Jump to content

Talk:Eustace Mullins/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Antisemite in lead sentence

The Devil's Advocate, while doing useful work removing excess citations from the lead, also removed the statement that Mullins was an antisemite (in this edit). His edit summary: (he may not be alive, but he was still a person, this is still an encyclopedia, and we still have to be neutral, trim excessive citations). None of this justifies the removal of the descriptor "antisemite." Please remember, we're not talking about a notable person who happens to be an antisemite, we're talking about a person who is notable specifically for being an antisemite. How in the world is it not neutral to describe him as an antisemite? Not only is it perfectly neutral, it's essential. It's the essence of the guy's notability.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

E.g. he was regularly called an antisemite even in the headlines of newspaper articles about him:

  • GROUP TO PROTEST FAR-RIGHT GATHERING - * ANTI-SEMITIC NATIONALISTS TO MEET IN BUCKS. PROTESTERS WANT TO DROWN `VOICES OF HATE.' Morning Call, The (Allentown, PA) - September 13, 1997
  • Lecture by anti-Semite under review. Record, The (Kitchner, Ontario, Canada) - Thursday, February 22, 2001
  • Health group withdraws invitation to anti-Semite. Record, The (Kitchner, Ontario, Canada) - Friday, February 23, 2001
  • Anti-Semite to go on speaking tour. Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada), June 1, 2001

Are you contending that the Globe & Mail has lower editorial standards than we do?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You neglect to mention that I replaced the label with a description of his works as anti-semitic. This petty insistence on labeling people is quite unnecessary and inflammatory. Best practice is to neutrally describe a person's activities and not tack labels.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Generally I agree with you, but you're wrong in this case. The guy was a professional antisemite. We're not the gutter press. Is the Globe and Mail the gutter press? This is a special case.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The only thing special here is the insistence on shitting on a man's grave. Many people are far more notorious for saying antisemitic things and are not explicitly labeled antisemites on Wikipedia. It is because it is generally shit writing rooted in emotion and not objectivity.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, am I to have sympathy for the Devil's Advocate as well, who won't discuss before edit-warring? "I shouted out who reverted common sense, when after all it was you, not me." I suppose we'll have to wait for others to come along and weigh in, but you're dead wrong on this one, friend. It's not rooted in emotion, it's rooted in reliable independent sources. Engage with my argument and not your hysterical accusations of grave-shitting, why don't you?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, anyone who disagrees with al&l is "wrong". Is WP:LABEL wrong too? It seems quite clear to me. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
LABEL applies, specifically "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Is someone going to try to argue that the label isn't widely used by reliable sources to describe Mullins ? If so, let's hear it, an argument based on actual reliably sourced evidence that is consistent with policy and guidelines. I added the sources to this article for the label. Do I need to look for more ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In which case, it says to use in-text attribution. That means we still can't call him an anti-Semite in Wikipedia's voice. We would have to say: "so-and-so of such-and-such has called him an anti-Semite". Joefromrandb (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In this case in-text attribution would be misleading (WP:INTEXT). To choose any finite number of the sources that have called Mullins an antisemite would be to imply that they alone have made this important discovery, to paraphrase the guideline.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the way The Devil's Advocate has rephrased it works much better. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You can start with the four I listed above, where he's called an antisemite in the headlines of newspaper articles. And we're not talking tabloids here, but real-life respectable newspapers. It was the guy's profession.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • remove label even Hitler's lede doesn't describe him as an anti-semite. Anti-semitism isn't a job. You could replace with something like 'Many sources critiqued Mullins for his anti-Semitic views' or similar but as written this violates the spirit and essence of WP:label.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hitler was not a professional antisemite. He was the leader of a major world nation who was also antisemitic. This guy's entire notability rests on his antisemitism. If he had not been an antisemite there would be no article about him. Your suggestion about "Many sources" is totally off the wall. Many sources praised him for his antisemitism too.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
We can quibble about the language re: many sources, but there's a huge difference in my mind with writing, in wikipedia's voice, so-and-so was an antisemite, vs so-and-so was noted for the anti-semitic themes in his writings. I don't have opposition to mentioning anti-semitxxx in the lede, just with calling him antisemite tout court. Would you do the same thing to David Duke's biography? David Duke is a Louisiana politician and a racist. No, that wouldn't work. Or "Fred Phelps, pastor and noted homophobe, is the founder of the Westboro Baptist church". Bigots, racists, and antisemites all exist, but these are contentious labels and should be avoided to be used in wikipedia's voice if we're writing a neutral encyclopedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, fwiw, and I guess it's my fault for doing reductio-ad-Hilterum, but stating that Hitler was somehow *less* of a professional anti-semite is laughable. I'd take Mullins over Hitler any day; Hitler turned his antisemitism into action. Can we just stop using the term "professional anti-semite" in general? it's silly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not so silly given that the guy made his living being an antisemite. Hitler did not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Mullins was paid for his writing, which included many conspiracy-theory-like views, some of which were clearly antisemitic. But he's no more a professional antisemite than Phelps is a professional homophobe. They are provacateurs, and yes they trade on their bias but that doesn't make it a profession. You're abusing language. Here's another "professional" = Wilhelm_Marr, who invented the term. But I don't think we should add to the lede "Wilhelm Marr was a writer and antisemite", even though he coined the term and was the grand-daddy/patriarch of the movement. Mullins himself contested the label, as you know.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

How does it violate the "spirit and essence of WP:label" specifically in your view ? What is the evidence from reliable sources about Mullins that leads you to that conclusion ? Sometimes, very occasionally, using a contentious label is going to be consistent with policy and guidelines. This is, I think, one of those occasions. What is contentious about applying the label to Mullins ? And I mean "what" in a quantifiable concrete sense, based on information sampled from reliable sources. There has to be RS based evidence that it's contentious in this case. What is that evidence ? As far I could tell, referring to Mullins as an anti-semite in the voice of the encyclopedia is no more contentious than referring to him as an American or informing readers that his first name was Eustace, in terms of the degree of WP:V compliance for the information and the absence of contradictory evidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's contentious in the wording, no matter who it is applied to. Remember, we're writing a neutral encyclopedia, and tagging people as anti-semites, whether through categories or as "Eustace Mullins was an anti-semite" is not neutral. Stating that RS have called his writings anti-semitic is quite different.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
But RS have called him an antisemite, flat out, even in newspaper headlines. Does that not seem to you to indicate that this is a special case?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No. RS have called all sorts of people all sorts of things, but we still have to remain neutral. Why are you quibbling over this WP:LABEL violation when many alternatives have been proposed? Why is it worth so much to you, and so important, that the words Mullins = antisemite be in the first sentence?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are you shifting the discussion to my motivations rather than to the actual content? It is important to me because I believe that it improves the encyclopedia for reasons that I've stated above. I assume you take the position you do for the same reason. Perhaps you could return the favor in the future?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, may I remind you of this exchange?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I should have said, why do you think it improves the encyclopedia so much to have Mullins = antisemite, when we don't generally do this for anyone else? Why are the other options that have been proposed, which are in line with WP:LABEL, so much worse? I just think it reads really badly, to say such a thing in wikipedia's voice. If we do it here, there's no reason to not do it elsewhere, for other such labels. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, which wisely tells us that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Stating explicitly that Mullins was an antisemite does all of these things in the most efficient way possible.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is "contentious in the wording, no matter who it is applied to" or rather it would be more accurate to say that I don't understand the basis of that statement. There are anti-semites, they exist, obviously. If that label is very widely and consistently used by reliable sources to describe the subject it isn't inappropriate to use the label in the voice of the encyclopedia. That is being neutral in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term neutral. I'm not an editor who goes around casually applying labels to people. Quite the opposite. I think this may be the only case where I've argued that a label like this is appropriate because I think it's one of the very rare occasions where that is consistent with the data and policy. A word or a phrase meaning something to editors or triggering some kind of personal response shouldn't result in subjective decision procedures being applied that become detached from the data itself in the sources. I doubt that anyone could demonstrate that this label is contentious in this instance using actual evidence. Without evidence of contentiousness we are left with a decision procedure based on subjective opinions about language, which I think is exactly how not to make content decisions here or elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break the second

The change made to say he was "noted for his anti-semitic views" is not really any better. It is still shoddy writing and not suitable for an encyclopedia. Such wording also carries the same tone as simply labeling him an anti-semite.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
So you don't like it. Why not discuss instead of edit-warring? Your phrase, His writings regularly incorporated anti-semitic claims about Jewish control, is shoddy as well and has the added drawback of having no actual content.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The term "Jewish control" is widely used and its meaning is clear enough so your critique of my wording is unwarranted, though it would require little effort to make it more acceptable. My phrasing had the added benefit of not reading like something you would see in a tabloid. I see you have taken this even further by inserting the obscure detail about his views on the Holocaust into the first sentence of the lede, where it most certainly does not belong. His views on the Holocaust are of no relevance to his notability, as opposed to David Irving who you cited in justifying inclusion of the label. I further note that your addition of the Holocaust denier category goes directly against WP:CAT and against the statement on the category page itself as it is not a defining characteristic of his life or something he actively promoted.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"Jewish control" of what? It's vague to the point of unintelligibility. I could put in a little effort to make it acceptable. In fact, that's what I'm doing now. Furthermore, his views on the holocaust are not obscure. He wrote at least one book entirely on the subject. You don't call that active promotion? Multiple reliable sources discuss his holocaust denial in detail. You don't call that a component of his notability? Furthermore, Mullins's holocaust denial is as much a defining characteristic of his life as it is of Irving's. Irving used to be a quasi-serious historian before he went off the rails. If he hadn't sued Deborah whatshername for libel he'd be as much a notable holocaust denier as Mullins. Perhaps you should go try to get that word removed from his lead sentence using BLP1E?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
First off, the "book" you talk about is not even forty pages long. Secondly, I have found no indication of his views on the Holocaust being discussed in detail anywhere. Even the ADL obit gives it only a flimsy mention. To suggest he was as well known for his views on the Holocaust as Irving is patently absurd.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Plus, it's especially important with Mullins to be clear about what he thought the Jews controlled, since he's not your average world-financial-system guy. E.g. he thought that Jews controlled all retail grocery stores and forced their gentile employees to signify this control by greeting customers with the words "have a nice day" as a recognition sign. Is that what "Jewish control" is widely meaned to use?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The lede is not supposed to go into such details. Adding "of" and including certain general things such as business and politics would be sufficient for the intro.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break the third

You will find a source for your "regularly" or whatever, right? And you will engage in conversation about whether WP:LABEL applies, right? Instead of just showing up again a week later and reverting without engaging in any new discussion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't act all self-righteous when you are shitting on a man's grave. WP:LABEL has been explained and it is fairly explicit on this point. How completely trivial the subject's views on the Holocaust are in relation to his life has also been explained to you. You have offered nothing in the way of policy or meaningful sourcing to justify your continuing campaign against a dead man who can't defend himself. That I have complied with your every demand and you still reject any edit that differs from your desired labeling is pretty indicative of how little you are interested in compromise even without the need for discussion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time you've accused me of "grave-shitting," but, you know, I have discussed the matter. There are multiple sources that call Mullins an anti-semite. It is really the only thing he's known for. This is a matter of WP:DUE, if you want a policy: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. All the reliable sources that talk about Mullins say he's antisemitic and a large proportion of them flat-out call him an anti-semite. WP:DUE is policy, whereas WP:LABEL, which you keep going on about, is a stylistic guideline. It seems that you're the one who doesn't have policy on your side.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources you cite are generally in the vain of "these people are odious because they associate with Mullins" where calling him an antisemite is really just about associating him or his views with whomever they are really attacking. As to what you have said, no, it is not even remotely the only thing he is known for by any measure. What he is most known for, as evidenced by the fact that it takes up the vast majority of his bio, is what he has written about the Federal Reserve. The fact is that what I inserted is more than enough to give people needed pause about his writings so your concern cannot reasonably be about insuring readers are informed. Your insistence on having labels in the first sentence instead is indicative of hatred and malice towards a dead man that you want to push on anyone who reads this page.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read the sources. He's known for what he's written about the Fed being controlled by Jews. Also, the other main thing he's known for is being a friend of Ezra Pound and a disciple of Pound's in regard to antisemitism. Your insistence that you can read my mind and divine my intentions is not only unproductive, it's delusional. This person is an antisemite, and WP:NPOV requires us to describe him as one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Every last one of your actions make your intentions painfully easy to divine. It does not take much effort to grasp that you have a deep and unabiding hatred for the man given that you show zero interest in compromising on this most basic issue despite significant objections from several editors. Wikipedia should not be a place for editors like you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You're kidding. Can you discuss the content rather than calling me names?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Cute edit summary, except you are the one pounding the table. We discussed it above and at least other two editors expressly stated their objections along the same lines. Your response has been to ignore any disagreement, disregard all efforts to appease your objections, and just slam down your fist harder and harder in the hopes of tiring out any dissent. I am not calling you names, only calling you out for your disreputable behavior. Seriously, why are you so invested in having this article be as malicious as possible? What solace do you take in attacking a dead man?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If you think I'm making it as malicious as possible, you haven't read the sources. There is an awful lot of nasty stuff said about this guy and I'm not putting most of it in because it's not useful to the reader. I'm trying to make the article accurate. If you had read the sources you would see that being an active antisemite and Pound's disciple are the only two things Mullins is notable for. There are obviously bunches of editors who agree that the word "antisemite" belongs in the lead, as you can see from the edit history. You just keep repeating WP:LEAD WP:LABEL, but it clearly isn't relevant in this case. Why do you think I take solace in anything I'm doing here? Is that the only motive you can imagine? Why don't you and the one other editor who agrees with you frame an RfC if you're so sure the word doesn't belong in the lead?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The Fed is controlled by people, some of which are Jewish. Recognising that is no indication of hating Jews. Mullins wasn't an anti-Semite he just did a lot of research and published truths which some would rather no be in the mainstream domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.210.131 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 October 2014‎ (UTC)

David Randall

David Randall has called Mullins "one of the world's leading conspiracy theorists.

What is notable about that for the introduction, are there multiple independant reports that this person has called Mullins this? David Randell seems of little notability himself Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Without any objections I will remove this from the lede as not noteworty per wp:lede Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

best known work

His best known work is The Secrets of The Federal Reserve.[citation needed]

unconfirmed in the heading, I searched google and found no confirmation. The Secrets of The Federal Reserve is not even wikipedia notable Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether that sentence stays in or out. You're right that it doesn't seem to be sourceable, although I do believe it's probably true. It's also possible that his biography of Pound, which was actually reviewed in the NYT, is more well known. On the other hand, whether or not the guy's best known work is "wikipedia notable" isn't really relevant to anything.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The book is one of his most often cited works when he is mentioned. Whether "best known work" is explicitly backed by the source is not especially important as the book does merit prominent mention in the lede. A slight change in wording would suffice if you think that particular claim can not be supported by a citation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
ok after some internet searching I agree it is his main often cited book.Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised you were satisfied with your own original research. However, it happens that it's actually verifiable, and I've added a source. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Mullins should not be considered a biographer

David Irving is not described as a historian on his wikipedia page because of his Anti-Jewish and pro-Nazi views. I think Mullins should not be called a biographer if that will apply to Irving, because Irving has done some legitimate scholarship, Mullins never did any. Mullins' sole focus in life was his hatred of Jewish people and his insane conspiracy theories. He made very ridiculous statement such as accusing Jews of things I cannot repeat they were so disturbing and also about topics other than Jews, for example one time he said in a speech "there's only one political party in the world and that's called the Nazis". I think giving any kind of legitimacy to Mullins is a mistake. He never said a word that made sense. RandomScholar30 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Mullins presented as if he were a serious researcher when he was not

Mullins is presented as if he were a legitimate researcher in this quote "He became a researcher at the Library of Congress in 1950 and worked with Senator Joseph McCarthy investigating Communist Party funding sources." Mullins was insane. He believed "that Jews kidnap Christian children, ritually puncture their veins, and drink their blood as a restorative for their own degenerate bodies" http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/09/into-the-psyche-of-eustace-mullins/63457/ he also believed that "there's only one political party in the world and that's called the Nazis" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5sbwGCR7A (minutes 0:42-0:45). Its not appropriate to portray someone who says such nonsense as a legitimate researcher. RandomScholar30 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Mullins was a vicious antisemite, no argument from me; but if you peruse previous discussions (above & in archive), you'll notice that it's a struggle to keep even that descriptor in the article. Hardly a month goes by that someone doesn't try to take it out. Besides, our opinions don't matter here -- only sources matter. So we are restricted to using information that appears in reliable sources. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, fine. But not all my changes needed to be undone. For example, saying Mullins was "Anti-Jewish" rather than "antisemitic" might have a virtue of simplicity for readers' understanding. Although scholars generally say Anti-Semitic rather than Anti-Jewish, I don't think most people out on the street know the word Semitic, so Anti-Jewish would be more universally understood. It means the same thing and we could pipelink it to the anti-Semitism article. This is an encyclopedia, so probably a lot of the users are not scholars and will not be familiar with the term. RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The "antisemitic" descriptor is already linked to the antisemitism article, which specifically defines the term as "hostility, prejudice or discrimination against Jews", and addresses the "Semite" issue right in the lede -- so I don't see any realistic potential for confusion. My point was only that we need to be scrupulous in maintaining WP:NPOV, to avoid yet another disruptive argument from Mullins' defenders, of whom (believe it or not) there are many. Let's wait for some other regular Mullins editors to weigh in. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Categorized as Neo-Nazi

I'm not sure I agree with categorizing Mullins as a Neo-Nazi. He certainly hated Jews, in fact he seems to have hated them far more than the typical Nazi does or than even Hitler did, but Nazis are European Nationalists who happen to hate Jews, they generally don't revolve their entire philosophy based on their hatred of Jews, in Mullins' case, the only topic he ever discussed was his hate of Jews. As was pointed out earlier on this talk page by another editor "Hitler was not a professional Anti-Jew, he was the leader of a major world nation who was also Anti-Jewish, Mullins' entire notability rests on his Anti-Judaism, if he had not been an Anti-Jew, there would be no article about him". [1] Mullins also made Anti-Nazi statements, such as stating "there's only one political party in the world and that's called the Nazis" and proceeding to state that the world was ruled secretly by an alliance between Zionists Jews and German Nazis and that was how the Nazi Party had begun [2](Mullins' insane Anti-Nazi Anti-Jewish rant begins at minute 0:42). There is a difference between hating Jews and liking Nazis. Since Mullins thought the Nazis started out in alliance with his hated Zionist Jews he probably hated Nazis also. Mullins also had views on Jews that were much more extreme than those of Hitler, such as endorsing the Blood Libel. In addition he associated with anti-government extremists like Alex Jones, whereas a Nazi would be more of an authoritarian. So I don't know if the neo-Nazi label is accurate. I'm not defending Mullins, mind you, I think his ideas were more scary than Nazism actually, I just don't think they are the same thing. RandomScholar30 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he is ever characterized as a "neo-nazi" in the article. We do refer to him as a "neo-fascist", because that is how several sources characterize him. "Nazi" and "fascist" are not equivalent terms, of course. Again, the article must reflect the sources, not our personal opinions. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
In the categories list at the bottom he is categorized with "neo-Nazis". I meant the category lists the article is included in, not the article's content itself. RandomScholar30 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I mean the categories list here, that shows this "Categories: 1923 births2010 deathsAmerican anti-communistsAmerican critics of JudaismAmerican fascistsAmerican neo-Nazis"

One of the categories was America Neo-Nazis. I was saying I wasn't sure I agreed he was a Nazi based on the points I made above. RandomScholar30 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

International Institute of Jewish Studies: No Such group

I removed The International Institute of Jewish Studies as publisher of Mullins because no such group ever existed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eustace_Mullins&type=revision&diff=722407267&oldid=722208396. That was a false organization designed to give the demented idiot false credibility. https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/eustace_mullins_6.html Page 271 lists The Biological Jew, (c1968), 86 pages. Published at Staunton, Virginia by Faith and Service Books, The International Institute of Jewish Studies. This “organisation” is another of Mullins’ fanciful inventions. RandomScholar30 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Mullins Beliefs, Associations, and Values

If you have any doubts concerning the beliefs, associations, and values of Eustace Mullins, I suggest that you review my online report concerning Mullins which is based upon first-time-released FBI files as well as other documents. https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/mullins
In October 1952, Mullins wrote an article for the National Renaissance Party Bulletin which he entitled "Hitler: An Appreciation". The NRP was our nation's first postwar neo-nazi organization. Mullins also was a speaker at NRP events. Both the FBI and U.S. Naval Intelligence described the NRP as "an anti-semitic, anti-Negro, neo-fascist organization."
Furthermore, much of what Mullins wrote about himself and his associates is totally fabricated. See my online Report for details.
One last point: after I posted my Report on Mullins online, and after I reviewed his largely fictional autobiographical memoir {A Writ For Martyrs) on Amazon, I received an avalanche of nasty emails from Mullin's admirers. What upset them most was NOT my description of his neo-nazi beliefs and associations--which, incidentally, they did not challenge. Instead, what upset them was my fact-based observation that Mullins was a homosexual. I did not mention that aspect of his background because of any animus toward gay or bisexual men. I just thought it was a relevant bit of information to know so that there could be an accurate understanding of his personality. See my Report for more details.
Ernie1241 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eustace Mullins. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eustace Mullins. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eustace_Mullins/Archive_2&oldid=1151017972"