This is an archive of past discussions about Roger Stone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I tried to clean it up. There are no facts on this guy except from the wacko-left hate-america-first Bush-is-hitler crowd. I mean, none of these allegations are substiantiated, and the the so-called sources are political rags and websites. But apparently he is some kind of villain to these guys. One website went as far as to make it sound like he was fresh from Nazi training camp with his blonde hair and blue eyes. Jgardner 21:31, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
I'm tempted to put something like the following in this article:
The far-left crazy wackos who see Karl Rove behind every liberal failing consider Roger Stone a central figure in all his dealings. Unable to produce any evidence, we are left to believe that Roger Stone, at least in their eyes, is more fiction that reality.
in light of this display of wanton ignorance, all of Jgardner's contributions should be systematically deleted as suspect.
Actually, there are plenty of facts. Fact: Roger Stone was kicked off the Dole team during his presidential bid for placing an advert in a DC swinger's magazine. Fact: Stone and Trump were forced to withdraw adverts that portrayed Indians in New York State in a highly racist light. --Poorpaddy17:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
There is clearly an overwhelming amount of factual, historical evidence which places this scumbag right in the Roy Cohn - Lee Atwater - Karl Rove gallery of amoral, sleaze-peddling right-wing political operatives -- no matter how shrill the occasional dark-souled and prevaricating apologist for these horrible excuses for human beings (such as c. b. Anne Coulter) shriek.
However, every assertion must have solid documentation, so put the gloves on and dig around in the toilet that is modern GOP political history, and please bag those footnotes. --forestflyer (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous revisions, NPOV tags
I'm not sure 63.202.172.90's suggestion to ignore Jgardner's edits is warranted. This article is not neutral. The criticism of Stone should note the source of the criticism, shouldn't it? Is citing Lyndon LaRouche publications a mainstream and neutral source of fact? The same article cited that is critical of Stone also alleges that he was "coordinating Cuban mobs" during the 2000 Florida Recount. Is there evidence for that? Kaisershatner14:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
'Stone was bitten by the political bug early. In first grade, he supported John F. Kennedy, because he was Catholic, like Stone, and "he had better hair than Nixon." During a mock election at school, Stone told classmates that if Nixon won, he'd make kids go to school on Saturdays. "Kennedy swept the election," he says proudly, "because of disinformation I spread about Nixon. It was kind of a first experience." ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.248.81 (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
"The more people go to the site, the more people buy the T-shirts," Stone explains.... "The more people buy the T-shirts, the more people wear the T-shirts. The more people wear the T-shirts, the more people are educated. Consequently, our mission has been achieved." Though neither the word itself nor even the acronym is ever mentioned, "it's one-word education. That's our mission. No issues. No policy groups. No position papers. This is a simple committee with an unfortunate acronym...."
I've been meaning to add it. I'll get to it. Worth noting. Thanks for the links. Hey, anyone feel free to add it in before I get to it. Noroton (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ref cleanup and whatnot
I've cleaned up some refs and removed some unreferenced or poorly referenced content. I've also written to Mr Stone to ask for a free image that can be used in this article. I had removed the external links as unnecessary (particularly the Village Voice article) but as Gamaliel reverted that I just elaborated on the description of his website. Avruch T 19:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No mention in the article of Terry McAuliff's allegations that Roger Stone was behind the planting of the forged Killian memos on Dan Rather. This is described in the wikipedia article on Killian memos, but not here. [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.88.187 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the relevance is of the personal style section. It seems like he is known for his professional activities, not his personal spending and dressing habits. Are there other BLPs that include this type of trivia? I think that although its been noted in passing in some articles, it is nonetheless a not-really-important aspect of his life that probably does not need to be included in this article. Avruch T 21:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I added back the "personal style" section because this aspect of his character has been pretty widely noted. I've just added citations from Newsday, The New York Observer and The New York Times which have noted his flamboyance (in addition to what we have from The Weekly Standard), and both the Times and The Weekly Standard give some details. I strongly suspect that there isn't a profile of him in the media that doesn't mention this and go into details. It extends both into his clothing, his public persona and other aspects of his personal life, as noted in that section. It seems to me the article would be really lacking an important aspect of this subject if we didn't include it. Noroton (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above nonwithstanding, why is this section even in here? Is wikipedia now National Enquirer? Who cares about how he dresses. If this was about a woman political heavy, it would be ripped out… and should be here. --71.47.172.126 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I'm unfamiliar with other articles that include such a section. I think it's removal is appropriate unless its' addition can be justified by referring to other articles that include such material. Jtpaladin (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
No joke, and in the last few weeks I have seen and heard mention of the tattoo in numerous outlets. So, let us see where this goes. I think Mr. Stone wanted to make a statement and the inclusion in article is totally appropriate. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This article needs serious reform
This article has obviously been captured by Stone and his operatives (it talks bout his good looks an his sartorial elegance but not the numerous lies he had either admitted to haivng told or had exposed). Some editor here needs to reclaim it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.67.35 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Personal income
The subject is described as having a lavish lifestyle but nothing is offered in the way of explaining how he actually earns his money or how much he is worth. Orthotox (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
This plays into a larger conversation, but I don't think that favoring "falsehood" over "lie" because "lie" has connotations about intent, or wiki isn't comfortable with using "lie" because "reliable sources generally don't use the term" makes me uneasy. I think that if something is demonstrably false, it is a lie, regardless of intent. I obviously can't argue about connotations.
Can we find a middle-ground compromise word that is stronger than "falsehood" but not as [whatever] as "lie"?
Should the lede section include the recently added material about being accused of promoting "false information and conspiracy theories" or is this undue weight or recentism? --Malerooster (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It's clearly not undue or recentistic given that's made a career out of this. He's written a book accusing LBJ of being behind the JFK assassination. He's written another book advancing wild theories about Watergate. He's claimed, ludicrously, that George H. W. Bush and his family were behind the John Hinckley Jr. assassination attempt. He's written a book about the Clintons that was filled with "spurious accusations" that were "so inflammatory and insubstantially documented that it's impossible to report it with any sort of credulity," see here). This 1986 article in the Washington Post has Stone admitting that he was the catalyst for a fake story about a political opponent. He's "a self-described political hit man." The Guardian describes him as "a noted conspiracy theorist" (see here). One could go on and on. Neutralitytalk18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think this plays into the discussion between "lie" and "falsehood" I'm interested in exploring. If Wiki isn't willing to put the word "lie" on the page of someone who has lied for decades, then what word is usable? Liberte et paix (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roger Stone. 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.
"Stone has promoted a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories."
User:Snooganssnoogans made this edit which added the claim "Stone has promoted a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories" to the article.
First, the single source is an opinion piece and shouldn't be used for factual claims in Wikipedia's voice.
Second, the article doesn't say anything about "a number of falsehoods". It says that one claim by Stone is a "conspiracy theory".
Third, claiming somebody spreads falsehoods or conspiracy theories requires multiple high quality reliable sources per WP:REDFLAG and if the analysis is accurate, you will have no problem finding such sources.
Yes, and did you actually read any of them? A Washington Post opinion column, another Washington Post opinion column, a Washington Post blog post, a Washington post STYLE column, and a couple of New York Times articles that don't make this sensational claim.
I agree, it should be removed unless reliable sources are used, not tabloids or references added only to add a veneer of authenticity (when they in fact do not say what is actually claimed).75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The intro is also using weasel words. Maybe a neutral editor can find a way to re-instate the view that many opinion writers for left-leaning newspapers don't like or believe him.75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
here is an idea that might satisfy everyone, in the section which has the "media portrays" in the lede, simply add "conspiracy theorist" and you can add all of those opinion pieces for references, then we will have 13 references! wow!75.73.150.255 (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue of whether someone is a "conspiracy theorist" or not has been discussed in many articles. I think the statement that he promotes conspiracy theories is more neutral. Similarly, changing the lede to state that he has simply been portrayed as a conspiracy theorist is not neutral. When someone writes a book stating that JFK was murdered by LBJ, that's a promotion of a conspiracy theory. -Location (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roger Stone. 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.
I would just like to add, that I am a conservative republican and yet everything about Roger Stone that has been discussed here - including the Specter/Kerry signs, the mob during the Florida recount, and more were known to me through Republican party circles prior to reading this article or looking at other websites. From what I've heard, this guy is bad news all around.
This page is terribly biased and frankly, unless some of these allegations can be backed up with evidence, they should be removed.
There is plenty of documentation out there on Roger.
See Evans & Novak April 27, 1977 (a story that I "planted") detailing his escapades
See Watergate Hearings 1973 documenting his exploits as "Michael McMinoway" Roger's
code name at CREEP: Sedan Chair II.
He flunked out of George Washington Uinversity and never received a degree.
A known racist, at GWU he used to refer to Blacks as "jungle bunnies" and "spear chuckers".
Interestingly, in the College Republicans he was a sworn enemy of Karl Rove who was CR head
at that time. He along with Terry Dolan (died of AIDS in 1980, a closest gay who attacked other gays) attempted to takeover the CRs but were outsmarted and
outmanuervered by Karl. (Karl was a "liberal", "communist" or worse in their eyes)
Stone was placed in the National YR Chairman slot by Charlie Black, Richard Viguerie and Peter McPherson. JulianG3
The putdowns of Roger here ignore his masterpiece of political strategy in 2017 of presenting Donald as an 'anti politician politician' and also directing the American publics attention away from the GOP label on Donald. What Roger sold America was a typical right wing Republican dressed up as an independent Libertarian Nationalist. That was pure genius. Johnwrd (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Under the heading "Personal style and habits", the third paragraph begins "In 1999, Stone credited his preternatural looks to 'decades of following a regimen of Chinese herbs...'" What is meant by "preternatural" here? That word is an adjective usually paired with "...youthful". In this context, it's essentially meaningless, since it simply means "exceptional" or "out of the ordinary". I submit that the phrase should either be completed and disambiguated (and appropriately sourced) or removed. Bricology (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Roger Stone has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Stone, the "keeper of the Nixon flame",[1] was an adviser to the former president in his post-presidential years, serving as "Nixon's man in Washington".[2] Stone was a protégé of former Connecticut Governor John Davis Lodge, who introduced the young Stone to then former Vice President Nixon in 1967.[3]
It has reached the point where the Nixon Foundation has distanced itself from Stone and I would like this to be known.
Stone, the "keeper of the Nixon flame",[4] was an adviser to the former president in his post-presidential years, serving as "Nixon's man in Washington".[5] Stone was a protégé of former Connecticut Governor John Davis Lodge, who introduced the young Stone to then former Vice President Nixon in 1967.[6] After Stone was charged, however, the Nixon Foundation released a statement distancing Stone's ties to Nixon.[7][8][9]2601:447:4101:5780:5C40:662B:A18A:3BD8 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Bringing someone to a swinger's club is not encyclopedic, so you would need to get consensus for including such material.- MrX 🖋 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be a theme in a lot of articles. The WIKI citation is to a NYT article by Maggie Halderman that includes the word "trickster" twice. Neither use of the word cites Stone describing himself as a "trickster". Halderman describes Stone as "self described dirty trickster" and that description is used in several subsequent articles. However, Halderman never cites Stone's usage - in his book maybe?
I can find no source of Stone as a self described trickster save for the NYT. It makes sense that he would call himself that and its likely in one of his books but a SOURCE would be nice.
Until then sentence one in paragraph three should read "described by Maggie Halderman as a 'self-described' trickster"
Let me tell you what Mueller himself would add: "This is an ongoing investigation, these charges are only accusations, and the suspect is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty."
Even the prosecuting authority acknowledges the unproven nature of these and all claims prior to trial. In Wikipedia world, that suggests that the details are unhelpfully specific. All unproven charges deserve some circumspection in a BLP, and subjects with "this lead section may be too long" definitely deserve brevity in such matters. MrX can't defend these distracting specifics he reverted back to. This is his third reversion of my edits. The prior two times, he left the article in a less defensible position. Unless MrX has an encyclopedic mastery of felony law and studies felony counts like many study baseball RBIs, I wager he just screws up the lead paragraphs over and over again with some obsessive committment to trivia and against surfacing of known denials by subjects. That's what I get so far with MrX. It makes me sad because it's hyperspecific in ways even our legal system's Rules of Professional Conduct seem to strongly advise against. Tell us why it's important, MrX, that the lead paragraphs specify 5 counts rather than just counts. Please tell us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
We don't have to explicitly say 7 indictments, but listing them is beneficial. These are very serious federal charges, and part of historically significant investigation. The rest of your meandering comments are really not relevant to improving the article.- MrX 🖋 22:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
1) you reverted clearer statements of the charges. I've agreed 5 counts is notable. The rest is jargon you fetishize because a prosecutor did it. Zero meaning lost but an obsession with jargon lives strong in your abusive reverts. Nor is it meandering to specify how RPC 3.6 and 3.8f treat charges; the Code is straight-up Wikipedia-ready for every BLP charged with a crime. Why would lawyers have a more deferential policy to subjects than BLP does? I'll see you on cleanup day when convictions are/ aren't secured and the wordy jargon you both prefer will be even less appropriate in a BLP lede. It's death by trivial minutiae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 16:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
This non-existent book should not be listed in the article:
Woodward and Bernstein: The Godfathers of Fake News (2019) [3]
On September 10, 2018 Stone said "Well, with all due respect, bob Woodward has a longtime credibility problem. My own book, which I've co-written with Tyler Nixon, Woodward and Bernstein, the godfathers of fake news, will be available on Amazon tomorrow."[4] There is no evidence that the book ever existed, or ever will. It may be a complete fabrications. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V apply.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It may be fabrication but according to a WaPo article from this week: Stone touted his website and his next book “Woodward and Bernstein: The Godfathers of Fake News”. I checked and this passes WP:V since it is sourced to a reliable source (Washington Post) and I don't see any issues with WP:CRYSTAL. If you disagree please point out where I am wrong. Otherwise the info on this forthcoming book should be included in Books and other writings section of the article. Cafadar (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If he publishes the book, we can add it then. We are not here to promote his imaginary book based on his flimsy claims. He already lied once about it. Feel free to start an RfC is you like.- MrX 🖋 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
the "mendacious windbag" quote seems unencyclopedic
the other criticisms in that sentence seem reasonable as a criticism of a political insider, but "mendacious windbag" is something petty that might be said about anybody who has enemies 98.13.244.125 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, he's just been indicted for lying so the "mendacious" part doesn't seem out of place. "Windbag" is a bit sensationalistic though. I'm not sure why such descriptors belong in the lead.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You are sure, though, that exact numbers of yet-proven criminal charges must be enumerated in the lead. And you won't cover us when accusations appear without denials.
It's not encyclopedic and neither is the claim that he's promoted a number of falsehoods. Which could also be said about anybody with enemies. Both seem like editorial bias and neither belong in the lead or anywhere in a BLP for that matter 74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The reported "nicknames within the Republican party" ("The Godfather" and "The Prince of Darkness") do not belong in the Infobox, despite the claim that "The latter is a name Stone himself likes to repeat, as the source states, because these are not his common or universal nicknames. (And, if he does like calling himself "The Prince of Darkness," then adding it is PR advertising for the subject.) Reversing the entries as not encyclopedic or warranted. Mention within the body of the article might be appropriate.Lindenfall (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Stone spoke with Guccifer 2.0, and Guccifer 2.0 did collaborate with Wikileaks. Stone said he only congratulated Guccifer 2.0 for their hack. I don't know if Guccifer 2.0 told Stone anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
This not about anything Stone said. According to the ref (link above), "Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone's communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1, which is WikiLeaks. Previously, the prosecutors had only outlined how Stone attempted to get in touch with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange through intermediaries." Text of the page needs to be modified accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
"Stone spoke with Guccifer 2.0, and Guccifer 2.0 did collaborate with Wikileaks" This is unsubstantiated nonsense. All parties allegedly involved have denied these claims repeatedly. No supporting evidence has come forth. Why is this being repeated as fact? 8675309 (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's incredibly relevant that the judge in the trial be added. Her name is Judge Amy Berman Jackson. It's of extra import (as a foreigner with no dog in this race) given that she is a political activist judge, and a very open never-Trump-er so the pending outcome of the case may be pre-ordained. --121.210.33.50 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, they should bundled, or if the material is already cited int he body of the article, they can be excluded or trimmed to just a few cites.- MrX 🖋 12:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Fixed - 
Thank you.- MrX 🖋 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Done, with slight modification. 
Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Bringing someone to a swinger's club is not encyclopedic, so you would need to get consensus for including such material.- MrX 🖋 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
