Joel Skousen — pioneer in the preparedness movement, author and publisher of the World Affairs Brief — joins us to discuss strategic relocation. Strategic Relocation: Where should you live? - Joel Skousen #98. July 6, 2016. The High Security Shelter - How to Implement a Multi-Purpose Safe Room in the Home. By Joel Skousen.

1. The Secure Home Skousen Pdf Files Free
2. The Secure Home Skousen Pdf Files Download
3. The Secure Home Joel Skousen

• 8Citations for connection to JBS and Conspiracist Views

Initial comment

Is there anyone that knows enough about the National Center for Constitutional Studies to make a page about it?Isaac Crumm 07:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy

The line that his 'ideas are similar to Joseph McCarthy's' is sort of silly, because firstly, they largely have two separate ideologies; Skousen is an academic, McCarthy a politician. Whether they both had anti-Communist sentiments in the 1950s and 60's, well, there's a long line of anti-Communists in American politics at that time. I'll leave it unless someone seconds the motion to remove it. Mike Murray 14:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to McCarthy, for the reasons cited by editor Michael brazell/Mike Murray. I've tried to do a general clean-up of the article. Also, I think the reference to Skousen's being president of the student body in college is a bit unencyclopedic and maybe a little silly at least in the context of this article -- but I've left it in for now, subject to comments by other editors. Yours, Famspear 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Teaching at BYU does not make you an academic. Cleon held no PhD. Stop talking nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.135.170 (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Cleon had a JD. He taught at a major American university, as, I might add, did President Obama, and yeah, both were academics, whether you like them or not. So, pal (99.153.135.170|99.153.135.170), you are the one talking utter nonsense. Lawman15 (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Cleon Skousen is clearly notable. The notability tag on the article was added with no accompanying justification on the talk page. It should be removed. --TrustTruth (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)I agree completely. It is not whether we like his politics or not. Lawman15 (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable? But Not As An Expert on Communism!

I am the first person to receive Skousen's FBI personnel file. He deliberately misrepresented his background. His experience while in the FBI was primarily administrative matters -- NOT investigative matters -- and he certainly was NOT (as he claimed) a 'top aide' to J. Edgar Hoover.Details are at: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That sure sounds like Original Research, Ernie. 71.219.242.28 (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and self published, which is a violation of WP:EL. Bytebear (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why, precisely, is 'original research' verboten? In my Skousen report I do not provide my 'interpretation' or 'personal opinions'. Instead, I quote extensively from documents in his FBI Personnel File and I let those comments speak for themselves.

More importantly, does Wikipedia want FACTUAL data on its webpages? As I pointed out on this page in another section, there are NUMEROUS factual errors in your Skousen article. Why did you allow someone to post those FALSEHOODS? How do you suppose that I recognized those factual errors? It is because I had documents (many from Skousen's FBI file) that provided the factual basis to correct Wikipedia errors. If you want Wikipedia to be respected, you had better reconsider your silly 'original research' rule. I constantly get emails from people quoting from articles in Wikipedia and those Wikipedia articles are filled with falsehoods. Shame on you for defending that practice! More info: ernie1241@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.16.107 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, ernie1241. Wikipedia has rules against people using what it calls 'original research.' I'm afraid, under most circumstances, a person can't put their own work on a website and then cite it on wikipedia. However, if you could get your work published in a Reliable Sources, like a newspaper or magazine with an editor, an academic journal, etc., then you might be able to use it. Something to think about, perhaps? --Hardindr (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardindr: Numerous scholars have cited my reports or documents mentioned in my reports in their books and articles on various subjects. For example, one of our nation's foremost authorities on the FBI's COINTELPRO program against white hate groups visited me last summer for several days and he poured over dozens of my FBI files and he then wrote an articles published in academic journals in which he cited documents and files he discovered in my collection. In addition, numerous freelance journalists have also cited documents which I reference in my reports. For example, just this week, Salon.com published an article which cited my research and as a consequence of that article, over 350 people (at last count) have clicked on the link in the article to my report on Cleon Skousen. So I am not sure what you consider 'published' in the Age of Internet. I repeat what I wrote previously. NUMEROUS articles in Wikipedia contain outright FALSEHOODS. If Wikipedia is HOSTILE to corrections by persons who have extensive factual knowledge about the subject matters discussed in Wiki articles -- you might as well shut this website down. More details: ernie1241@aol.com

Hi Ernie1241. Just wanted to chime in to say that ... while you have a legitimate criticism of the Wikipedia rules, and I really mean that, as I myself have faced a similar problem, they remain the rules. Couldn't you write an article for a newspaper on this? I mean, this guy is still selling a LOT of books and remains influential, and I am sure that a lot of people would be interested. By the way, I had read a lot and heard a lot about the Hoover days, and it surprised me to hear that Cleon purported 'worked closely with' Hoover. That is rather 'puffing' as they say, at best, and stretching the truth at least. Lawman15 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawman - why would writing a newspaper article be more credible than writing a detailed 26-page report which includes (a) dozens of quotations from FBI documents with detailed bibliographic footnotes, (b) scanned copies of actual FBI serials inserted into the text to further verify the accuracy of the quotations I used from FBI officials? Wikipedia is becoming a worthless source of information. If I had a dollar for every time somebody referred me to a Wikipedia article containing materially important errors and outright falsehoods but, which nevertheless, are used as 'proof' of whatever contention someone wanted to make -- I would be very wealthy. Ernie1241 (talk)ernie1241

Plagiarism

The sub section 'World View' is word for word the same as the 'World View' sub section on http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Cleon_Skousen. I have a feeling that the latter came first. I highly suggest this be fixed or explained or I will make sure it gets deleted. Guldenat (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for noting your concern; copyright is a high priority on Wikipedia, so we need to keep an eye out for it. However, in this case, we should be in the clear. Absoluteastronomy.com is a frequent Wikipedia mirror, and if you look at that specific link you will see that it says, 'The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.' --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I. Am. Retarded. Guldenat (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're far from the first Wikipedian to mistake a wikimirror. :) I've done it myself. --Moonriddengirl^(talk) 02:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Factual Errors in Skousen Article

Regretably, there are numerous factual errors in the Wikipedia article on W. Cleon Skousen. For example:

1. Mr. Skousen was employed by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) from 7/2/35 to 10/23/35 (not, as the article claims, from June 1935)

2. He entered on duty with the FBI on October 24, 1935 (not, as the article claims, 'the following year' after leaving AAA which would be 1936)

3. He was employed at Brigham Young University from 10/51 to 6/56 -- (not, as the article claims, until 1955)

4. He was Police Chief in Salt Lake City until March 1960 when he was fired by Mayor J. Bracken Lee (not until 1965 as the article claims)

5. Mr. Skousen's publication, 'The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society' was not a 'book' as the article claims, but, instead, a 12 page pamphlet.

6. Mr. Skousen was not simply 'admired' by John Birch Society members -- he was employed by the JBS as a speaker under the auspices of their American Opinion Speakers Bureau

A 25-page report on Skousen which is based, primarily, upon first-time-released FBI files and documents may be seen at: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen

Ernie1241 (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ernie1241

More info: ernie1241@aol.com

Feel free to make corrections. Just make sure everything is cited to a reliable source. COGDEN 16:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

conspiracy theory

Some claim he was a conspiracy theorist, using the New World Order (conspiracy theory) as evidence, but he did not rally against this imagined organization, but rather against the New world order, described as an International relations theory. Stop misrepresenting the facts. Bytebear (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I find your assertion above absurd. The NWO conspiracy theory is that, a conspiracy theory. Skousen promoted this view. I have put in the proper cites to support this. I plan on getting more. Please stop removing properly cited material from this article. --Hardindr (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The material you added is not supported by the citations and is undue weight and whatelse? Anyways, --Tom(talk) 00:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, how do you know that the citations I provided do not support how I edited the article? Why are they undue weight? Are you familiar with Skousen's views? Both the people I cited are experts on the right in America. The vast majority of historians/social scientists regard Skousen (if they have heard of him at all) as a conspiracist. --Hardindr (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the first two citations, not the 3rd. Undue weight is presenting the views of 2 authors as undisputed fact and no, never heard of Skousen before and zero interest in him, would rather guzzle beer and watch football or cage fighting. --Tom(talk) 13:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am at work until July 6th, and then away from my computer on vacation until July 14th. However, I will be back. --Hardindr (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am back from vacation, but more issues have come up in the real world. I will respond next week, no latter than July 23. My apologies for the delay. --Hardindr (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have provided some citations below that I think are valid for this article. --Hardindr (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations for connection to JBS and Conspiracist Views

I went to my local academic library and found the following citations which I think support my contention that Cleon Skousen is primarily known as a John Birch Society supporter and a conspiracist.

Conspiracism (scholarly books)

• Aho, J.A. 1990. The Politics of Righteousness: Idaho Christian Patriotism. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. pp 125-7, n284, 255-259, n295-6.

(Aho discusses the relationship between the John Birch Society, the LDS Church, and Skousen. Endnotes have been deleted.)

Two of the most influential titles on this theme [of conspiracism] have been Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Capitalist and Stanford-educated Gary Allen’s None Dare Call It Conspiracy, which [Mormon leader Ezra Taft] Benson once said he wished “every citizen of every country in the free world… might read.” While both books claim to be reviews of Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley’s history of modern civilization, Tragedy and Hope, they are in fact running commentaries on less than 100 pages of of Quigley’s 1300-plus-page compendium, those with passages buttressing Allen and Skousen’s belief that a ruthless, anti-Christian, dictatorial authority is being erected insidiously over the world.

Neither author believes the Russians or Chinese could have engineered their own revolutions. Such a straightforward scenario does not fit the portrait of bonafide Master Mahan [a demonic descent of Cain in Mormon theology] and his wily band. On the contrary, the directors of the Communist conspiracy flourish in our own midst. Or as Allen quips, “the U.S.S.R. was made in the U.S.A.” And this must be a cabal compromising men one would lest suspect of Communist sympathies, magnates of capitalism themselves. The one-world conspiracy “is being plotted, promoted and implemented by the leaders of free nations and the super-rich of those nations whose influence would seem to make them the foremost beneficiaries of our free-enterprise, property-oriented… society.” Skousen expresses bafflement over this “startling… virtually inconceivable” discovery.

Quigley agrees that capitalist kingpins have financed left-wing movements but claims that their motive is not to further left-wing causes as such, but to ingratiate themselves with future leaders in order to secure and possibly expand their profit-making opportunities. Skousen ignores the apparent incongruity that these same financiers bankrolled fascist revolutionaries in the 1920s and 1930s. Allen handles it by simply grouping both left- and right-wing movements under the rubric of “total government.” As the goal of international bankers, he says, is to establish total government, Communism and Nazism serve this purpose equally well.

Pp 124-125

(In an appendix entitled, “The John Birch Society and the Jewish Question,” Aho mostly discusses the conspiracy theory of Gary Allen, but also makes mention of Skousen’s views as being the same. Endnotes have been deleted.)

Allen delineates in detail an interlocking network uniting the Warburgs with the Loebs, the Kuhns, and the Schiffs, all of these with the Rothschilds of Franfurt, Germany, and this group with Adolph Ochs, Bernard Baruch, and Henry Morgenthau. In short, despite protest to the contrary, virtually every name mentioned in his banking history – Lehman, Lazard, Goldman, Erlanger, and Sachs are others - is a person of European Jewish heritage or a “hand dog” of these same interests in America. What makes this notable and disturbing is that Congressional investigations of banking in 1912 and 1933 found that of the five banks actually controlling money and credit in this country at the time only one - Kuhn, Loeb & Co. – can definitely be said to be “Jewish.” J.P. Morgan and its affiliate, Drexel & Co., and the Rockefeller-owned First National City Bank are adjudged the most dominant institutions. All the others mentioned in the investigations are decidedly Anglo-Saxon: Lee, Higginson & Co., Kidder, Peabody & Co., and George Baker’s First National City Bank of New York.

Certainly the tone of Allen’s (and of Cleon Skousen’s) argument does not begin to approach the hostile fervency of a Jack Mohr or a Jarah Crawfard, two major Identity conspiratorialists. By all appearances neither Allen nor Skousen hate a particular people merely because they are Jewish. Rather, their vituperation is directed to the magnates of international finance, many of whom, they claim, happen to be Jewish. All the same, while their dislikes do five the impression of being empirically grounded instead of being rooted in prejudgement, hostile beliefs about Jews, regardless of their source, can be definitely translated into hostile feelings, and these into discriminatory actions.

Pg 255-6

• Berlet, C. & Lyons, M. 2000. Rightwing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press, pp96, n381.

(Berlet and Lyons discuss the conspiracy theory of elites planning for global domination in the context of right-wing populism. Endnotes deleted)

Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, published in 1966, saw U.S. history after the Civil War as shaped by a power struggle between international finance capitalism and industrial capitalism. Specifically, Quigley saw British influence, especially Rhodes scholarships, as crucial to understanding the role foundations and politicians play in shaping U.S. policy. Two authors affiliated with the John Birch Society adapted and extended Quigley’s work: W. Cleon Skousen self-published The Naked Capitalist, while Gary Allen wrote several books, including None Dare Call It Conspiracy (published in 1971), which sold over 5 million copies. According to Mintz, both Skousen and Allen “wedded Tragedy and Hope to the tradition of rightist populism of the interwar period and the radical rightist conpsiracist literature of the 1950s and 1960s, but avoided the familiar rightist sources as much as possible.

Pp 196

• Berlet, C. 2009. Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating. Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates. pp 52, n66.

(In a section on Secret Elite conspiracy theories, Berlet describes Skousen’s worldview. Endnotes deleted)

The 1970s saw the publication of numerous books still circulated among right-wing populist conspiracy theorists. W. Cleon Skousen, in The Naked Capitalist, wrote a treatise on Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, which portrayed it as a proof of the conspiracy of internationalist Angophile liberal elites.

Pp 52

• Goldberg, R. A. 2000. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Mordern America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp 49, n266.

(In a section on the John Birch Society, Goldberg describes how other conspiracy theorists built their ideas on Robert Welch, the JBS’ founder, ideas. Endnotes deleted.)

The Utah conservative Cleon Skousen discovered “Force X” or the “control center,” and exposed London bankers and Wall Street financiers as the “master planners” for “a global, socialist, dictatorial-oriented society.”

pp 49

• Neiwert, D. A. 2000. In God’s Country: The Patriot Movement and The Pacific Northwest. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press, pp 30.

(Neiwert describes Skousen’s views in his description of activists for the Christian patriot movement in the West US in the 1990s.)

Richard Mach, an Arizona sheriff who gained notoriety for refusing to enforce the Brady gun-control law in his county. Mack is a disciple of W. Cleon Skousen, a Mormon conspiracy theorist and John Birch Society Pillar. Mack travels the nation giving seminars on how to resist the New World Order and its gun-control measures, and he recommends militias as an effective step.

Pp 30

• Stoll, M. 1998. Crusaders Against Communism, Witnesses for Peace: Religion in the West and the Cold War. In K.J. Fernlund (Ed.) The Cold War West, 1945-1989. pp 119-137. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. pp 132.

(Stoll describes Skousen’s views in a chapter on religion in the US West during the Cold War.)

Shock over Mormon rejection of the MX missile was all the greater because the church had unofficially long been solidly in the Republican camp. Utah right-wing groups were very influential in state Republican politics. The most successful of these groups was the Freeman Institute, founded by Mormon and former FBI agent W. Cleon Skousen. Skousen feared a conspiracy of the super-rich to take over the world using socialism and Communism revolution and saw American history as fulfillment of Mormon millennial prophecy.

Pp 132

Conspiracism (magazine and news paper articles)

• Baldwin, Chuck. (2009 Jan 30). More On The New World Order. JBS.org [1] Accessed: (2009 July 23)

Hard-right political activist describes Skousen's views on the Communist infiltration have come to pass within the 'New World Order' conspiracy theory

• Gottlieb, B. & Wiley, P. (1987, May 20). Ironic Eclipse of the Right in Utah. Wall Street Journal. pp 1.

(In a newspaper article about the fortunes of the right-wing in Republican politics in Utah, Gottlieb and Wiley describe Skousen.)

Mr. Skousen once wrote a book, 'The Naked Capitalist,' about 'The World's Secret Power Structure,' in which he claimed that 'the world hierarchy of the dynastic super-rich is out to take over the entire planet, doing it with socialistic legislation where possible, but having no reluctance to use Communist revolution where necessary.' Meanwhile, according to a Skousen pamphlet, this country is beset by 'Mental Health Research and Training,' 'Neighborhood Social Centers' and 'Sewage Disposal Facility Grants.'

• Hemingway, M.T. (2007, August 6). Romney’s Radical Roots. National Review Online [2]. Accessed: (2009 July 23).

(Conservative writer Hemingway, in an article about Mitt Romney, describes Skousen)

As police chief of Salt Lake City, Skousen was such a law-and-order man he lost his job in 1960 after raiding a friendly card game that happened to include the mayor. On his way out the door, the mayor called Skousen “an incipient Hitler” and said that Skousen “ran the police department in exactly the same manner as the Communists in Russia operate their government.”

Which was kind of an ironic comment, considering that two years earlier Skousen had written a book entitled The Naked Communist, which even for 1958 is so irrational in its paranoia that it would have made Whittaker Chambers blush. According to Skousen, The Manchurian Candidate was a documentary — he earnestly believed Communists sought to create “a regimented breed of Pavlovian men whose minds could be triggered into immediate action by signals from their masters.”

Skousen was active with the John Birch Society throughout the 1960s, even going so far as to write another book titled The Communist Attack on the John Birch Society, accusing those that criticized Birchers as promoting Communism. Lest anyone forget, notable critics of the John Birch Society in the 1960s included one William F. Buckley Jr. Skousen even managed to record this gem — a spoken word album about the dangers of LSD for the John Birch Society’s record label. (Forget acid — simply knowing that the John Birch Society had a record label is pretty mind-blowing in and of itself.)

Skousen’s Communist paranoia may have reached it’s apotheosis in 1970 when the Mormon church and BYU in particular began receiving a tremendous amount of external pressure to change the church’s policy on denying the Mormon priesthood to blacks. Skousen, then a professor at BYU, published an article entitled “The Communist Attack on the Mormons” and noted that critics were employing Communist tactics which were “distorting the religious tenet of the Church regarding the Negro and blowing it up to ridiculous proportions.” The Mormon Church reversed course on its discriminatory practices in 1978 and began ordaining black men to the priesthood.

Later in the 70s, Skousen accused the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers of puppeteering the election of Jimmy Carter to pave the way for One World Government, his new favorite topic. Things got so bad that the Mormon Church eventually issued an official communiqué distancing itself from Skousen’s organization, the Freemen Institute.

• Perlstein, R. (20 July 2009). Beyond the Palin. Newsweek. Pp 46.

(Liberal historian Rick Perlstein describes Skousen)

“What’s going on at Fox News?” [former speech writer for GWB and conservative activist David] Frum asked, excorciating [Fox TV personality Glenn] Beck for passing out to followers books by the nutty far-right conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen.

• Spangler, J.D. & Bernick B. Jnr. (2003 June 16). John Birch Society forges on in Utah. Deseret News. [3] Accessed: (2009 July 23).

Retired University of Utah political science professor J.D. Williams recalls his long-running debates with the society and two of its 'patron saints,' as he calls them, President Benson and W. Cleon Skousen, a former Salt Lake City police chief.

Skousen, 89, is still active, writing and speaking publicly. President Benson died in 1994.

Neither President Benson nor Skousen were members of the society, as they said on a number of occasions. But both President Benson and Skousen in the 1960s spoke often about constitutional issues and, like the society, 'dealt with anti-communism, against socialism and big government,' said Williams.

John Birch Society Supporter (Scholarly Work)

Please note: many of the cites in the conspiracist section also note Skousen's support of the JBS

• Diamond, S. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press. pp 49, n322, 168, n366

(Discusses Skousen’s popularity with JBS members and contacts with the JBS. Endnotes Deleted)

The 1980 election of two right-wing Senators from Utah, Jake Garn and Orrin Hatch, and Idaho Representative George Hansen, exemplified the Mormon connection to right-wing politics. Years earlier, many Mormons had been active in the John Birch Society. LDS apostle, and later Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson was a fixture in the Society. W. Cleon Skousen, a former Salt Lake City chief of police and a former agent of the FBI, authored The Naked Communist, which became a classic in Birchist circles. In 1971 Skousen opened the Freemen Institute, a Mormon-staffed political think tank that worked closely with the Birch society through the latter’s affiliated Western Goals Foundation. Headed by U.S. Representative and John Birch Society national chair Larry McDonald, Western Goals was publicly exposed in the 1980s as an illegal intelligence gathering operation.

• Janson, D. & Eismann, B. 1963. The Far Right. New York. McGraw-Hill. Pp 60, 62, 148-149.

(Mostly discusses Skousen’s book The Maked Communist in JBS Book stores)

John Birch Society Supporter (Older News Articles)

(Most of the articles note Skousen as participating in JBS events, or events that attract JBS members)

• Becker, Bill. (1961, Oct. 29). Right-Wing Groups Multiplying Appeals in Southern California. New York Times, pp. 43.

• Clayton, J.E. (1961, August 6). Cold-War Seminars Aim to Alert Americans to Communist Danger. Washington Post, pp. A1, A13.

• Gould, Jack. (1961, Nov. 12). Anti-Communism: Diverse Approaches to Issue Must Be Shown to Insure Balance. New York Times, pp X13.

• Kerby, P. (1961 Nov. 7). Anti-Red Crusade Seen Expanding Across U.S.. Washington Post, pp A4.

• Morris, Willie. (1961, Sept. 28). Seminar Stirs Army-Politics Hassle. Washington Post, pp A4.

• Reed, Roy. (1965, Nov. 8). Birch Society Is Growing in the South. New York Times, pp 1, 19.

I also have cites that detail Skousen's involvement with Evan Mecham's controversial term as governor in Arizona in the late 1980s, controversy over a textbook that Skousen's Freeman Institute put out, various bibliographical items regarding Skousen, Skousen's 'Constitutionalist' views on the US Constitution and its influence on the Christian Patriot movement, Skousen's influence on the LDS Church, and some miscellaneous items. But this is it for now. I can provide actual text from the cites, if that is requested by anyone. Comments anyone? --Hardindr (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, are there any copyright issues with my posting this on the talkpage? I think they are covered under Fair Use, but I'm not sure. --Hardindr (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are changing your conclusions, or rather downplaying your assertions here. The information is already covered in the article, and correctly notes that he was never actually a member of the John Birch Society. You also need to be more specific with your references. And you need to learn how to use references. You need a reliable third party source, preferably something that has been academically reviewed that makes these claims (and even then you need to cite them as a specifically referenced opinion and not fact). Otherwise, it is good research, but it is still original research. Bytebear (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not changing my conclusions. Skousen is known as a conspiracist theorist and a JBS supporter (I've not inserted the claim that he was a JBS member in the article). This is all you find on Skousen, if you look a the social science literature or major media outlets that covered him. Are you saying the references I'm citing, including several books from academic publishers, are not reliable? Do you need the text from the references? --Hardindr (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to change your conclusion. But you cannot present it. It violates WP:OR. The references can present their individual statements, but they cannot be used to make a conclusion. And you are being too vague with them. What exactly does each reference individually say about Skousen? You can present those specifics and request they be added to the article, but you cannot create a sweeping generalization. Even if you found a source that called him a conspiracy theorist, you would still have to present it as 'X claims that Skousen is a conspiracy theorist.' We do not make conclusions, but rather, we present other people's findings (assuming they are reliable). Bytebear (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is weird. So, by your reasoning, in an article about Usama Bin Laden or the Holocaust, you could only say, 'Various people claim that Bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11th attacks' or 'Scholar X claims Nazi Germany perpetrated the Holocaust, but the Institute for Historical Review and David Irving says it didn't happen?' At what point does an opinion of an expert or experts (honestly I don't like the term 'expert,' but I'll use it here) become a fact? Am I 'Synthesizing' an opinion by mentioning that the sources all agree on him? Please remember, a search through the social science literature on Skousen and relevent media outlets overwelmingly mentions him as a conspiracy theorist and supporter of the JBS, though I found a few other cites mentioned in the bottom of the above section. Again, the few cites from scholarly sources mention him almost exclusively as a conspiracy theorist. Again, do you want the text from the cites? I can provide those, but it will be next week. Please be aware that most social scientists/historians don't bother to deal with conspiracy theorists in their research because they find their claims marginal and/or ridiculous. Only a few are willing to spend their time on it. --Hardindr (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your examples are as poor as your references. You are attempting to tie Skousen to the JBS, and then to conspiracy theories. But there are two problems. His tie to the JBS is not as solid as you want to portray and the JBS is not a society of conspiracy theorists. So you have simply made incorrect conclusions. Bytebear (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious? The 'JBS is not a society of conspiracy theorists?' Are you familiar with the JBS? Anyway, I don't have to tie Skousen to the JBS to show he is primarily known as a conspiracy theorist in the relevent literature, though it is invariably mentioned. Where do we go from here with this? --Hardindr (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are putting JBS under the same scrutiny as Skousen. You are making the claim which is WP:OR and not using a single source but rather doing your own research and making your own conclusions. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You need to present someone else's opinion and not comment on it further, but rather let the reader make their own conclusions. So, I am still waiting for your specific statements that call Skousen a conspiracy theorist. Bytebear (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. You will get the text from the relevent cites next week. --Hardindr (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked a couple cites. They were more about JBS and nothing about Skousen specifically that I could find. Second, any that call JBS conspiricy theorists should be handled in that article (which is void of any such claims), Third you are presenting A -> B -> C and making your own conclusions. I need specific quotes, not just a list of articles. Try again. It is your burden of proof, not mine, but so far I am not convinced. Bytebear (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put in the relevent text. Your comments? --Hardindr (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you are cutting and pasting from a website. What is your actual source? That's not an insult or an accusation, but this is all set up to present a POV, and if you are the collector than you are violating WP:OR, but if I can see where you are getting this stuff, maybe I can better understand where you are coming from. Bytebear (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try this again. I went to an academic library. I searched for references to Cleon Skousen amongst the social science literature, books in the collection and LEXIS-NEXIS, a newspaper/magazine/News TV program. These are the cites that I found. They also include one or two books that I own. Why is this so hard to understand? --Hardindr (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An Example

Ok I am going to take one of your sources an an example. It is here [4]. The article flatly says, Skousen is an 'all-around nutjob'. But it also says, he is an FBI agent, a police chief of Salt Lake City, a BYU professor, worked under the secretary of Agriculture, and 'likely brilliant'. So which of those thigns do we include in the article? Only the factual ones. Not the opinions. And this article is filled with bias examples, out of context. If we find a fact mentioned, like 'Things got so bad that the Mormon Church eventually issued an official communiqué distancing itself from Skousen’s organization, the Freemen Institute.' we need to find the source for that assertion. Surely if it was noteworthy, it would be mentioned in multiple sources. And we cannot present this fact in a POV way. We cannot make conclusions, and we should find sources that don't have an agenda, which clearly this article does. Hope this helps. Bytebear (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the fact that Skousen was an FBI agent, a police chief of Salt Lake City, a BYU professor, and worked under the secretary of Agriculture are already in the article. I don't have any problem with them being there, or describing Skousen as 'likely brilliant' (brilliant people can be conspiracists, I don't see a contradiction). I also haven't proposed describing Skousen as a 'nutjob.' I'll have to look further into the relationship between the Freeman Institute and th LDS Church, or email the author of the article and see where he got his information from. What do you think the article presents out of context? You seem to have a considerable amount of background knowledge about Skousen and the LDS Church, in general. Do you have anything else to say about the other references I provided? --Hardindr (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your references have a lot of information in them, and the facts of them can be used in the article (for example, his FBI status, his BYU status). Those are facts. Things like he being brilliant, or being a consiracist are opinions. They cannot be presented as fact. If there is a compelling reason for an opinion to be presented, then you can quote someone and give credit to that person for having such an opinion, but to present your findings as fact is to present original research, and to present a non-neutral presentation of the facts. You are concluding. That is against the policies of neutrality. If you can find evidence that the LDS church has some connection to the Freeman Institute, by all means present it, but I don't see how it would fit into this article specifically. Bytebear (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

David Icke's article describes him as a conspiracist, even though it is coached with the weasel words 'a position that has been described,' so I don't agree with you about this. When do 'opinions' become 'facts' on wikipedia? --Hardindr (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

See Self Referencing Wikipedia. Opinions never become facts. I would recommend reading Describing Points of View]. By the way, if you read the Icke article, both mentions of a conspiracy theory are sourced to specific incidents, and the text gives credit to who is making the comment. Neither of which you are proposing.Bytebear (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Self Referencing Wikipedia page notes that you can reference Wikipedia pages on talk pages, which is all I did. I also noticed that Icke's page has a conspiracy theorist tag on it. Does that make it a fact, or is it an opinion? Again, at some point opinions become facts, unless you think that 'the Holocuast happened' is just an opinion (an extreme example, I know, but still a valid one). Specific incidents for Skousen's conspiracism are his books The Naked Communist and The Naked Capitalist, which I wasn't going to put into the lead. Does the lead have to mention them, or would it be better just to put them into the body? I find it hard to believe that I have to jump through this many hoops to describe Skousen in a way that reflects the way most (or, at least the few who care about him) social scientists/historians think about him. --Hardindr (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think the category 'conspiracy theorists' should be eliminated or modified. Perhaps, 'self described conspiracy theorists' or something more specific, like 'anti-Communists' but I do think the category is misplaced and opinion. I don't get how Holocaust deniers fits in since they are also self described as such. I just think you need to present your facts specifically, rather than creating conclusions violating WP:OR. Bytebear (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, conspiracism is a recognized term used by many social scientists and historians. David Irving, and there are others, is an example of a holocaust denier who denies that he denies the holocaust (it can get confusing). I'm goint to start to propose specific text for this article next week (I need to go to the library and get another book, as well as read more of Skousen's work). Would it be alright to put it on this talk page or would it be better for me to put it in my sandbox?--Hardindr (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary Allen, W. Cleon Skousen, Carroll Quigley

Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen are not 'scholarly sources'. In fact, most of the references in their books and articles are to secondary sources not primary sources because neither Allen or Skousen ever performed PRIMARY SOURCE research. Let me give an example:

BOTH Allen and Skousen use what they both describe as a 'quotation' to document their assertion that Jacob Schiff allegedly contributed $20 million 'for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia'.

Gary Allen's quote appears on page 69 of his 1972 book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. He writes:

'According to the New York Journal-American of February 3, 1949: 'Today, it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.' '

W. Cleon Skousen cites the exact same source for his identical claim in an article of his published in the March 1971 issue of Law and Order magazine entitled, 'Home Grown Subversion'. In fact, the textual similarities between Allen and Skousen make it appear that one copied from the other.

In reality, however, the 'quotation' being cited from the NY Journal-American appears in that paper’s society gossip column captioned “Smart Set” which was written by several unknown persons who wrote under the pseudonym “Cholly Knickerbocker”. This is the quality of evidence which Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen think is compelling for their assertions!

Oddly, both Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen cite Dr. Antony Sutton, former Research Fellow with the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, as an authoritative historian without, apparently, being aware of his primary source research concerning Jacob Schiff. Significantly, Dr. Sutton concluded from his review of State Department cables that Jacob Schiff OPPOSED the Bolsheviks. See Appendix II of Dr. Sutton’s 1974 book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, which Dr. Sutton aptly captions: “The Jewish-Conspiracy Theory of the Bolshevik Revolution”:

Appendix II

THE JEWISH-CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

'It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks.'

'The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?'

Furthermore, both Gary Allen and Cleon Skousen claim that Lord Alfred Milner was a wealthy individual, connected to the Rothschilds, and they allege that Milner helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution.

On page 75 of his book, Gary Allen inserts this text underneath a picture of Lord Alfred Milner: “Lord Alfred Milner, wealthy Englishman and front man for the Rothschilds, served as paymaster for the international bankers in Petrograd during the Bolshevik Revolution.”

This claim regarding Milner was addressed by Dr. Carroll Quigley when he objected to what he considered the intellectual dishonesty of both Gary Allen and W. Cleon Skousen.

'For example, they constantly misquote me to this effect: that Lord Milner (the dominant trustee of the Cecil Rhodes Trust and a heavy in the Round Table Group) helped finance the Bolsheviks. I have been through the greater part of Milner's private papers and have found no evidence to support that.” [Quigley interview quoted in Rudy Maxa: The Professor Who Knew Too Much, Washington Post, 3/23/75, p26]

and

“Allen’s statements about Milner are almost all wrong. He was not a rich man at all, but grew up a poor boy who won a scholarship to Oxford and became a government administrator in public finance and eventually chief of the Rhodes trustees. He never was a millionaire. His income in 1907, when he was 53 years old, was about 2,600 pound sterling (according to his diary for 1st January 1908). It is nonsense to say, as Allen does, that he wanted a revolution in Russia in 1917 and gave 21 million rubles to finance it (p 72). He was in Russia as a member of the British War Cabinet, from 25 January to 21 February, trying to strengthen the Russian war effort against the Germans in order to relieve the German pressure along the Western front…I have been through the greater part of Milner’s private papers and have found no evidence to support Allen’s statements about his connections with the revolution in Russia. Allen is also totally wrong about Milner’s political ideals. He was not at all a One-World supporter but an extreme British nationalist who believed that Great Britain and the United States, acting together, could hold off the world. He was not linked in any way with the Rothschilds, as Allen says, but was a banker as a director of the London Joint Stock Bank. Allen’s book is full of factual errors such as these, and is flatly wrong in his statements that my book supports his version of history. For example, he insists that international bankers were a single bloc, were all powerful, and remain so today. I, on the contrary, stated in my book that they were much divided, often fought among themselves, had great influence but not control of political life, and were sharply reduced in power about 1931-1940 when they became less influential than monopolized industry.” [Quigley statement to Institute For American Democracy, Inc. (Washington DC) reprinted in IAD memo dated 3/72 captioned “None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen”, page 3]

The FBI's Crime Research Section wrote an 11-page review of Skousen's 3/71 Law and Order magazine article. It concluded that most of his assertions could not be substantiated. And Skousen's FBI personnel file makes it clear that Skousen mis-represented his FBI career.

One FBI memo quotes the FBI Assistant Director who was the Bureau's chief expert on the communist movement, as follows:

“As you know, we frequently receive inquiries from the public regarding Skousen’s qualifications to speak with authority on the subject of communism. In view of his obvious efforts to capitalize on his former Bureau association, I feel that it would be well for us to take positive measures to clarify the Bureau’s position in regard to Skousen whenever we receive public inquiries concerning him. I feel, for example, that in addition to stating that his views are his own, that we should also add in correspondence concerning him that he was not regarded as any authority on communism while employed with the FBI. That is certainly a true statement and it might serve in some measure to prevent Skousen from using the FBI’s name for his own personal gain.” [HQ 67-69602, #338; 1/2/63 memo from W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont.] Ernie1241 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)ernie1241

New Sandbox

I've started to put together a new version of this article in my sandbox. Constructive criticism is welcome in the discussion page there. Eventually, I hope to incorporate most of the changes there into this article. I will have more stuff there next week. --Hardindr (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'Ultraconservative' is a peacock term. I would avoid using it. Bytebear (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is 'Hard-right' better? Skousen was to the right of most conservatives of his time. I corrected the spelling of one of your words in the last discussion post. If that annoys you, I won't do it again. --Hardindr (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you correct my spelling as long as you don't hold it against me. I think you are being extremely POV in your presentation of Skousen. I could just as easily call Obama hard-left, considering his senate record, and critical commentary from opponents. Saying 'hard right', neocon, or ultra-conservative are peacock terms that are used by opponents but not self describing, or even by those who have a more objective view. I would recommend trying to see Skousen from a neutral view, although I think that may be difficult since you have a very specific vision of what this man represents. Bytebear (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Obama would qualify as hard-left, since he isn't a social democrat, socialist or communist (what I hear most people described as hard-left). There is a difference between the ideological boilerplate from people on talk radio, and the judgement of academics in peer reviewed literature and scholarly books. I'm trying to represent Skousen as he is viewed by the majority of social scientists and historians who have an interest in him and don't share his worldview. Also, I wouldn't hold spelling against anyone. I just find it distracting. --Hardindr (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't read his books, or his other writings prior to his rise to the national spotlight. His voting record in the US Senate was the most left of all 100 senators. The point is, you are spinning, just as I am spinning. Bytebear (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama's books are pretty tame by any standard and he wasn't in the Senate long enough to have much of a voting record. I think the record shows that Obama is a moderate to liberal in the mainstream of the Democratic Party, but you are entitled to your own opinion. I personally wish Obama was more to the left, but he wouldn't have gotten elected President if that was the case. In the end, this is all very entertaining, but doesn't have much to do with Skousen. I'll update the sandbox extensively by next week, and I'll look forward to your comments. --Hardindr (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing your point, but a lot of reputable and scholarly people would disagree. But you are not understanding mine. The point is, these issues are debatable, and as such, you can't just flat out say things that are debatable. You need to present them as opinion, and give sources to those opinion, in the text. 'It has been said by X that Obama is a socialist.' similarly, you cannot do the same with Skousen. Bytebear (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you said that, 'a lot of reputable and scholarly people would disagree [about Skousen being a conspiracist or hard-right].' Can you cite them? I'm not aware of any. At some point, the consider opinion of 'experts' moves from a opinion to a fact, otherwise (sorry to pick an extreme example) wikipedia couldn't state that the planet earth is nearly a sphere, instead of flat. --Hardindr (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing WP:FRINGE. But claiming he is hard-right does not apply. You should read WP:PEACOCK which is more applicable. Bytebear (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the peacock page (which before now I wasn't aware of) has anything to do with what I'm arguing. I haven't claimed that Skousen is the greatest, best, most important, etc. I'm arguing that the relevent social science and historical literature portrays him as a hard-right or ultra-conservative conspiracy theorist. Additionally, both hard-right and ultra-conservative (or far right) are all terms used in social science literature. --Hardindr (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't think 'ultra' 'hard-right' are not peacock terms? Those are opinions of people on the left. You can present them as their opinions, but you cannot present them as facts. Bytebear (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

From the Peackock page: 'In Wikipedia articles, forgo unsourced or unexplained peacock terms that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information. Examples include describing people as 'important', 'main' or 'among the greatest' in their field without explaining why. When you use these terms, make sure you have sources to support them, and that the reader understands why the person or subject is so regarded.' I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Additionally, people on the left can be described accurately as 'far-left' or 'ultra-left.' Think RCP or WWP. --Hardindr (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are using biased sourced to define him as far-right. And far-right, to use your examples of RCP and WWP, would be equivalent to comparing Skousen to the Neo-fascists or neo-Nazis. (see Far Right). So, you are pushing him to a fringe that is not accurate to him. That is why it is peacock. By the way, you will notice that the John Birch society is NOT in the list of far-right groups nor is it described as such in its own article.Bytebear (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

<-------(Undent) Well, you're misrepresenting the far right article. It isn't true that only neo-fascists and neo-nazi's are consider far right, as the article's lead makes clear. For example, the Constitution Party is far-right. I did editing on the John Birch Society page last year to include the sourced descriptor 'ultraconservative' in the lead, but it looks like it was taken out. I'll have to go there and add it back in when I'm done working on this article. Ah, but I see by the history page that you are active there, too. You seem to have a keen interest in the hard right in American politics. --Hardindr (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, do you believe that Skousen's conspiratorial views are within the mainstream of political thought in the US? --Hardindr (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your changes were taken out because the consensus does not agree with your conclusions. It isn't me who is misrepresenting. It is you. And now you want to update all the articles dealing with your wp:Fringe assessment, so you can claim consensus. It doesn't work that way. My politics are irrelevant, and I only got involved in that page because of you, and your outlandish claims. Skousen's views were very common at the time he made them. Politics have shifted to other issues since then, but he was not unusual in his thought by any means. Bytebear (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Skousen and the JBS weren't mainstream American conservatives then or now, especially after Bill Buckley condemned them in the National Reviewin 1962. It's ludicrous to argue otherwise. Skousen's conspiratorialist claims of secret elites running the US government are fringe by any standard. Your claims are the ones that are outlandish, not mine. It is sad that Wikipedia allows people with fringe views to work its beaurocracy to distort its articles in such a bizarre fashion. --Hardindr (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Infiltration by communists was by no means a fringe theory. They had hearings at the highest levels of government to protect from such threats. They may have gone overboard, and they may have been wrong, but the idea that this was a fringe idea is ludicrous. Bytebear (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

'Infiltration by communists...' Interesting... You do know that most of the leftists in the Federal government, the few that existed, were purged out of the Federal government back in the mid to late 1940s by the Truman Administration, and that none remained by the early 1950s, right [5] ? --Hardindr (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's contradictory to the McCarthyism article, which places the dates from the late 40s, to the late 50s. Bytebear (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I read the article. It says no such thing, and the late fifties are barely mentioned. Particularly this portion: 'The opposing view [against McCarthyism] holds that, recent revelations notwithstanding, by the time McCarthyism began in the late 1940s, the CPUSA was an ineffectual fringe group, and the damage done to U.S. interests by Soviet spies after World War II was minimal.' --Hardindr (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You missed the sentence in the lead which said 'lasting roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s' ??? Bytebear (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead does indeed say that, but the late fifties are mostly absent from the article (I read it carefully again), except to note that is when McCarthyism died out. Anyway, just because the Red Scare died in the late fifties doesn't mean that were still Leftists in the Federal government (it's called a 'Scare' for a reason). On another note, the references/cites are handled in a very elegent way with the APA style. I'll have to do that for this article. --Hardindr (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how it is viewed, the point is, it was not a fringe movement. Bytebear (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to tie together Skousen's views of secret elites controlling the US with the red scare? I don't understand what you're getting at here... --Hardindr (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hardindr, I would consider your sandbox version far superior to the current article. In my view it would still need expansion and tweaking, but would be a preferable place to start than what currently exists. As for quibbles of WP:NPOV, I would contend that such matters would be easier hashed out – once the switch is made – and thus everyone is clear on which version we are critiquing and improving. Redthoreau (talk)RT 11:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Work and other events in real-life have interfered with my work on wikipedia. I will try to do more work on the sandbox next week. --Hardindr (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, other committments have interfered (again) with work on wikipedia. However, I do see that Bytebear is back. Should make things interesting... --Hardindr (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To what are you referring? The addition of a POV addition of cherry picked exerpts from Skousen's various works, and the WP:OR concluding how 'evil' he is? Is that what you are objecting to? or is it my removal of a source titled 'The Racist Truth About Beck and Limbaugh' an obvious hit piece and violation of WP:BLP? Bytebear (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to when I start to incorporate my Sandbox into the article. However, you were right to remove the changes to the article that you did. --Hardindr (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have wrapped up most of my issues in the real world (moving things over to my new computer) and will add more content to the sand box next week. Other editors' patience is appreciated. --Hardindr (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Skousen's views on slavery

Skousen appears to minimize the negative effects of American slavery in a history book, The Making of America. [6] Might be worth adding it. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading that book rather than biased reviews makes very clear that the referenced text 'minimizing slavery' was not Skousens. That text was taken from an article by a Professor Fred Albert Shannon and presented as such to illustrate the attitudes surrounding slavery at the time it was practiced. No one who has actually read the book could maintain any guise of integrity and attribute those attitudes to Skousen. His own words, referring to slavery, prefaced the Shannon quote:

'One of these tendencies which emerges from the shadow of man's darker side is the inclination to live by the sweat of other men's brows. There are all kinds of ways for a man to get other men into a state of bondage or 'involuntary servitude.' The milder forms include high, confiscatory interest rates, or getting a sharecropper to work for 10 percent of the harvest, or paying a miserly wage for a day of hard labor.Pachrismith (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The most degraded bondage is outright slavery, where one human being pretends to own another, 'body and soul.' '

Clearly, then, Skousen did not subscribe to the views of slavery found within Shannon's article. That they were ever attributed to him can only be described as character assasination, and those who disseminate such misrepresentations are, at least, careless and irresponsible.

Notice

The Secure Home Skousen Pdf Files Free

Effective immediately, I am suspending my involvement in wikipedia until mid-2010. See you then. --Hardindr (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck recommending Skousen.

The article says: 'In 2008, political commentator and Mormon media personality Glenn Beck began recommending Skousen's works, sparking new interest in his ideas and publications.' While this may be true it is not something which can be stated as fact without a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.122.163 (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There aren't normally citations in the opening paragraph except for contentious material.AiTouch (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be in the lead.--68.9.117.21 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Mormon in lede

Is Skousen's notability due to his being a Mormon? --68.9.117.21 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this from the lead per MOSBIO. --Tom(talk) 13:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What do others think? If he was a 'noted' Mormon, or his notability was due to being a Mormon, then this should be discussed further. The Beck 'stuff' definately shouldn't go in the lead due to recentism/tabloidishness. Thoughts? --Tom(talk) 13:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Mormon shouldn't be mentioned for now, but principally b/c the lead is too short. If the lead is expanded, it will probably have to be mentioned, but perhaps not in the first sentence or two. The Mormon aspect to his life is pretty strong, and to many people it is one of the notable aspects of his life. He spent years on the faculty at BYU and wrote books about the LDS faith. — Regards — KeptSouth (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty fair. I hate seeing religion(Christian, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, ect) mentioned in the first sentence unless it is absolutely why the person is notable. I believe that is the case in about 0.1% of bios right now. Is that the case here? I would defer to a clear consensus. Should it covered further into a well written, four paragraph, lead? Sure, why not, based on what you have said. Anyways, I am just a spec of sand on the Wikipedia beach as always, so carry on :). --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception section maybe?

Maybe the stuff about Glen Beck belongs in a reception type section? Right now its included in the section about his writings and seems awkward there. --68.9.117.21 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead too short

Added tag at top of article with the hope that someone will beef up the lead. There are several aspects of Skousen's life and work that are not covered in the current lead.— KeptSouth (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Secure Home Skousen Pdf Files Download

Makes sense. I just thought that the Beck 'material' smacked of recentism, and didn't warrant inclusion currently based on the size of the intro, ie, undue weight compared to his life's work. Anyways, yes, I well written intro/lead wouldn't hurt as long as NPOV and undue weight, ect are maintained. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Skousen's Mormon theology

The Secure Home Joel Skousen

Just a suggestion: I'm not a Skousen expert, but wouldn't it be appropriate to have a section on his Mormon theology? This article talks a lot about his political views, and it almost seems like he arrived at these views in a secular vacuum. But he was also very notable among Mormons as a popular, if slightly nutty, amateur theologian, and his political views are founded on his unique Mormon views. Moreover, most of his works are religious works directed to a Mormon audience. Like I say, I'm not really equipped to add this material, but I think the article would benefit greatly from its inclusion. COGDEN 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)