Talk:Thomas Fleming (political writer)

Untitled

Serbian????? Since when is dr. Fleming Serbian? Because of his articles and books on Serbs and politics towArds them? From what I managed to find on dr Fleming, he's (Traditionalsit) Catholic, and judging by his surname of Scottish or Scots-Irish ancestry. I will remove that category!

Revisionist historian

I think it should be mentioned that he is considered a revisionist historian by some as is made clear in a piece that appeared in Publishers Weekly wrote a piece on Fleming and his book The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II. See Amazon.com: The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II (Paperback) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The author of that book is a different Thomas Fleming. That TF is a historian - and a good one BTW. This TF is a magazine editor. I sometimes get them confused as well. Nospam3333 09:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC) David

Integrity

I'm troubled greatly by the integrity of this article. The subject advances often a curious brand of nativism, but the article suggests quite the opposite, by strange quotes. For example, in a text by Fleming cited, he says that we shouldn't blame poor mexicans, but rather "stupid" whites, for the immigration situation. This is used as evidence that he "welcomes" mexicans to the US--but a read of the whole cited text, not just the quote, shows that he is against mexican immigration, but believes it is futile to try and stop it, and calls for the cutting off of "mexified states" from the US. The article, for exmaple, said that this has something to do with the religion of the immigrants, though the cited text said nothing of the kind. This article feels like a snow job to me, with a slew of out-of-context remarks, to make a nativist racist recidivist look like a friendly guy from next door. That at least, is my worry. Accordingly I am adding a bias tag, in the hopes that some work can be done. Tb (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting what you say, that it makes "a nativist racist recidivist look like a friendly guy from next door." For after you edited the article and wrote that comment, Thomas Fleming himself here, Talk:Thomas_Fleming_(political_writer)/Comments, calls the article "vituperative," and which falsely accuses him of wishing "to flood the country with illegal immigrants." (The IP checks as coming from the Rockford Institute, Dr. Fleming's employer.) I don't know what to make it of it, except to say that it's funny how the same statement to one person sounds too mean, but to another it is too kind. JRoanoke (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

i too am troubled by the integrity of this article. i am no expert on Thomas Fleming, nor on Paleoconservatism, however i am pretty good at noting bias in writing. this article consistantly presents Flemings ideas in confusing way that makes them seem non-sensical when, in fact, Fleming is incredibly clear and eloquent when stating his positions on issues.

also, there is an over emphasis on 'racial controversies' that is consistant with the stereotype that paints southern whites as racists. we are a multiracial society and must adress issues of race and culture. unbiased writing would present both sides of any controversy. Fleming, and paleoconservatism, is very much concerned with preserving the cultural traditions of all peoples. and yet this article seems to vilify him as a stereotypical southern white racist. where is the presentation of his views on these issues with out the "racial controversy."

i would guess that whoever wrote this article is biased against the paleoconsertive political stance and is attempting to discredit paleoconservatism by painting one of the paleo ringleaders as a nonsensical racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex burnette (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Separated background information into its own section and made copyedits. Castanea dentata (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center edits

I'm a mite concerned about the information about the Southern Poverty Law Center's assertion that Mr. Flemming is a "Neo-Confederate," and a quote they took totally out of context and had someone (I'm assuming) place at the top of the article. I moved it down and put the entire version of a quote in that section, but am thinking about deleting it entirely as it seems like a weasel-like attack from a propaganda group. Any thoughts? 64.221.15.66 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This Entry has been Hijacked

Like the entry for Chronicles, someone has also "hijacked" this entry. For instance, the sentence "Fleming has moved increasingly toward views consistent with the mainstream political consensus, becoming favorable to unchecked immigration into the United States" is false. Fleming has written numerous articles critical of immigration into the United States, such as in the recent Chronicles' book Immigration and the American Future. There are also other statements in this entry that are false. I suspect that someone has a personal grudge against Fleming and is attempting to discredit him here. --CM732 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That could be. The article had to be protected because of a determined editor. It'll be unprotected tomorrow and then we can remove that last paragraph.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted some of the nonsense about Fleming being pro-immigration. Most of these links were to discuss sections of articles, not to articles themselves by Fleming on immigration. One only need to read his recent essay in Immigration and the American Future to realize Fleming is critical of immigration. --CM732 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I added some published quotes by Fleming regarding his views on immigration.--CM732 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thomas Fleming (political writer)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

As the subject here profiled, I must say that nothing has so discouraged me from using Wikipedia as seeing how easily a competent and objective article was replaced by a vituperative and biased one that deliberately misrepresents my career and my opinions. From the language I can identify the writer as someone whom we kicked off the Chronicles Magazine website for his abusive and rude comments and for his absolutely false allegation that I was an ultramontane Catholic who wished to flood the country with illegal immigrants. I do not see why it should be impossible for someone to admire Mexico and its people without wishing to repudiate a national obligation to defend the our borders. If someone could possibly restore the old article, which was neither favorable nor hostile but accurate in its details, it would go a long way to reassuring a number of people about Wikipedia's trustworthiness. 69.128.111.134 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Thomas Fleming Actually, I doubt you and Chronicles magazine would want to be associated with racism. If you do not, then I think you should be grateful to whoever put your quotations in the article. Probably, they sincerely thought they were helping you and may even be confused as to why you are upset. For example on the Talk page to which you appended these comments, one editor remarked that the article made "you look like a friendly guy from next door." By protesting, one could only assume that you disagree. If indeed you really wish to distance yourself and your work from racism, then you should find out who it was that made it clear that you are not a racist, and extend them your special thanks. -Castanea dentata (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)