Talk:Dana Rohrabacher

Experience at The Register

Questions regarding Rohrabacher's tenure at The Register

1. When did he work there? Right after college graduation? or did he do other work before working at The Register?
2. Did the job there provide him the connections and/or give him the experience to get into the Reagen White House?

There is currently not enough information to put this work experience in the main body of the article. If nobody knows the answers, I will put this one sentence back in the Misc section. --Asbl 18:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the work at The Register was part of it, but he had been an anarcho-capitalist activist, and had been supported by libertarian billionare Charles Koch. Koch decided to change from spending his financial influence on the radical extreme of libertarianism for a more mainstream approach of attempting to move the existing political right towards libertarianism instead of the radical Murray Rothbard type approach. When Koch took his Cato Institute towards the mainstream, Rohrabacher went with him. Koch funded Rohrabacher's first two failed congressional campains. From there he went on to be a Reagan speechwriter. Though without hard proof, I'd be pretty certain, that Koch and his money was the important factor. See http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=rr_main&Number=1352628&page=&view=&sb=&o= and also contact Jeff Riggenbach and some other famous libertarians for more of Rohrabacher's early political history from his friends of that time. He might be compared to Alan Greenspan as a former libertarian turned establishment leader, or oppositely to Karl Hess as a former Nixon and Goldwater speechwriter turned into a Black Panther supporting radical under watch of the FBI. Carltonh 17:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. Per this 1976 Journal of Libertarian Studies, http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:uY5EThP4-3MJ:www.mises.org/journals/lf/1976/1976_10.pdf+Dana+Rohrabacher+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8, Rohrabacher was already calling himself a "anarcho-pragmatist" and supporting Reagan in California politics long before there was a Reagan White House, so the Koch funding might not be the primary cause, though still likely a precursor. Carltonh 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Taliban Support?"

Was the purported support of the Taliban really support, or was he simply supporting the mujahadin? The two need to be separated, and I'm not sure the original author of that section notes that properly. That said, perhaps he did support the Taliban specifically, but there needs to be precision in the way this is worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnLee (talk • contribs)

I changed the wording before (I agree that the original author used too-sweeping language). I've revised it again so that it is (hopefully) clearer and more accurate. (For example, there were certainly groups fighting the Soviet Union who ended up fighting the Taliban rather than becoming part of that government/regime; the U.S. allied with such groups when U.S. troops entered Afganistan after 9/11.) John Broughton 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Taliban was created in large part within Pakistan and in the aftermath of the Afghan-Soviet War, not during its inception.

The phrasing is still inaccurate, especially when you say he supported fighters under the command of Osama Bin-Laden.

Osama Bin-Laden was not known as a visible entity and major figure during the Soviet-Afghan War.

At least, not by United States authorities, who didn't really begin to track him until 1996, at the very earliest. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence you refer to; it wasn't particularly useful or necessary. John Broughton | Talk 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eagle Scout

Here is a reference stating that Rohrabacher is both an Eagle Scout and a Distinguished Eagle Scout:

• "The Congress and Scouting". Fact sheet. Boy Scouts of America. Retrieved 2006-09-06. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Since my addition of the reference and the categories was reverted, I leave it to any interested party to do with this as they desire. I have no other interest in this and I have no further interest in discussing the issue. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - my error. I've added back the categories. John Broughton 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrongdoing of aide

Mattfiller - The section I just deleted,which you had added, included the following sentence: "The OC Weekly article implies that Rohrabacher and/or the District attorney have contributed to the delay of this trial for political reasons." If the "and/or" means "and", then the sentence is FALSE; the article does not, as far as I can tell, mention Rohrabacher in any way delaying the case. If the "and/or means" "or", then the sentence is true (the article implies the DA has delayed, mentioning the aide was once an intern in the DA's office) in the same way that the sentence "George W. Bush and/or Jimmy Carter and/or someone else assassinated John F. Kennedy" - yet such a sentence would be instantly removed from the Bush or Carter articles as a violation of WP:BLP and probably other policies. So in either case, the sentence does NOT justify having this section in the article.

The edit summary, Rohrabacher has not denied public charges by the OCWeekly that he contributed to delaying of prosecution of Nielsen, seems even less supported by the news article than the text added to wikipedia: the OCWeekly article in no way "charged" that Rohrabacher "contributed" to the delay.

Anything added to this wikipedia article needs to fully comply with WP:BLP. What I've been doing is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. If the aide's wrongdoing is NOT connected to Rohrabacher, except for the fact that the aide worked for him, it's irrelevant; if Rohrabacher covered up or otherwise obstructed the legal process of prosecuting the aide, or even knew about it and failed to report it, then the description of what Rohrabacher did wrong needs to be QUOTED in order to justify having this section in the article at all. John Broughton | Talk 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How rich he is?

I assume I man with so many dirty things in his curriculum might be very rich. Or am I missing something? Thank you. 201.19.211.225 14:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming / Dinosaur Flatulence: Misquote.

That section reads like he said the current global warming was caused by "dinosaur flatulence". In fact, he was referring to previous rises in CO2 levels:

"We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows? We do know the CO2 in the past had its time when it was greater as well. And what happened when the CO2 was greater since then and now? There have been many cycles of up and down warming." [1]

No matter how far-fetched all that may be, we should at least give him the honest treatment and not deliberately misquote in order to make him look like a total idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.231.29.73 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Having seen the video in the link, it's obvious that he's joking. I suggest we change "theorized" to "joked". IgorW 08:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former anarchists

The other night, I added Dana Rohrabacher to the category former anarchists, given that he was at one time a LeFevrian anarchist. This is confirmed in the book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty.

A wikipedian by the screen name Alanraywiki undid my edit. I plan to re-do my edit, but I wanted to address this here in case there is any reason why Dana Rohrabacher does not belong in that category.

The only reason I can think for not including him is if it turned out that he was still an anarchist. But, it appears that he is not. For one thing, he's voted for a variety of big-government policies while in office. For another, he all but told Doherty in an interview that he'd given up on those views, no longer believing them to be practical.

It indeed seems that he is no longer an anarchist, thus making him a perfect candidate for inclusion in the former anarchists category.

If anyone has any objection, please make your case here. Thanks! :)

Allixpeeke (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. Frankly, when I saw the word anarchist in connection with a current politician and no explanation in the edit summary, I just reverted. Now that you've pointed out this background with the source, I will not revert your category addition again. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

combining the iraq war with vietnam era injury is argumentation, not history

As usual on Wikipedia, someone has decided to introduce argument (from the left). Write an editorial if you want that. I will fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Second War in Iraq

Rohrabacher has a pro-war stance. THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING ROHRABACHER'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCE REGARDING WAR AND PERSONAL SACRIFICE HAVE BEEN INSERTED HERE NUMEROUS TIMES AND REMOVED EACH TIME BY ROHRABACHER THOUGHT POLICE: In a February 13, 2003 interview with Toby Eckert of Copley News Service published in the South Bay (Torrance, Calif.) Daily Breeze, Rohrabacher revealed that he showed up to his draft physical during the Vietnam War with an X-ray of a hip he claimed had been injured in high school football. "They looked at it and they said my hip wasn't good enough," he told Eckert. "When I look back on that, sometimes I wonder if I should have taken that X-ray with me or not." http://copleydc.com/copleydc_staff/Eckert/eckert_1-13-03.htm

They were removed, because it's an implicit argument ABOUT Rohrbacher. I don't know if it's a valid one or not. But Wiki is not the place for that sort of thing. If you wnt to talk about his non-service in the VN war, do it in a section over there! And I did my time in the service. And I'm not part of the thought police.

On the August 15, 2003 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, Rohrabacher said "85% of the Iraqi people threw flowers at our troops in celebration but the media just wouldn't report it," which drew criticism from Bill Maher. He also said in a later episode "John Kerry would have to ask the French and the Germans before he invaded Iraq." It was reported online that he claimed in 2003 before the war that Iraqis would be "throwing flowers on us and waving American flags," but I cannot find the source for the last one. I think his comments to the Iraqi Council of Representatives, whereupon he criticized Iraqis for not thanking America, should be included. Article from The Nation BrotherSulayman (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

New Foreign Policy Section

I was thinking of combining some of Rohrabacher's scattered foreign policy views and causes （and surrounding controversies) into a single section. I thought I'd throw it out here first to see what people think, and hope for people's friendly collaboration, not to mention disagreements, though I hope people can refrain from being excessively partisan!Ocedits (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ossetia

A section about SO has been added by a user who appears from his talk page to have a history of rather politically motivated views (anti-semetic, plus the idea that there's a Jewish conspiracy). DR is supposed to have said "USA is wrong, Russia is right!" and this story is plastered all over the Russia news sites...and no-where else. I can't find what DR is supposed to have said on a non-Russian site. Russian media is state controlled - it's as reliable as a Trabant. I've added a comment to the SO section about Russian media reliability issues (with a cite to the Fox video that was manipulated and then broadcast as real inside Russia) and left it at that for now. Toby Douglass (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I note with interest we have an anon IP address (84.51.85.202) who for his first and only edit has removed the comment and citation regarding Russian media. I have reverted on the basis this is NPOV.

I have however discovered the International Herald Tribune has an article which confirms what was said. I will be adding this in to the section shortly. (It's lunchtime right now :-) Toby Douglass (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The section on Iran has a very tendentious summary of Rohrabacher's statements on Iran and on the Berlin Wall (It claims that Rohrabacher said "Gorbachev tore down the Berlin Wall because Reagan told him to" -- if there is a verifiable quote from Rohrabacher saying something so stupid, it should be listed, but I am skeptical: this sounds like an opponent of Rohrabacher's distorted summary of something the man said.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.224.87 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like an attack piece.

I'm not a fan of Rohrabacher, but this article is just completely one-sided. If someone with a greater interest in the topic doesn't clean it up within a short time, I'm going to take a chainsaw too it, and remove entirely the inappropriate "controversies" section, as well as some other things. Wikipedia does not exist as a dumping ground for negative information about living people. LHM 14:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

An IP editor has been blanking large sections of the article, with edit summaries that at least make a claim to justification. I haven't reverted because there might be BLP issues, but I've tagged the article with POV to draw attention to the edits and the dispute. PT 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I read this article before when i edited as an anon ip, I just signed up now when I noticed the massive deletions

And I strongly disagree. This ip 69.250.146.100 has edited Republican related articles before, looking at his contribution history, and may be biased for pro Republican viewpoints.

And its not just about suspected bias, on one of his edits he is straight out lying that the "cited sources do not back content"

look at this -"Edited for neutral viewpoint. Cited sources do not back content"

He also deleted pro taliban statements rohrabacher made here, making it seems as though he was always anti taliban

Yet the sources he deleted along with the info, like this Washington Report on Middle East Affairs makes it clear that Rohrabacher did make positive statements about the Taliban.

in addition, this news report from the Orange county weekly here says clearly that even while Dana critized the Taliban after his intial praise supporting them, he still illegally met with a Taliban representative and even discussed proving financial aid to them, and mispreseted this meeting by claiming he was at another conference

That news article was one of the items the ip deleted.

And another one of the sources, a news article, says Dana received funding from numerous Islamist groups, some linked to al qaeda, and jewish groups did raise concern about it

And he did mention womens panties numerous times in an interview

It was all deleted by the ip.Markhoos (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I will restore parts, after I check if the sources do indeed back up what was said in the article, I will not restore material that we cannot access like a book source or anything, and I will keep the neutrality disputed tag up.Markhoos (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right to criticize unjustified removal of cited information. However, there are still serious NPOV issues with the article, particularly regarding foreign policy. For instance, instead of putting incidents like the Taliban history and Mohiuddin Ahmed in context within Dana_Rohrabacher#Foreign_policy, they are cherry-picked into their own sections. These sections themselves are slanted. For instance, after the article indicates that Rohrabacher is now anti-Taliban, it cites a quote calling him a "fraud." However, the evidence that he has provided at least mixed support for the war in Afghanistan is not included. The section on Kosovo over-emphasizes criminal allegations against the KLA. These are discussed in the KLA article in an appropriate manner. However, there is no evidence that Rohrabacher was connected to those elements of the group. There are two sections on torture, again showing the way individual remarks are cherry-picked into their own sections.

Finally, this should be clear, but appropriate books are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Thus, information from book sources should not be excluded solely because a particular editor doesn't have the book. This obviously applies to both favorable and unfavorable information. Superm401 - Talk 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow

The "political positions page" gives several points out of 22 YEAR voting record to create a almost entirely negative article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.146.100 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe

Maybe do a little research and add something of substance before just undo my blanking my sections. Wikipedia is supposed to be about neutrality. The vast majority of this stuff would not be in a biography. This is why wikipedia couldn't hold the jock strap of encyclopedia brittanica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.146.100 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which inclludes rohrabacher's praising of the taliban, is considered a WP:RS, as are most of the sources in this article, which are from media news organizations.

We are neutral. Thats why Rohrabacher's praise of the Taliban is put into quotes, and not interpreted into some warped conclusion. Straight from the horses's mouth- "In contrast, the Taliban leaders have already shown that they intend to establish a disciplined, moral society."Markhoos (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And nice try in your attempt to delete massive, sourced portions of the article while simultaneously inserting the voting record. You have not given a legitamate explanation for your deletions, nor explained why the sources were unreliable or inadequate.Markhoos (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: After the above, 69.250.146.100 was blocked (for evading an earlier block) for one month (block expires June 3), but has actually applauded Markhoos' subsequent edits to this article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

File:090128 rorhabacher.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:090128 rorhabacher.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rohrabacher surfing.tiff Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Rohrabacher surfing.tiff, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rohrabacher with Reagan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Rohrabacher with Reagan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rohrabacher1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Rohrabacher1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 5 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

aide convicted of child molestation

the vandalism tag was a false positive. It detected the word "sex" or "molestation", and automatically tagged it since it was probably a keyword. The edit itself was not vandalism, but factual, sourced information.

The reason I added this was because this was on the article a few months ago when I read it, but I looked into the history and apparently an ip address removed it on the false premise that "this has nothing to do with Rohrabacher other than aide once worked for him".

It very much has something to do with Rohrabacher. The source specifically stated "An anonymous flier was distributed that accused Rohrabacher of abusing his powers by shielding Nielson from prosecution during the trial", which did happen- there was controversy over his involvement in protecting Nielson.

The second way Rohrabacher was involved was that a molestation took place while he was working for Rohrabacher himself.Heinrich Klaus-Hans (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen, a lawyer and former aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, was arrested by Westminster police in May 2003 after authorities found thousands of images of pornography on both his work and personal computers. He was also accused of molesting a second boy, a 13-year-old Virginia resident, while he worked in Rohrabacher's Washington office in 1994.

"Rohrabacher fumes over flier" "Prosecutors also have been working to expand their case to include mention of another molestation they allege occurred in Virginia in the mid-1990s when Nielsen, now working as an attorney in Orange County, was a legislative aide to Rohrabacher."

37-year-old Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, who has worked previously for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), as well the Republican chair of California's Orange County, agreed to two felony counts of lewd acts upon a child

I admit the following sources to be not suitible since they are editorials, however, that does not negate the news sources above-

http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-10-05/news/accused-gop-pedophile-ties-da-to-blackmail-plot/

http://www.ocweekly.com/2005-10-06/features/nambla-fantasy

http://www.ocweekly.com/2007-02-22/news/imaginary-teen-sex/

Neilsen worked for Dana for a few months after college. The real story is that the anonymous flier was distributed on the eve of election and used a fake website. C'mon. None of this is encyclopedic. Removing as a violation of WP:BLP. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I deleted a section this page from the Environment section. One, the support to include this in the bio is shaky at best and 2, the source, a book entitled The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America, clearly is looking to portray Rohrabacher in a negative light. It is for that reason I have deleted it. I welcome anyone elses insight on the matter.

All the best,

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mohiuddin Ahmed

I see no evidence that this man is or was an Islamist in the references, so I have changed the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastexpofan (talk • contribs) 05:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Rohrabacher’s Plan to Partition Iran

see: https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/rohrabachers-plan-to-partition-iran/ Don;'t want to start a new section but if updated, this topic seems worth mentioning {I like aletho but concede it can be attacked as unreliable} 50.136.54.23 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)jek

Murdering children

He said this at a congressional hearing, so it's on the public record and we have CSPAN videos confirming it. The citation is to http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/26/1928321/rohrabacher-boston-islam/, which includes both of these original sources while defending us from the appearance of WP:OR. There is no WP:BLP issue here as there is absolutely no question that he said these things and that it was notable. MilesMoney (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)