Talk:W. Cleon Skousen

Quotations I added

I added a couple of too-long-of-quotes. Which I did because it seemed the article suffered from contributors' piling on detailed criticisms of Skousen without keeping any eye out for when commentators have extolled him--for example with regard a contributor's having cherry picked out of Mark Hemingway's commentary Hemingway's blistering criticism of Naked Communist while not mentioning that Hemingway lauded other writings by Skousen.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Publications

The publications section should indicate the original dates of publication, as well as the more recent reprints. For example The 5,000 Year Leap was first published in 1981. And the current list of publications shows a 2nd. edition for The Making of America, which was first published in 1982 as a follow-up to The 5,000 Year Leap. BlueMesa171 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotes and Comments in Wiki Article

The Wiki article on Cleon Skousen contains many comments or quotations which are attributed to various individuals who included those comments/quotes in their online articles or books.

In the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that the ultimate source for those quotations is documents appearing in two FBI HQ main files on W. Cleon Skousen, namely, his FBI personnel file which is FBI HQ file 67-69602 and a supplementary FBI file concerning Skousen's post-FBI activities, i.e. FBI HQ file 94-47468 -- which total about 1928 pages.

I was the first person to obtain both of those files via an FOIA request. I then wrote a lengthy report about their content in March 2007 which I posted online. The quotations which appear in the Wiki article came from my report.

I received hostile emails from Skousen admirers who claimed I was lying about his FBI service record, or that I was quoting documents "out of context". So I then updated my report by scanning copies of particularly significant documents and copying them into my report. I also updated my report again in order to respond to falsehoods posted online about my report by one of Cleon Skousen's sons.

Numerous people have contacted me as a result of seeing my online report on Skousen, including writers, researchers and academics. I have supplied them with additional information and, in several instances, they sent me first drafts of their proposed online articles or sections of a forthcoming book which pertained to Cleon Skousen.

In summary --- the provenance of many of the quotations and comments appearing in the Wiki article about Cleon Skousen is actually from my report on Skousen which was based upon first-time-released FBI files. My online report may be seen here: https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/skousen Ernie1241 (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ernie1241, will you read my section under "Link to FBI Vault" below and possibly source your pages in there? I kinda' think that if did a FOIA in 2007 there's good odd's they'd be in there, and that would allow you to link to the primary source, which would solve the concerns you mentioned.--Mrcolj (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment regarding certain edits removing "bias"

Another editor has made several edits to the article, some of which are problematic. I am not reverting the edits at this time, but other editors might do so.

In several edits, the editor material and gave as the reason that the material deleted was "biased." However, that is not necessarily a valid reason to remove material in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a rule regarding Neutral Point of View. However, that rule relates to the way material is presented, not to the substance of the material itself. In several edits, the editor seemed to be simply removing material that was "negative" regarding the subject of the article, Cleon Skousen. Those edits were probably not proper to the extent that the removed materials had been sourced and had clearly indicated that it was the source that was making the critique of Skousen. Sources are are allowed to be biased, and Wikipedia articles are allowed to report the statements or opinions of biased sources. A bias in a source in and of itself does not violate the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View. The fact that the result of including negative material in an article on a person may result in a negative impression of that person does not mean that such material is objectionable from the standpoint of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, even if that source is clearly biased.

Instead, Neutral Point of View means that Wikipedia presents the material -- some of it clearly biased -- without taking a position as to whether Wikipedia agrees or disagrees with the biased material. Famspear (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone coming to this article from the outside would see it as an anti-Skousen article. It's not that a bunch of facts are presented for the reader to decide from. These are clearly almost entirely negative facts phrased almost entirely negatively. Rather than saying "he was a libertarian" it says "he was against civil rights, taxes, unions, and welfare for little old ladies whose husbands died serving our country?" Yeah, that's NPOV.--Mrcolj (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Insubstantial Source.

The reference #25 is used to support allegations of many of Skousen's political views. The article referenced has no references itself and should not be used as a source. I recommend deleting the section that is supported by reference 25 or finding a legitimate source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.144.122 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that reference # 25 is non-scholarly and extremely biased against Skousen. There are actually six uses of footnote 25: if you search through the article for 25 you will see all of them. I have deleted two of them: (1) The last paragraph in Political Life was just someone who doesn't like him saying that he disagrees with him. (2) The paragraph under Questionable sourcing claimed that Skousen cited a source written by Goulevich, and that Goulevich's own writings (not necessarily the one that Skousen cited?) cited a source by Brasol, and Brasol was known to support evil causes (although not necessarily in the material Goulevich cited?). That's guilt by association-once-removed, and it is supported in Wikipedia by a footnote to someone who doesn't cite his own sources.

However, for now I have kept the other sentences that cite the SPLC article (footnote 25). Let's see what other editors think about it before going further. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

More comments on reliability

I am new to commenting on wikipedia articles and am not even sure if I am writing in the proper place. I would like to respond to your comment as one who does not understand wikipedia's standards but is well versed in academic standards in the arts and the sciences. I am not concerned if the writer of the referenced article from SPLC demonstrates extreme bias so much as the truth of his claims about Skousen's views. If he had referenced them, then I would read the claims of those whom he had referenced, and so on... The fact is that neither the author Alexander Zaitchik nor his illustrator Daniel Adell (pardon the humour) have disclosed the sources of their information, which may for all I know, be correct. We are therefore to take Zaitchik's comments as his own views. If these views are not to be properly referenced or removed from the article, then a preamble ought to be added. This would read: (It is claimed by Alexander Zaitchik, of unknown authority that) Skousen disregarded all federal regulatory agencies and argued for the abolition of everything from..."

I only read the reference in the first place because of the importance of these claims to establishing Skousen's views.

This is a genuine question from someone new to wikipedia: Is it acceptable to reference any written source in wikipedia, such as the hearsay of bloggers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.144.122 (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have continued reading the article and the next reference that I followed was #18 from the New Yorker. The same criticism applies. These are the only two references that I have looked at in this thing (I'll no longer dignify it by calling it an article). Given that I have neither read many wiki articles nor followed many references, I have a small and ominous sample group. Two out of two references that I have looked at are bare assertion, I will not continue reading. This is probably a bad article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.144.122 (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize with what you are saying. Wikipedia is certainly getting better; when I started editing here, there were no requirements that sources be used at all. Now sources are required, and editors who submit unsourced claims often have their material deleted. However, the rules about how "good" a source can be are not always clear. Blogs and personal websites are forbidden (with certain exceptions). The SPLC is a legitimate and famous organization, so its website is permitted in principle. In this case, however, this article on their site is quite shoddy. On the other hand, virtually any print media is permitted -- and in my opinion that rule is too broad.

I too work in the academic world, and in my field, the best source is a primary text. Wikipedia has a rule against primary texts and "original research", which is wise in some cases (we don't want someone bringing a measuring tape to the grassy knoll in Dallas and adding their personal observations to the who-shot-JFK page), but in other cases it forces editors to use questionable secondary sources instead of reliable primary sources. There are other odd rules that lead to this situation as well. Finally, when it comes to people interested in conspiracies like Skousen, there is a fundamental debate about which sources are actually reliable!

An independent study has found that Wikipedia has about the same correct-to-false ratio as the Encyclopedia Britannica. The difference is that our errors are usually more obvious.... — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting. You might be able to direct me as to where I should put a suggestion regarding referencing. I suspect that this is not the right place. Having degrees in arts and science, I am familiar with a broad range of standards. In scientific research no comment should be made which is neither resting on the authority of referenced research, nor direct inference from cited research nor- in the case of an original study - is established by the data in the results. Similarly in history: All comments should be cited forms of primary evidence, cited secondary evidence, or inferences from these evidences. As you have stated, the sticking point is correct handling of secondary sources. It is desirable that the authority cited has some sort of credentials. Though this is a hazy area, the least that a wiki author should do is to attribute, in the text of their article, the name of the authority with a qualifying clause stating their secondary source's authority. Typically words like "alleges", "claims", "asserts" would accompany the secondary sources claim. If wikipedia were to do this, then it would be easy for readers to assign weighting to various claims made in the article. Furthermore, wikipedia could justly claim that their articles meet acceptable undergraduate standards. This article does not and would be worthy of a poor grade judged at undergraduate level, given that the largest claims are based on the assertion of editorial pieces that do not disclose their sources. If the papers cited were put directly onto wikipedia they would fail wikipedia's standard since unreferenced claims must be assumed to be original research. When you think about it, the inclusion of such sources without qualification amounts to the laundering of facts. An article can not be stronger than the information on which it is based. I would like to know where it is appropriate to suggest this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.144.122 (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia policies have been discussed and debated by thousands of people over the course of several years, I would suggest that before submitting a suggestion you familiarize yourself with the current policies. My explanation above is (as far as I know) an accurate summary of the policy, but the actual policy has a lot more detail. You can read the full policy on the following three pages: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. (By the way, the first two are Wikipedia policies, but the third is merely a Wikipedia guideline.)

Next, take a look at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, especially the proposal named "Define reliable sources", to see if this is very similar to what you are suggesting.

Then if you want to make a suggestion, go to Wikipedia:Village pump. Click on Policy. Then, toward the bottom of the tan-shaded box, click on add new topics to start a discussion about a policy change. When you make your suggestion, do sign your name using four tildes.

This is just a recommendation! You can go straight to the Village Pump site and make a suggestion first if you prefer. For myself, I have given up most arguments about Wikipedia policies, just because life is finite. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Lawrence, I will do this. If I stick to the point, I think - no doubt naively - that wikipedia could be significantly cleaned up. The point of academic reporting is that everything can be traced back to a primary source. Either a secondary source can be traced back to a primary source, or it becomes a primary source itself. It is no great problem to treat the claims of an authority in a given area as a kind of primary source, but one ought to name the authority in the text. I suspect that if this rule is applied to wikipedia then we will see insubstantial sources emerge in the text like pimples to be burst. I think I'll get myself a user name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.144.155 (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hidden Bias

I too am concerned abut the hidden bias in this article. Quoting the progressive, agenda driven, Southern Poverty Law Center, and suggesting that Henry Hopkins did not favor communism is a little beyond the pale. A short story: my son-in-law's father and other relatives were imprisoned in a Japanese prisoner camp in Indonesia for being partially of Dutch decent. After the war, they were kept imprisoned for another 6 months by the Americans on orders from the State department while the pure blood Indonesians organized their government, confiscated all property by these part Dutch people, and ordered them out of the country. You cannot classify that behavior of the US government as American or capitalistic. But it does fit nicely into the ideas of Communism. Ergo Henry Hopkins and others in the State Department were furthering Communistic objectives. This young man, kicked out of Indonesia for being part Dutch, immigrated to America and through long hours and hard work became a mufti-millionaire. Indonesia's loss, our gain. It is also clear to any student of history, that historians and social commentators don't get everything right. To disqualify one for minor mistakes, or judge on current day standards, detracts from their greater worth. (Note Mark Twain's use of the term "Nigger".) Hopefully one day this article will be rewritten in a more positive light. Currently it reads like a socialist attack on one of their clear enemies. -- 00:21, 21 January 2014‎ 72.73.43.149

I'm sorry that your friend was so angry with the U.S. government for not propping up Dutch colonialism in Indonesia (like we propped up French colonialism in Vietnam -- look how well that turned out!), but there's never been any real evidence of communist leanings by Harry Hopkins (as you can read on the Harry Hopkins article). AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In October 1961 Skousen participated as a speaker in an “anti-communism school” in New Orleans under the auspices of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. Ed Palmer, a local television station (WDSU-TV) commentator contacted the FBI concerning what he described as “a number of startling and unbelievable charges” made by Skousen during his speech.

One of Skousen’s assertions was that “Harry Hopkins in 1943 had turned over to the Russians 50 suitcases of information concerning the Manhattan Project.”

Palmer asked the FBI for confirmation that Skousen actually had been an FBI Special Agent. A Bureau memo discussing this controversy states

"Apparently Skousen, Schwarz, et al are becoming more and more irresponsible and have apparently succumbed to the philosophy that the ends justify the means.” [HQ file 94-47468, no serial #; 10/26/61 memo from C.D. DeLoach to Mr. Mohr regarding W. Cleon Skousen Statements on Communism, New Orleans Louisiana 10-24-61.]

The Bureau received another inquiry concerning Skousen’s assertions (in his 1958 book, The Naked Communist) regarding Harry Hopkins. An official of the Jefferson Parish (LA) Chamber of Commerce asked Hoover “Is The Naked Communist based entirely on fact? Is the information concerning Harry Hopkins true, especially the part that he obtained and gave to the Russian Communists Top Secret information on the Atomic Bomb and almost half of our supply of refined uranium?”

The FBI file copy of Hoover’s reply contains the following notation:

“It is noted that on page 167 of his book…Skousen states that Harry Hopkins, former aide to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, supplied Russia with a large quantity of uranium during the early 1940’s. Bufiles contain no information to support this charge or to indicate that Hopkins was engaged in subversive activity.” [HQ 94-47468, #37; 11/1/61 Hoover reply to David A. Moynan Jr., Chairman, Operation Americanism of Jefferson Parish Junior Chamber of Commerce, Metairie LA.]

In January 1962, an official of the Florida State Department of Education contacted the Bureau about Skousen’s 1958 book, The Naked Communist. This official expressed misgivings about use of Skousen’s book in Florida schools and he said he would prefer a textbook written by J. Edgar Hoover. A Bureau memo discussing this matter closes with the following comment:

“It is noted that during the past year or so, Skousen has affiliated himself with the extreme right-wing ‘professional anti-communists’ such as Fred Schwarz, who are promoting their own anticommunism for obvious financial purposes.” [HQ 67-69602, no serial #; 1/16/62 memo from W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont regarding inquiry by Fred W. Turner, State of Florida Department of Education.]

I was the first person to request and obtain Skousen's FBI files. In answer to a pejorative innuendo regarding the reliability of Alexander Zaitchik articles (and book) which discuss Skousen, I would like to point out that Mr. Zaitchik quoted directly from FBI files on Skousen which I sent to him. I uploaded all of Skousen's FBI files onto my Internet Archive webpages. In addition, I wrote a very detailed (and heavily documented) report about Skousen which may be seen online at the following link: SKOUSEN REPORT. My report includes a reply to criticism of my report from Paul Skousen (a son of W. Cleon Skousen).

Ernie1241 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)ernie1241Ernie1241 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop stinking up Wikipedia, please, with your cranking, you're disruptive and do nothing to improve the encyclopedia. If you keep up complaining like this I'm going to have to nominate you for a WP:NOTHERE block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Until this morning, I did not re-read the latest version of your Skousen article -- and I noticed that you deleted the previous external links to Skousen's FBI files which used to be referenced in this article.

I also noticed that in several instances, the article footnotes refer to a New Yorker article by Sean Wilentz. For example, the Wiki article refers to this portion of the Wilentz article:

"...one 1962 memo in his extensive F.B.I. file noted that during the past year or so, Skousen has affiliated himself with the extreme right-wing ‘professional communists’ who are promoting their own anticommunism for obvious financial purposes. Skousen was himself employed by the F.B.I., from 1935 until 1951, much of that time as a special agent working chiefly in administration. These desk jobs, he claimed implausibly, gave him access to confidential domestic intelligence about Communism. Skousen also maintained that he had served as Hoover’s administrative assistant; Hoover informed inquirers that there was no such position."

What is striking about this excerpt which is part of YOUR footnoting process is that Mr. Wilentz does not provide ONE IOTA of substantiation for his assertion concerning what FBI memos supposedly stated about Skousen. In fact, the Wilentz article does not even contain ONE single footnote or bibliographic reference. So how do Wiki readers know that Wilentz is providing accurate and truthful information concerning Skousen and concerning how the FBI characterized Mr. Skousen? How can Wiki readers refer to the original source material which Wilentz refers to if nothing specific is identified for fact-checking purposes?

I have been attacked on Wikipedia for providing such links to FBI files. I have also been attacked because (supposedly) I have never been "vetted". One wonders what "vetting" Wiki did regarding Sean Wilentz and the sources he claims to have accessed? When I cite FBI files, I usually provide the file number, serial number, and date. Furthermore, I often point out that I have posted THOUSANDS of FBI files online in the Internet Archive website. Sean Wilentz has NEVER done that. So what makes him a "reliable" source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This has been explained to you many times. We go by information which is provided by WP:Reliable sources. The New Yorker is a reliable source, therefore we can use the informational that they publish in our articles. We never "vetted" Sean Wilentz, and never had to, because The New Yorker vetted what he wrote. If you want your "research" to be used on Wikipedia, get it published by a source with a known reputation for reliability and fact-checking, or write a book and get it published by a reputable publisher (not a self-publishing firm). Blogs won't do it, files you put on the Internet won't do it, and we only use primary sources under very specific circumstancs.

As I've said, you've been told this numerous times, and yet you seem not to understand it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Link to FBI's Vault

Since this article was written the FBI has published it's Vault website, with interesting and oft-requested files (Area 51, Elvis, McCarthy, etc). It has 14 PDFs full of documents related to Skousen, perhaps including the full "2,000 pages" referenced in the article. There should be a link to this source, hopefully then removing the need for one of the speculative secondary sources. The link is here. Please, someone who has a moment, be bold and write this link, or multiple direct references to its contents, into the article. --Mrcolj (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Article is One-sided and 3rd Party Opinions as Facts

Long-winded screed by throwaway account showing lack of understanding of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV.

I found the article to display consistent bias not only in content, but sources for quotation. In addition, the sources for quotation are largely editorial and represent harsh critics of the subject, but the quotations are often presented as factual or the sources are presented as neutral. The article lacks any neutral sources at all.

Issues:

The article begins to deride his career by indicating his work as special agent at the FBI was mainly clerical and administrative. While this is possibly correct, it just begins a long string of focus on minimizing his career and achievements and attacking his point of view, not from a neutral point of view, but from the opposite side. Citations are almost exclusively selected from his harshest critics without presenting anything of the other side. Often insinuations of negative character are made, but their significance not expounded upon. One example is in the first section, which states "ironically, the Skousen file would come to more than 2000 pages" at the FBI, without indicating why that is of interest at all. It insinuates some type of negative character of the man, without specifying what is meant by it, or if the content was of a criminal nature or what.

Later in that same section, it indicates that Skousen was dismissed after the police raided an illegal poker establishment that the Mayor just happened to be at during the raid. Many, if not most, would consider this an act of courage in fighting corruption, even when one's own boss is involved in the corruption, but the article instead begins quoting random Skousen opponents about how his enforcement was "Gestapo-like" and how he was a hypocrite in his anti-communism because he ran the police department in a communistic fashion, etc. There are 4 o 5 irrelevant and unrelated quotes as to how Skousen was one of the greatest spenders in salt lake city government" and a "master of half truths" etc. True or not, these critical comments seem out of place, and are irrelevant to his department's raid that happened to catch the Mayor involved in illegal activity.

The same section goes on to indicate that he served as Field Director for the American Security Council, but indicates that there was an "increasing perception of paranoia" resulting in his abrupt termination. The source cited is known to be an extremely harsh Skousen critic, and notable anti-conservative editorial author and professor by the name of Sean Wilentz, who is writing in a noted leftwing publication (The New Yorker). The overwhelming bulk of citations in the article follow the same pattern of quoting only sources known to be heavily biased not only against the subject, but against the whole school of thought that he tends to represent. There is no balancing perception presented and these sources are treated as if they were neutral or authoritative, when they are in fact political opponents of the subject of the article, who in many cases themselves are considered radical or fanatic, and deniers of communist activities and atrocities by their own political rivals and critics.

The next section begins with the phrase "After losing his police job..." which while correct, displays a wording that seems to demonstrate contempt on the part of the author, especially since it is not relevant to the statement that follows it. The section immediately goes on to quote a Time magazine editorial by a noted liberal author as describing a new group as "an exemplar of the far-right ultras." While it is true that the hard-left characterized them this way, and many of their opponents on the liberal side of the GOP did so as well, in order to marginalize them; the constant and repetitive citations of quotes to the effect shows no consideration for the possible validity of some or any of their ideas, or what they really believed and how it was actually viewed by the mainstream. The article simply seems to be laced with a long stream of quotes of people calling the subject names, and asserting how radical the organizations he was involved are supposed to have been. It comes off as more of an attempt to discredit the subject, rather than to simply inform the public about the man and his career, including the various controversies it entailed. It is clear that some of his views are not mainstream, but one can find far less aggressive attempts to discredit, and softer and fairer treatment of men such as Nazi general Erwin Rommel on Wikipedia.

A clear attempt is made to paint him as a racist by insinuating that he wrote the article "The Communist Attack on the Mormons" from a racist point of view, without discussing whether in fact the article does or does not contain open anti-black or racist statements, or simply indicates that some of that particular church's opponents were exploiting an obscure historical tenet to campaign against the reputation of a religion. I found myself wanting clarification or more information regarding what he actually said.

Again in the section "Political Life," it is said that "Skousen had support among many LDS people in the 60's and early 70's. It then indicates that "however by 1979 the first presidency issued a letter against promoting Skousen in LDS church meetings." While it is true that the leadership of the LDS church did issue such a letter, the LDS church issues such statements frequently in order to make clear that it does not endorse political candidates, authors or parties. Frequently, when a Mormon person of significant popularity comes on the national stage (like Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, or Glenn Beck) the LDS church will occasionally issue such statements to remind members that such individuals are speaking for themselves, and not for the church. The article ignores this and seems to insinuate that this was a special circumstance in the case of the subject. My own father was a student of Skousen's in his religion classes at BYU and found some of his opinions on the church a little strange. It is also possible the church was referring to some of his religious ideas in addition to, or instead of his political ones. This is not explored or clarified in the article.

Quotation marks are used in an unprofessional way in the article to ridicule or insinuate falseness of certain things the subject is quoted as or credited with having said. An example is the quotation marks around "irregularities" in the last paragraph of the Political Life section. He resigned from an institute. An unbiased statement would read "Skousen was a member of the Meadeau View Institute, but resigned citing irregularities in management," rather than "Skousen was a member of the Meadeau View Institute, but resigned citing "irregularities" in management." The unneeded quotes insinuate mischievousness or strangeness about his citation, when there is no additional information provided as to why it might be a false accusation or anything of the sort. There is more than one instance of this usage of questioning-quotations in the article.

In the same paragraph, the author takes the time to indicate that a student mentored by Skousen helped shape George Wythe University. The author indicates it is a "private, unaccredited university." Going so far as to examine the accreditation or lack thereof of a tiny university founded by a person who was simply inspired by or mentored by the subject of the article is hardly relevant in the context and content.

In the Views section, it indicates that "Skoused disregarded all federal regulatory agencies." This is a huge blanket statement, and I'm not aware of any case in which he made a clear blanket statement like that in any of this writings or published speeches. It should be noted that the source for the statement is an unquestionably leftwing activist group the "Southern Poverty Law Center," which is an organization dedicated to discrediting anti-communists and other conservatives as if they were fringe or radical and dangerous to the public. The group itself has been looked into for its own involvement in subversive activities and numerous commentary regarding its own communist party relationship exists all over the net. This organization is hardly a source for neutral quotations on right wing or conservative groups, and the quote does not make any indication that the radical "watchdog" group is making this claim against the subject, but instead asserts the statement to be fact, using only that group's editorial critique as "proof." This is not appropriate, and if the article was to be mentioned, the reader should be informed as to the nature of the source and its own political bias and background, rather than having it hidden in a footnote. The section also indicates flatly that the subject wanted to "remove the walls separating church and state," which contradicts many published statements by the subject, and is nothing more than an accusation by a political opponent of his, yet the article states it leaving the impression that the subject himself declared such a desire, which is incorrect, or at least contrary to statements by the subject himself. The article does not provide any proof or evidence that he held such a belief.

The article liberally uses quotes by Sean Wilentz, a contributing editor at the leftist publication "The New Republic," and friend of the Clintons (Wilentz is simply quoted as a Princeton University Historian in the article), or the far-left activist group "The Southern Poverty Law Center," which is presented as some sort of unbiased authority on right wing groups and "extremists". Quotations appearing to be from conservative authors are chosen only from the liberal wing of the GOP and the more neoconservative publications, which has been obsessed (even according to many left wing authors - see salon.com for example) with marginalizing the conservative and anti-communist element from the GOP since the 1950's.

A simple reading of the references section and the titles of the articles and books referenced leaves no question that biased sources were used almost exclusively in the article. Some examples of the sources used are entitled "Fringe Mormon Group Makes Myths with Glenn Beck's Help" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and "GenRolly Speaking: How Far Right Can We Go?.," "Rick Perry's radical right-wing reader," "Confounding Fathers: The Tea Party's Cold War Roots," bye "historian" Sean Wilentz (The New Yorker). "Romney's Radical Roots," from the National Review. Etc.

I generally don't agree with a good portion of Skousen's work, and the only real experience I have with him is that my father had been in one of his religion classes at BYU and disagreed with many of his ideas on that topic. I have, however, read The Naked Communist and did not find it "extremist" or "hysterical" or any of that. It makes a few statements I am not sure I agree with, but other than that is a fairly straight-forward overview of communist revolutionary behaviors and mostly sticks to publicly available direct quotes from Marx and other communists, as well as FBI supplied material, etc. While some of his other work and statements could be possibly considered conspiracy theory type stuff, The Naked Communist, at least, has mostly material that is easily corroborated elsewhere from reliable sources. That is my background on Skousen. I simply ran into this article and noticed that it repeatedly quotes harsh leftwing editorial sources as fact rather than opinion of adversaries of the subject, and thought it read more like a harsh adversarial editorial in a leftwing political magazine or newspaper, more than a encyclopedia article. I had just finished reading an article on Erwin Rommel and was shocked at how much more "fairness" was afforded to a Nazi general than to some conservative author who wrote a few anti-communist books and made a few speeches. It stood out to me, and needs to be reviewed and cleaned up extensively. There is no question that the subject is right of center and that a few of his positions or comments are controversial or conspiratorial, but the article reads like a long list of quotations of insults from leftwing authors regarding how he is an extremis, rather than an overview of the subject with both sides of the various controversies presented for the reader to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcito (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears from the tone of your long screed that you are the one with problem understanding the concept of a neutral point of view. The New Yorker, for example, is regarded throughout journalism as having one of the best and most reliable fact-checking staffs on the planet; and The New Republic hasn't been left-of-center since sometime in the Carter Administration. And while the Southern Poverty Law Center is somewhat liberal, the consensus here is that they are an excellent and reliable source when discussing the right-wing fringes of U.S. politics. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put a "hat" on the long-winded screed. There's nothing in there of value to the discussion and it seems eerily similar to some of the other throwaway sockpuppets that have been appearing in various articles about right-wing groups and associated characters with the sovereign citizen movement and other anti-government conspiracy theory groups. Plus, it's incredibly out of date.Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I too disagree with some of the tone of this article, but not because I think it is too biased against Skousen. Max Blumenthal in his highly acclaimed book "Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party" notes (p.332):

Skousen's vocal support for the Far-right John Birch Society's claim that communists controlled President Dwight Eisenhower cost him the support of the corporate backers who had paid for his Red-bashing lecture tours. He went off the radar for several years, returning during the late 1960s to accuse the Jewish Rothschild family of secretly bankrolling everyone from Ho Chi Minh to the civil rights movement. By the late 1970s, even the Church of Latter Day Saints distanced itself from Skousen and his conspiracy theories. His work fell through the margins and might have disappeared entirely had Beck not revived it, turning The 5000 Year Leap into the bible of the Tea Party movement.

Skousen was a far-right conspiracy theorist. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on W. Cleon Skousen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922170353/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/print.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/print.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100425082805/http://www.skousen2000.com:80/biography.htm to http://www.skousen2000.com/biography.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100425082805/http://www.skousen2000.com:80/biography.htm to http://www.skousen2000.com/biography.htm

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

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) 20:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

Given that there are plenty of references to this guy being a total crackpot, why is Wikipedia failing to refer to them? It is totally unclear to me what 'contributions' this individual made to society; I suppose he should be on Wikipedia simply because of his notoriety, but the full spectrum of views on his legacy should be reflected in this article - and most of those views seem to be that he was a total crank.

Is there any reason this article is so... obsequious?Ambiguosity (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819090720/http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-atonement-by-cleon-skousen/ to http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-atonement-by-cleon-skousen/

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) 16:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

FreedomFest information.

The intro paragraph mentions "His children Mark Skousen and Jo Ann Skousen run FreedomFest, an annual convention sponsored by Charles G. Koch." I believe the correct information to be "nephew and spouse" from a quick look at their about page 144.132.214.172 (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I see nothing on that page which purports to proide the relationship of Mark and Jo Ann to each other, or of them to W. Cleon. All Ii see are their photos and their names. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)