Jump to content

Talk:George Lincoln Rockwell

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinated Nazis category

[edit]

I had reverted the addition of Category:Assassinated Nazis, but was reverted yesterday with the rationale "Ignore all precedents". I don't believe an essay is a valid reason to edit war over a category that doesn't even seem applicable here, as it seems to be used for people who actually worked for and/or collaborated with the actual Nazi party before or during WWII. Pinging @MagicatthemovieS to discuss. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The category is for Nazis, not simply Nazis from the 1940s. I think the category fits here, as Rockwell was a Nazi and he was assassinated. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rockwell was a neo-Nazi, not an actual Nazi. There's an important difference. If there was a category/subcategory for that it would be appropriate, but it doesn't seem to fit here. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A neo-Nazi is a Nazi, and Wikipedia says so.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
I also don't think this is appropriate. All our other Nazi categories are for nazis proper. We could make an assassinated neo-Nazis category I guess. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think this guy was even assassinated in the proper sense of the term. It is sometimes called that, but it is just as often not, and it wasn't for political reasons, Patler was just... an odd fellow. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

At the end of the "military service" section, GLR's article says that U.S. Lady magazine incorporated his extremist views into its publication. However, this claim fails to provide a source, and furthermore the U.S. Lady article itself directly contradicts that, reading (with a source at the end, to boot): "Rockwell's political views had never been espoused in the magazine during his tenure with U.S. Lady." CitizenKang414 (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source to the claim of its publication and removed the stuff about his political ideology in the magazine. No source I can find says that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Number of children

[edit]

@Hugonout I'm not going to revert you because the article as is doesn't say this yet, but he is listed in every source I have seen as having seven children. He had 3 each with his two wives, but I have no idea what the deal is with the seventh one. I will try to find out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI report says he had 7 [1] PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schmaltz also says "He did marry twice and have seven children". IDK where the discrepancy is PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, according to Simonnelli he had a seventh child out of wedlock, who died. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. Thanks for letting me know. Hugonout (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually wait, that postdates the FBI report. The FBI report says he had four children with his first wife which Schmutz also says (and names them, quote: Rockwell remained in Atlanta only a few months before the economy went sour and advertising sales dried up. In February 1958 he loaded his wife and their four children - but I think he's using fake names for privacy reasons). So he might have had eight kids. I need to look into this more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this just turned into a child crisis, didn't it? Hugonout (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This man had a very complicated set of relationships. I will figure it out - in any case, thank you for pointing it out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed he did, and you're welcome. - Hope you figure it out quickly and without many headaches. Hugonout (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mystery solved
1) they weren't fake names they were just nicknames
2) it was his stepchild PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]