the government of Iran [7], and no, those endorsements are not in either candidates biography [8], [9]. You may consider it a "fact" that the LOS is a racist organization - that's not what I'm debating, nor what I consider to be the issue here. The issue is whether this "fact" should be on Peroutka's page. I believe what should happen is an article should be started for the LOS, a wikilink be on Peroutka's page as it is now (the redlink) with the SPLC's acusation moved to the new LOS article. This will allow the reader to infer what they will, and return Peroutka's article to a more NPOV stance. —akghetto ^talk 02:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[QUOTE]While the SPLC can sometimes be seen as agenda-driven, I feel that, in this case, they are not off-base. The League of the South is far from a historical society; With quotes such as "As a means of making real our vision of a Southern Republic, we must first revitalize our largely Anglo-Celtic culture." [[10]] and "It is The League of the South's assertion that the system of fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, unfair trade agreements, outsourcing of jobs, and confiscatory taxation imposed by the American Empire have reduced considerably the Southern people's standard of living." [[11]] show that this organization is in fact a racially driven separatist movement. All in all, I find the SPLC to be very accurate when it states that "while the league of the south maintains it is not a racist organization, the evidence shows otherwise" [/quote]

All of this info is clear to you when it may not be clear to others. You are operating on a personal viewpoint. Also you are getting your information from a very baised group. That would be like me saying that the ACLU ruled this way therefore its right. These groups are baised which is against wiki policy. You can't really use what they say as factual evidence or let alone a credible source.

I agree with Akghetto. But what wikipedia is used so the reader can draw their own conclusions. This sentence is a POV and very tilted towards one side. If the NAACP said that Bush was a racist administration it doesnt mean anything. They are just another group who feeds on agenda driven politics. The Law centers opinions are not credible. Who are they to determine who is racist or not? They are just another political organization with an agenda. Ultimately it comes down to personal opinion which is not allowed on wikipedia. I think the article is perfect the way it is. It doesnt say anything for or against league of the south. If you want to learn more you can go to the league of the south page and draw your own conclusions as to if they are racist or not. (Then the reader can draw their own conclusions about Peroutka) I am taking it down again but if you want to include it in the article please post an alternative that we can all agree upon and then we will add it.

JJstroker 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Michael Peroutka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515163703/http://www.amconmag.com:80/2004_11_08/taki.html to http://amconmag.com/2004_11_08/taki.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515163648/http://www.amconmag.com:80/2004_11_08/cover3.html to http://amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040608154511/http://peroutka2004.com:80/ to http://www.peroutka2004.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121031235/http://blogs.citypaper.com/index.php/2012/12/human-rights-campaign-links-michael-peroutka-to-white-supremacists/ to http://blogs.citypaper.com/index.php/2012/12/human-rights-campaign-links-michael-peroutka-to-white-supremacists/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813214153/http://www.theamericanview.com:80/index.php?id=633 to http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=633
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924195622/http://www.sos.georgia.gov/elections/2008_writein.pdf to http://sos.georgia.gov/Elections/2008_writein.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All worked! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Peroutka. 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.peroutka2004.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141203211045/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20120108/NEWS/120108001/Exclusive-Major-Moore-donor-has-extremist-affiliations to http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20120108/NEWS/120108001/Exclusive-Major-Moore-donor-has-extremist-affiliations/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 01:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103025200/http://www.christianheritageparty.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=9 to http://www.christianheritageparty.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=9

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303165752/http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=718 to http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=718

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 08:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

An older archived link was needed. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This page shows clear signs of bias

First of all, the opening paragraph refers to this guy as "far right". That's a loosely defined pejorative term.

Also, is it really appropriate for the opening section to list criticisms of this guy? Shouldn't the opening section simply provide a basic summary of who he is? I would think that criticisms would be listed lower down.

For instance, the opening mentions that he discussed conspiracy theories on a radio show in 2006. Should a collection of 16 year old radio appearances be considered one of his defining characteristics?

He's currently running for a state office, and this article really seems like it was written by someone with a political agenda. This looks like Democratic Party opposition research that was placed in the opening section to make it as visible as possible. This is not up to Wikipedia's standards. It makes the site look bad. Chtri001 (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Inbox Photo

I found a Photo of Peroutka I think that I would be good for the wiki page. 96.230.191.203 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)