Jump to content

Talk:James Wesley Rawles/Archive 2

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

Material pending discussion

I am moving the material about Rawles's predicitons to this page, pending further discussion.... relax, we can always move it back when we have finished. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As part of his survivalist message, Rawles predicted a number of economic troubles including the end of the housing bubble in the United States. On August 14, 2005, he urged his blog readers to "Sell any rental or non-retreat vacation houses that you own. Take your profit now. It is better to be a year too early than a day too late. Keep that money on the sidelines, with at least a portion of it in precious metals. Then after the bubble bursts, you'll have the chance to step in with cash and buy at perhaps as low as 40 cents on the dollar versus the currently over-inflated prices. When you eventually do decide to buy, concentrate on productive farm land in a lightly populated rural region.".[1] In August, 2005, Rawles correctly predicted mortgage holders "walking away" from houses and turning in the house keys to their bankers—what has now been dubbed "jingle mail": "When the bubble does burst, watch out. Things could get ugly. I predict that people that are caught "upside down" in their mortgages will just turn in the keys at the bank and walk away from their houses. This has happened before—most notably in Texas in the 1980s when the Houston Oil Boom fell apart and took the real estate market for the region with it."[1]

In his survivalist writings, Rawles has warned of a possible economic collapse triggered by the global derivatives market.[2] In October 2007 he predicted that hedge funds will fail and suspend investor redemptions at a greatly increasing rate, in what he described as "a disaster story that could unfold in quarterly episodes."[3]

Another example of his predictions of economic calamity came in February 2008, when Rawles warned SurvivalBlog readers to "be ready for bank runs".[4]

In March 2008, Rawles predicted that the US government would take the approach of employing what he dubbed the "Mother of All Bailouts" (MOAB),[5] to counteract the collapse of the global credit market, in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage and credit default swap (CDS) fiasco. Rawles predicted that more and more institutions—both public and private—would be bailed out. He further predicts that this uncontrolled public spending will inevitably result in mass inflation of the US currency.[6]

References from this section

  1. ^ a b [http://www.survivalblog.com/archiveddata.html SurvivalBlog post, Wednesday, August 31, 2005
  2. ^ SurvivalBlog.com - Derivatives
  3. ^ SurvivlalBlog.com Hedge Funds--A Disaster Story that Could Unfold in Quarterly Episodes
  4. ^ "SurvivalBlog.com". SurvivalBlog.com. Retrieved 2010-02-21.
  5. ^ "SurvivalBlog.com". SurvivalBlog.com. Retrieved 2010-02-21.
  6. ^ "SurvivalBlog.com". SurvivalBlog.com. Retrieved 2010-02-21.

Discussion about this material

OK... I think we would be best served by summarizing all this in one paragraph. I will think on it, and see what I can come up with. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the move of this material, sourced from the blog, to this talk page for discussion. I think the best model for a discussion of Rawles predictions is to mirror the treatment of this issue as written in the CNN article. CNN casts Rawles in societal context of the Survivalist movement. Whereby Rawles is catering to, and sympathetic with, a mentality of the inevitability of a "coming collapse" and the "end of the world as we know it" compelling the adherents of the movement to "prepare". The CNN article deals with this by interviewing the Survivalist "Derek" who is described as a typical Survivalist, and as wanting to "get ready for the meltdown". Rawles on one hand encourages such Survivalist behavior and on the other hand couches a somewhat more rational/objective viewpoint and we must convey this inconsistent duality. That said, I think the last section presently in the article, "...predictions and warnings...", (sourced to the CNN piece) could serve as a starting point for this new 'predictions' summary paragraph. Though I think that the collapse referred to by Survivalists and Rawles exceed mere "Economic predictions...", and are well described in the title of Rawles other book, a non-fiction work, as predictions of the "...end of the world as we know it.". Objectively, these are apocalyptic predictions being made here, and it is noteworthy that CNN compares them to Biblical predictions, consistent with the extremist Christian identity seen commonly in this societal group. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Salty: RE: : " and are well described in the title of Rawles other book, a non-fiction work, as predictions of the "...end of the world as we know it."" Again, Salty, you haven't read his book. If you had, then you would know that it is almost entirely about practical steps for preparedness, and it is NOT about any predictions, other than one brief sample "what if" scenario, on pages 3 and 4. That is less than two full pages of 300+ page book. If you aren't willing to arm yourself with knowledge about what Rawles has written, by doing some basic reading to get your bearings, then I recommend that you desist editing this article. Trasel (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested consolidation and rewrite:

  • As part of his survivalist message, Rawles has correctly forseen a number of recent economic troubles including the end of the housing bubble.[1], the collapse of the global derivatives market,[2] and large government bailouts of key industries.[3] He has also incorrectly predicted significant bank runs.[4] In each case, his message was similar: be prepared.

refs

  1. ^ [http://www.survivalblog.com/archiveddata.html SurvivalBlog post, Wednesday, August 31, 2005
  2. ^ SurvivalBlog.com - Derivatives
  3. ^ "SurvivalBlog.com". SurvivalBlog.com. Retrieved 2010-02-21.
  4. ^ "SurvivalBlog.com". SurvivalBlog.com. Retrieved 2010-02-21.

comments on the suggestion

Please. Let's instead use the available reliable third party sources. This suggested edit is based entirely on improper synthesis of the primary document, overtly biased, written by a close associate of the author in plain conflict of interest, and that is outrageous and inappropriate. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Um... Salty... the suggested edit was written by me, not Trasel. It may include an improper synthesis, and it may be (unintentionally) biased... but I have no connection to Rawles. I have no problem with using available reliable third party sources... this was simply an initial suggestion on how to trim the section by cuting the boosterism and fluff. By no means is it a final version. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I admit to being on edge about this, sorry, thanks for the calming words. Still, I have objections to just cherry picking "successful" predictions from Rawles blog, this selective quoting as you have done (like Trasel before) amounts to improper synthesis of primary source material. I am OK with mirroring what we see in the third party coverage of the tendency of Rawles suggesting imminent catastrophy as a technique for marketing to the survivalists, because that is more neutral. I haven't seen third party sourcing that describes Rawles successful predictions like you suggest we put into the article, and without that, we would violate WP:NOR policy. The problem with your "has correctly seen" passage is that it synthesizes a fallacious implication that Rawles is prophetic. Contrast that with the CNN handling of this same issue of whether Rawles is or is not prophetic, where they write: "...groups of various descriptions have been predicting a breakdown of society since biblical times -- and very occasionally they've been right." Or, the Forbes article which handles it by not mention at all the prophetic aspect of Rawles and to instead focus on his penchant for giving advice that it is simply prudent to be cautious by being self-sufficient. Similar with the MSNBC article with doesn't mention at all Rawles predictions, but rather makes the conclusion that Rawles is following the market trend towards survivalism and is leveraging it into his successful business model with "record advertising revenue" as a result. By modeling the article after the third party sourcing which we see we can fix the prior problem that the article contained too much non-neutral boosterism drawn from his blog. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Salty: You wrote: "I am OK with mirroring what we see in the third party coverage of the tendency of Rawles suggesting imminent catastrophy [sic]". Excuse me Salty, but when and where has Rawles ever made an "imminent" prediction of catastrophe? Please cite us either a primary, secondary, or even tertiary source. If anything, Rawles tries to soft pedal any such suggestions. See: http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/02/letter_re_what_does_the_drop_i.html. and http://www.survivalblog.com/2008/10/odds_n_sods_934.html I only found one article where Rawles actually made a prediction using the word "Imminent": http://www.survivalblog.com/2006/01/still_more_about_silvers_immin.html -- and that was a MARKET prediction for silver, not any prediction of a catastrophe or disaster. (And by the way, silver futures and the "spot" market for silver were at around $11 per ounce at the time, but jumped to $19 per ounce, a few months later.) Yes, Rawles does make some predictions, and yes they can be documented. But he is not some fanatical wild-eyed fear-mongerer. Trasel (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I see in reliable secondary sourcing where Rawles is attributed with suggesting imminent catastrophe. First, both of his book titles make the blunt predictions "...Surviving the Coming Collapse" and "How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It" both are described in secondary sourcing and both suggest imminent catastrophe through a literal reading of the meaning of words. (You have argued above that the literal meaning of the words in the title should somehow be discounted through interpretation of the text in the book, an argument that seems contrived). The CNN article makes a very strong suggestion of coming catastrophe with the words "...the cities are going to become unglued." I accept that these three are suggestions of coming catastrophe. Though, it is a point of fact that the survivalist Derek is described in context of Rawles as an example survivalists and the CNN article uses the words "There's going to be absolute pandemonium when it does happen" so we have some pretty strong secondary sourcing about Rawles that involves near term predictions of catastrophe. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Salty, would you propose some wording that addresses your concerns and reflects how you think this should be done? Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, give me about a day think about it, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, Salty: How do you define "Imminent"? Do you use it interchangeably with "possible" or "eventual"? Your use of the English language mystifies me. It's pretty clear that you haven't read Rawles's books, yet you persist in writing a biography of a living person (BLP), in ignorance.

In citing the CNN article, you quoted it out of context. Here is a more complete quote, describing his novel, "Patriots":

  • "Although a work of fiction, Rawles believes the reality is not far off.
  • "I've come to the conclusion that the biggest lynchpin is the power grid. If it were to go down, either through economic collapse or a terrorist atrocity, then the cities are going to become unglued."

That's a speculative extrapolation on the part of a journalist, and an "If/then" statement spoken by Rawles, but clearly not a short term prediction of imminent collapse made by Rawles himself.

You also quote SOMEONE ELSE: "There's going to be absolute pandemonium when it does happen." Those words were spoken by someone named Derek (no last name given), NOT Rawles, yet you are tenuously trying to attach that to Rawles!!! You are dangerously engaged in synthesis. (WP:SYN). If you can't be more neutral, then I suggest you go find another article to go edit. Trasel (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You can relax. I am firmly committed to adhering to WP:BLP here! Also, it is disheartening that you appear not to grasp the central policy point required by WP:BLP which is that here we have a heightened duty to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. A core precept of WP:NOR is that we should be strictly using reliable secondary sources, and neither Rawles books nor Rawles blog qualify as valid secondary sources we can use here. Therefore WP:BLP dictates that we remove those primary sources from the article in favor of secondary sources.
Also, I am not hung up on the word "imminent". We can chose other words capturing the time frame for preparedness advocacy as seen in the secondary sources. The key thing is that Rawles message runs along the lines of there are risks of a "collapse" and we must "prepare", meaning prepare now or soon. Perhaps there is another word besides imminent that communicates that time frame.
And, no I am not associating the message of other survivalists to Rawles. I am only observing that reliable secondary sources do this. We have a duty here to make this article reflect the reliable secondary sources and CNN, Forbes and MSNBC are attaching the message of survivalists to Rawles. They each are reporting Mr. Rawles by framing him in context of the modern survivalist movement. Therefore, per policy, so should also do this in this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Salty: We can quote his blog, per the WP:BLP guidelines:

"Using the subject as a self-published source Further information: WP:SELFPUB Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."

Please don't cite writing guidelines that you have read through. Trasel (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite... WP:SELFPUB says we may quote his blog only if it passes certain criteria. I think there is a legitimate question as to whether the blog passes criteria #1 (unduely self-serving), and I think we definitely have a problem with criteria #5 (article is based primarily on such sources). Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires higher quality sources

This recent edit[1] points to the blog of the website thedailybeast.com. Considering that this is a biography of a living person, the policy standard here requires us to use a stricter scrutiny of WP:V policy. I question if a blog like this meets this higher scrutiny requirement. It would be safer to find a more mainstream published reliable source, is there one available? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse The Daily Beast with unreliable personal blogs. It is essentially an online daily news magazine, not a blog in the common sense of the word. Here is a description of it that I found online: "The Daily Beast was just launched on October 6th, 2008 and is published by Tina Brown, the former publisher of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker. The site is made up of both original content and links to contents from other sources." The interview with Rawles was an original article done by a Daily Beast staff writer. (It was not something aggregated from another news site. BTW, you can see other articles at The Daily Beast by the same staff writer). Trasel (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There was a time when we simply said "No blogs". However, that is no longer the case. We do recognize that there is a difference between Joe Blow's blogger page and blogs that are attempting to be a legitimate source of journalism. I would agree that the dailybeast appears to be the latter. The the key to determining its reliability is whether it has developed a reputation for good fact checking, journalistic integrety, etc. Since I do not know the dailybeast's reputation, I have asked about it at WP:RSN. Given that it is being used for a fairly minor point (that Rawles publishes with that comma in his name), I think we can probably accept it. Obviously, if my querry at RSN comes back with a negative reaction I would change my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Evisceration of Valid Second Party References

Another editor is systematically removing valid second party journalistic references from this article. First, he changed the text to mismatch the references [2] and [3], and then he removed the references, because they no longer matched the text![4] The end result was that a half dozen good references disappeared. (Some sort of twisted circular logic?) If you can't be constructive, then edit elsewhere. It bears mentioning that this same editor recently launched an AfD campaign on one of Rawles's books, ostensibly because there were insufficient second party sources. By iteratively eviscerating valid references, dreams can come true.Trasel (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to ignore your personal attacks, this is unnecessarily hostile, and poisons the editing environment. Also, you should not take it as a personal affront that other editors are trying to collaborate on this article, see WP:OWN. The sentence you mentioned was cited by eight references, when one could have been adequate. That sentence was a mess, and claimed that Rawles is considered to be an expert on survivalist, but none of the eight links and none actually said that.Citations must match what is being written, and loading up eight citations on one simple sentence is superfluous. Let's approach this more calmly, and start by reading the secondary sources and then write an article that matches what we read. It is backwards to write an article about what we want to say, and then do Google searches to "prove it" by loading in citations. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Read through the editing history again: One key point that must be clarified: I was not the one that changed it to read that he was an "expert on survivalism." I had used a much more neutral phrase there, and you you saw fit to change it. Then once you had changed it, the references no longer matched, and you zapped them. You are engaged in hostile editing practices. This should be brought to the attention of some disinterested Admins.. Trasel (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories

This biography is getting placed in an unusually large number of categories. However, except for things like birthdate, places of birth and residence, and alma mater, the categories should only reflect "defining" characteristics. Some of the categories which are getting added indicate issues on which Rawles has simply written an article or been quoted, not characteristics for which he's primarily known. Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio.
  1. ^ in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form

Also see WP:COPDEF

Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes:
  • standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality
  • the reason(s) for the person's notability, a.k.a. the characteristics the person is best known for.
For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right and/or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized.

These categories do not reflect defining characteristics of Rawles:

There are other categories which are doubtful as well, but these are particularly out-of-place. Now perhaps this biography is incomplete and Rawles is actually better known as an anti-vaccine activist than as a novelist. But until the article is corrected to reflect that, these categories do not belong. Rezin (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Freemen on the land

I see that Rawles writes his name as "James Wesley, Rawles." This is common among individuals who call themselves Freemen on the land. Does anyone know of any evidence to support the idea that he is? Ayzmo (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a member of any such group. You are reading an awful lot into the affectation of one comma in my name. I use it only to distinguish between my given name and my family name. It is no more outlandish than the use of a hyphenated name. James Wesley, Rawles (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on James Wesley Rawles. 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) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be no editorial reason to use a link to a German language newspaper to provide reference[5] to a sentence claiming something as simple as the fact that Rawles is known as the author of the Patriots book. Why use a German language link for something so simple? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about this myself. While wikipedia accepts non-english language sources, we do prefer english language ones if they are available. I would think we could find an English language source for this. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I was merely trying to retain a useful reference to Rawles's work, that Salty had zapped elsewhere. (See the accompanying discussion.) It is ironic that the same editor who claims that there are insufficient second party sources about Rawles's writings is also the same one that is so busy at zapping references at every available opportunity. Two weeks ago, this article had more than 70 references. Trasel (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Trasel should explain this himself, but when he explained earlier his edit summary implied, (I think), that he is trying to POV push the notability of the author by inference because this ref is found in "Germany's largest-circulating newspaper.". In my opinion, for Trasel to do this type of inference amounts to improper synthesis and POV push. Trasel has self declared his advocacy to advance conservative politics in Wikipedia. Indeed, I see this as a pattern of editor behavior, seeking to load in excessively redundant and tenuous referencing to the articles that he edits to create an appearance to casual readers that the his favorite conservative issue articles are well sourced. But when you actually check the references you see that many or most are chafe: not pertinent, non-reliable, not independent and WP:SYN. This is a form POV pushing, that Trasel himself has compared to "greener pastures (at) Conservapedia". SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't put words int my mouth, Salty. I mentioned my plans on RETIRING from WP because I want to find a more neutral editing environment. Wikiipedia has a preponderantly liberal bias that has been well documented by folks like David Gerrold. Oh but don't look for it on his Talk page. That discussion was swept under the rug, by some Teflon-coated editor. Nothing embarrassing sticks in Wikipedia. Trasel (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of putting words in your mouth, I invited you to explain, but you didn't. While, just below you accuse me of being politically inspired, putting words in my mouth. You describe several prior AfD "campaigns" as unsuccessful politically inspired, but neglect to mention your repeated improper politically skewed canvassing of conservative blogs during those AfD discussions. And, it is interesting that you consider that Conservapedia has a more neutral editing environment than Wikipedia, really? I guess it is a matter of perspective. Wikipedia is designed to allow editors with different points of view to edit collaboratively though adherence of a number of policies and codes of conduct which I encourage you to review because they offer a solution to this complaint our yours. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I get the impression that you use the word "neutral" in the same way that Congress uses "Bi-partisan" (meaning "you agree to do it my way"). Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No I use the word "neutral" to mean neutral. I have spent nearly four years attempting to to CREATE new content at Wikipedia. Several of the articles that I started have been targets of unsuccessful, politically-inspired AfD campaigns. Those alone have wasted dozens of hours of my time. I can now say that I'm tired of wasting my time here. I have reached my limit. I'm retiring, TODAY. You and your cabal can go celebrate, Salty. You've driven off another editor, with your tendentious editing and wiki-lawyering. Adios!!!


R E T I R E D


This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.Trasel (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is your right to leave if you wish to. No one can force anyone to edit. Hope you find an atmosphere more to your liking elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Trasel (a.k.a. User:TheAmericanRedoubt) has tried to link spam both Wikipedia and Consevapedia on behalf of Mr. Rawles. Hlevy2 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Wesley_Rawles/Archive_2&oldid=1230607813"