Talk:Roger Stone

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roger Stone article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American / Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Section sizes

Section size for Roger Stone (29 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	23,162	23,162
Early life and political work	6,575	6,575
Career	11	65,899
1970s: Nixon campaign, Watergate and Reagan 1976	6,156	6,156
1980s: Reagan 1980, lobbying, Bush 1988	10,795	10,795
1990s: Early work with Donald Trump, Dole 1996	2,014	2,014
2000s: Florida recount, Killian memos, conflict with Eliot Spitzer	12,105	12,105
2010–2014: Libertarian Party involvement and other political activity	8,363	8,363
2015–2021: Donald Trump campaign and media commentary	25,216	25,216
2022: Ontario, Canada political organizing	706	706
2024	533	533
Proud Boys ties	4,445	4,445
Relations with Israel before the 2016 United States elections	1,597	1,597
Connections with WikiLeaks and Russian espionage before the 2016 United States elections	26,096	77,233
Charges	14	51,137
Arrest and indictment	8,103	8,103
Trial and conviction	5,928	5,928
Sentencing	19	25,662
Intervention by Trump and Justice Department officials	17,455	17,455
Post-trial motions and sentencing	8,188	8,188
Commutation and pardon	11,430	11,430
2020 United States presidential election and January 6 United States Capitol attack	10,241	10,241
Federal civil tax evasion suit	1,999	1,999
Books and other writings	10,320	10,320
Personal style and habits	5,456	5,456
See also	298	298
Notes	24	24
References	28	28
External links	1,868	1,868
Total	209,145	209,145

Netflix documentary as a source

@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco: I'll raise the question about using Netflix as a source at WP:RS, it seems to me that it should be treated like a book. NadVolum (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NadVolum; appreciated, thanks. I'll join the discussion over there. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

File:Arrest of Roger Stone (cropped).jpg

Requesting that the lead image be changed to a recent picture taken by Gage Skidmore at this year's Turning Point Action Conference. The other image is a low quality copy from the Associated Press, which does not use a Creative Commons license. TaurusEmerald (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stone and Assange

Two of my edits were recently reverted with the reason "revert bold changes by Burrobert. Please discuss on talk. Appears to change the meaning of what the sources say". My edits do not "change the meaning of what the sources say". They do change the meaning of what this Wikipedia page says and there is a good reason for that. It's fairly clear that the original text "change[d] the meaning of what the sources say" and the purpose of my edit was to ensure the text conformed to the source. Here are the details of the first reverted edit:

"However" and "deny" are words to watch - this is basic editing: see wp:Words_to_watch
First change: "However, two unnamed associates of Stone have alleged that he collaborated with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign to discredit Hillary Clinton" -> “Two unnamed associates of Stone have alleged that Stone claimed to have had contact with Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign".

Compare this with what the source says: “one of two Stone associates who say Stone claimed to have had contact with Assange in 2016”. Spelling it out, the two associates do not say Stone collaborated with Assange. The associates say Stone claimed to have had contact with Assange. That's a big difference.

Second change: "Stone and Assange have denied these claims". -> "WikiLeaks and Assange said they have never communicated with Stone. Stone said he could recall only one occasion on which he mentioned contact with Assange, and said that mention was made as a joke".

Compare this with what the source says: "WikiLeaks and Assange have also said they never communicated with Stone" and "He said he only recalled having one conversation with anyone in which he alluded to meeting the WikiLeaks founder — a comment he said he made as a joke to a long-winded Nunberg ... "It was a joke, a throwaway line to get him off the phone" ". Hopefully, that is also very clear.

Burrobert (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not really a substantial difference.

2. WP:MANDY.

Zaathras (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to mean anything. Where does Mandy fit in? If there is no difference, which I don't accept, why not change to my version? Burrobert (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Burrobert (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we know that Stone met and was in contact with Assange [1] we don't really need to give so much air to the idea that the meeting didn't happen. Some of your changes are innocuous but let's make sure we understand what the source says and what Stone says and don't substitute the latter for the former. Andre🚐 05:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed the discussion by introducing a source which does not appear to be mentioned in this page. If we are going to use the sources currently cited in this page then my comments above still stand. My responses to the new source are:

The text on our page is referring to contact "during the 2016 presidential campaign". The new source says "court documents from the federal investigation of Mr. Stone, released late Monday, show that at least after the election, the two men had maintained a personal relationship" and "The records shed no new light on whether Mr. Stone, 67, directly communicated with Mr. Assange before the election".
The new source does not say "Stone met and was in contact with Assange". It talks about an "exchange of messages". Burrobert (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "changing the discussion" by introducing a new source. I reverted your bold edits, now we're discussing a possible constructive path toward a resolution. Therefore we should discuss our understanding of the material. My understanding is that Stone met with and had contact with Assange, and then said otherwise on several occasions (understandably). We can set that aside for a moment, but let's be clear that Stone did have contact with Assange, and we can figure out how to phrase that. Andre🚐 06:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Stone met with and had contact with Assange". Has anyone said Stone met with Assange? Burrobert (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was found guilty for lying to Congress[2] for meeting with Wikileaks and he also was in close contact with Trump about Wikileaks[3] Andre🚐 06:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you may be right that it was only contacts with Wikileaks, not a physical meeting, but he still lied about it on multiple occasions. Andre🚐 06:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the term "had contact with" then rather than "met", which is likely to be misinterpreted as a physical meeting. Incorporating your new source into the article, here is a suggested wording for the lead. It contains a few changes to more accurately reflect the source being used. In particular it is more careful about the times when the various statements and supposed events occurred:

In 2018, two associates of Stone alleged that Stone claimed to have had contact with Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign. In response, Assange told the Washington Post that he had not met with Stone in Spring 2016 and Wikileaks said it had had no contact with Stone. Stone said he could recall only one occasion on which he mentioned meeting with Assange, and said that mention was made as a joke. Court documents released in 2020, showed Stone and Assange exchanged messages in June 2017. Burrobert (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(⊙︿⊙)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's fine - @Valjean any thoughts? Andre🚐 16:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll wait a few minutes to see if Valjean has any thoughts. Burrobert (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Burrobert I think theres a mistake in the edit [4] Assange told the Washington Post that he had not met with Stone in the northern Spring of 2016

Is northern spring a mistake or is it something I dont know? Softlemonades (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Washingpost source says "Through his attorney, Assange — who has been living in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since 2012 — told The Post in January that he did not meet Stone in spring 2016". I added the word "northern" to distinguish it from the southern Spring which occurs at a different time of year. If you can think of a better way of wording this, feel free to change the wording. Burrobert (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stone and Assange - redux

"acknowledged", "pointed to": these are words to watch - see MOS:SAID: "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate".
"deny" is a word to watch - see wp:Words_to_watch
First change: "two sources close to Stone, former Trump aide Sam Nunberg and a person speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged to The Washington Post that Stone had established contact with WikiLeaks owner Julian Assange" --> "two sources close to Stone, former Trump aide Sam Nunberg and a person speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Washington Post that Stone had claimed to have made contact with Julian Assange".

This change was explained in the earlier section. The source says "one of two Stone associates who say Stone claimed to have had contact with Assange in 2016".

Second change: "According to Nunberg, who claimed he spoke to the paper after being asked to do so by Special Counsel Robert Mueller" -—> "According to Nunberg, Special Counsel Robert Mueller had asked him to recount Stone's description of the telephone call with Assange".

Compare this with the source, which says "Sam Nunberg, said in an interview Monday that Stone told him that he had met with Assange — a conversation Nunberg said investigators for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III recently asked him to describe". Nunberg isn’t saying Mueller told him to talk to the Washingppost. Mueller was asking Nunberg to tell him (Mueller) about the conversation. The source later says "Nunberg told The Post that the questions he was asked by Mueller’s investigators indicated to him that the special counsel is examining statements Stone has made publicly about WikiLeaks".

Third change: "Stone joked to him that he had taken a trip to London to personally meet with Assange, but declined to do so, had only wanted to have telephone conversations to remain undetected and did not have advance notice of the leaked emails” —> "Stone said Nunberg had called him and asked about his plans for the weekend and Stone had replied he was travelling to London to visit Assange as "a throwaway line to get [Nunberg] off the phone" “.

The original text is difficult to understand and is wrong in a number of ways here. I can't see the source for the phrase "but declined to do so, had only wanted to have telephone conversations to remain undetected". In the conversation, Stone does not say "he had taken a trip to London”. He says “he was travelling to London to visit Assange”. The fictitious trip was taking place in the future, not the past. Secondly, Nunberg does not say Stone joked to him. In fact Nunberg says “he did not take the comment as a joke”. It is Stone who describes the statement as "a joke, a throwaway line to get him off the phone".

Burrobert (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why is this in a second topic? Softlemonades (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made two separate edits that were reverted. I have created a separate topic for each edit. There is some overlap in the subject. Burrobert (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a separate topic for each edit ok thank you for explaining, i had trouble understanding Softlemonades (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This talk section relates to this edit [5] Burrobert (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: Burrobert (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no reason to deal with these 2 edits in 2 separate sections. So why don't we shorten this WP:TEXTWALL into a single thread. Feel free to redact or combine your own posts. Andre🚐 05:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you can remove my replies if you combine threads Softlemonades (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will become unwieldy if we change things now. Why not deal with the first reverted edit above, then deal with this one. Burrobert (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already unwieldy now. Andre🚐 06:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the lead in accordance with the discussion in the section "Stone and Assange". What should we do about the suggestions mentioned above in this section? Burrobert (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be much interest in this. I am going to start slowly reintroducing the changes mentioned above. Please raise any concerns here. Burrobert (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any concerns so far? Burrobert (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The changes seem minor to me Andre🚐 02:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Thought it would be safer to start with the less controversial ones. More changes to come. Burrobert (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]