Talk:John Loftus (military author)

...Need to mention the Saddam tapes.

--JJ

current activites

He writes a weekly article for Ami magazine

Untitled

If you have some information to add to the article, please go ahead. Gamaliel 18:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest in donating as much as a sneeze to Wikipedia, and do not consider it my responsibility to correct every instance of misinformation on the Internet, but I am inclined to respond to the invitation to comment on the quality of this article, as presented in the box at the top of this page.

By what authority, I wonder, does Wikipedia collectively declare knowledge of Loftus' "primary victory"? That the event described happened might not be in doubt, and a source cited in the article might verify it, but I see no source indicating the relative primacy of his supposed victories. An ambiguous claim like that raises doubt, in my mind, about the integrity of the entire article, and of the context in which it is published. The Wikipedia ideal is "maybe someday we'll get it right" but if that day is not today, it's a waste of my time to read it. Proanoicitian? 05:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

John Loftus had a regular segment (the "Loftus Report") on the ABC Radio program, "The John Batchelor Show", for five years. The show had a national audience of 5,000,000. The show was cancelled in September 2006 with no explanation provided by the network. In the year since, there has been great anticipation for the return of the show and just last week Brian Lamb (a fan of the show) had John Batchelor on C-SPAN to discuss the show, its cancellation/return, and existing audience. John Batchelor has recently made a flurry of appearances on the new "Loftus Report" program and this is very significant to the audiences of both Jonh Loftus and John Batchelor. [personal attack removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A bullet point list of appearances and podcasts is inappropriate and irrelevant for an encyclopedia article. Please refrain from personal attacks during an editing dispute. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid mischaracterizations - apprising the community of removal of relevant information is not a personal attack. Editing is most welcome. Removing relevant information is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You can "apprise the community" without resorting to wild accusations and attacks. We have different opinions on the relevance of this information, that is all. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are a very good editor and your efforts are sincerely appreciated when they do not remove important information. Perhaps you simply lacked familiarity with the subject and did not realize the importance of the content you removed? I have no idea. Regardless - pointing out removal and repeated removal of relevant information in the case of the John Loftus entry is not a "personal attack".

Thank you. But that still doesn't change the fact that accusations and attacks are not simply "pointing out" a removal of information. Now if I don't "realize the importance" of this information, please use this talk page to explain it. Also, please explain why we should in this case differ from Wikipedia content and style guidelines and include a bullet point list of podcasts in the main section of the article, when this occurs nowhere else in Wikipedia. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You initially removed content pertaining to C-SPAN and the Batchelor appearances on the Loftus Report on the grounds of relevance. After this was addresed by pointing out the recent coverage by the C-SPAN network on this very same thing, you then changed your grounds to formatting. If you had re-formatted the relevant info, no bias could be construed on your part. However, in light of the fact that you changed your rationale and continued to pursue removal of content, it is not unreasonable to infer agenda. If there is no agenda on your part, that is a relief. I have no objection whatsoever to your exerting energy in reformatting this relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change my rationale. I object on the grounds of relevance, formatting, and importance. No bias or agenda should be construed because civility and Wikipedia policy demand that you treat other editors with respect and prohibits you from throwing out attacks and accusations. Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines and policies and let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I will try to familiarize myself more with "your" guidelines and policies. In the future, please refrain from removing information that is deemed relevant by the wikipedia community and by C-SPAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree that it is relevant and I am free to edit the article just as much as you are. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While you may hold yourself in a higher regard than C-SPAN, I would expect that you have the ability to consider the possibility that others respect C-SPAN more and find their coverage of a story affecting an audience of 5,000,000 relevant and deserving of a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for that kind of snide response. Now if you wish to justify the inclusion of this material in this form, please explain what CSPAN has to do with a bullet point list of podcasts. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed information that communicated John Batchelor's recent appearance on C-SPAN. The C-SPAN show dealt with the fact that the John Batchelor Show had a national audience of 5,000,000; was cancelled in September 2006 with no explanation provided by the network; and in the year since, there has been great anticipation for the return of the show. If you don't like the formatting, I welcome you to change it. That would be a good thing. However, please refrain from removing the content entirely. That is a disservice to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In this article all I removed was the list of Loftus podcasts. I see nothing in this article about C-Span. Let's try to keep this page for discussion of this article only. Also, your edit summary of "bias saga" was uncivil, insulting, and unwarranted. If you wish me to respect and address your concerns, please refrain from addressing me in this manner. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. As you no doubt understand, I made reference to this edit of yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Batchelor&diff=160713215&oldid=160626754 on the related John Batchelor entry wherein you are mirroring your discussion remarks as am I. I am losing patience with the petty nature of this discussion. Here are facts: Batchelor show had 5 million people listening. A huge audience miss him. Loftus Report was a essential part of that show and now has its own show. C-SPAN covered this whole topic last Sunday. Concurrently, after a year of absence Batchelor has begun to pop up on Loftus and C-SPAN. On this entry and on the Batchelor entry you are engaged in removing this content. Format it any way you want, but don't remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Three appearances by John Batchelor on the Loftus Report do not deserve such prominent mention in a biography of John Loftus. You can put a link to the podcast directory in external links, but a podcast and appearance listing does not belong in an biographical encyclopedia article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. John Loftus, as a regular part of the Batchelor show, is a part of the story that Brian Lamb so engagingly covered on C-SPAN last Sunday. It is unfortunate that you are so committed to not letting this story be told.

What story? That three appearances were made and available in podcast form? That's not a story, that's advertising. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrect. Look at the comments surrounding these events. They are overwhelming with expressed joy about Batchelor's appearance on the Loftus Report after such a long absence. I don't know what you have against John Loftus and John Batchelor, but you don't understand this story - as reported by C-SPAN very well I might add - at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Then write about the story, with appropriate citations to news articles substantiating your viewpoint. A list of podcasts is not appropriate, and saying so has nothing to do with my opinion of Loftus and Batchelor. I have no opinion of either man and would not recognize them if I saw them on the street. It is disappointing that you have continued to cry "bias" and make unwarranted attacks instead of addressing the issues at hand. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules of conduct before you continue to treat others in this manner. And please start signing your posts. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is totally inappropriate to list Batchelor's appearances on the Loftus show in the intro to this article. This is not Batchelor's article, it is Loftus'. I'm not sure what the big deal is, I've been hearing Batchelor on the radio now and then over the last year, a couple of weeks ago he sat in for Matt Drudge on the Drudge radio show. If there is some special significance that is noted by reliable sources, then that significance can be covered in the article, but certainly not in the intro, and certainly not just a list of podcasts. - Crockspot 12:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was reading a number of your posts on Gamaliel's talk page, Crockspot, and like Gamaliel you are probably a very good editor. If you've read through the entire discussion, you'll see that there's no argument about re-formatting. The issue is relevance. Batchelor show had 5 million people listening. A huge audience miss him. Loftus Report was a essential part of that show and now has its own show. C-SPAN covered this whole topic last Sunday. Concurrently, after a year of absence Batchelor has begun to pop up on Loftus and C-SPAN. Most of us on wikipedia are not writers or librarians. If you and Gamaliel want to donate your skills to better tell this story - that's good. If you just want to remove content because it is not expressed correctly - that helps no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really understand what "the story" is. Wikipedia is not an organ for original research and thought. If there is some significance that has been reported in reliable sources, then please point out those sources, and I would be happy to look at them, and maybe even write a bit if I have time. But if there are no sources that are drawing any significance about the recent appearances or his audience "missing" him, then it amounts to WP:OR. I also don't see why that would be in this article rather than in Batchelor's article. I enjoyed listening to Batchelor myself. His show always gave you the feeling that he was pirate broadcasting from a bunker in the middle of a war zone. The fact that I was tuning in WABC from a basement in Montreal probably added to that atmosphere, with the fade in/out and all. - Crockspot 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the list of podcasts again. If there is a story that you feel need to be told here, we will assist you in telling it provided there are reliable sources to back up your assertions. But a list of podcasts is inappropriate. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have the time to deal with Gamaliel and Crockspot's efforts to remove this relevant content to this story. All I know is that this is important information and relevant and you removed it not because it isn't relevant, but because of its formatting. You have not helped anyone interested in the story as you have prevented them from ever reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You had the time to argue about this for two days, but you can't take the time to learn to use Wikipedia properly? If you want to contribute, you should learn to contribute properly instead of expecting other people to clean up after you and then objecting when they don't clean up exactly the way you like. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.140.9 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Hunter

Is this guy really a Nazi Hunter? He spend a few years in late 1970s working for the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which was charged with prosecuting and deporting Nazi war criminals in the US. Nothing is mentioned about his role with that Department, for all known he was the janitor. Nothing is mentioned about him hunting or finding any Nazis much less deporting them. After quitting, he didn’t continue hunting any Nazis. I don't see why he belongs under the Category: Nazi Hunter. It sounds like it was a short time job that he didn’t like much. There are no references. If there are no objections, I will remove him from this category. Meishern (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Loftus' former boss at the OSI, Allan Ryan, is quite critical of him. See http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A1547

If Loftus was a prosecutor, then what specific cases did he prosecute in court?Bronxpolwatcher (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times has obtained a copy of an internal US gov't report on Nazi hunting and whether gov't agencies worked at cross purposes re Nazi war criminals, i.e., some like NASA and the CIA wanting to use them. A whole section of this report deals with Loftus and the validity of his assertions that hundreds of Belorussian WWII war criminals were imported to the US after WWII. The report carefully analyzes each of Loftus's charges and refutes them. It also paints him as a Glenn Beck level historian and a crackpot. This report should be mentioned in the article. Here's a link to the report in the NYT today: http://documents.nytimes.com/confidential-report-provides-new-evidence-of-notorious-nazi-cases?ref=us#document/p341. FrancisDane (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Loftus did in fact work for the OSI but went off the rails and left. [He apparently accused Ronald Reagan of assisting in the Belarus conspiracy. Reagan was an actor at the time.] What he accomplished while he was at the OSI I don't know, but the report mentioned above says that he did great damage to OSI's ability to nazi-hunt after his numerous television appearances on 60 minutes etc. claiming that the OSI was a fraud. Afterwards the OSI found that they were untouchable and that they could not get information from the DOD and other govt agencies. So, yes, not only is he NOT a nazi hunter but impeded OSI work. This article re Loftus presents a very distorted picture of the man unless the "Nazi Hunter" section is re-written to show the opposing view. BTW the whole report is fascinating. FrancisDane (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and I don't see any reason why a summary of Loftus' involvement should be missing from this article. Zero^talk 03:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Role in Yom Kippur War?

His old Web site (available through the Wayback Machine) claims he helped train Israeli soldiers and helped turn the tide of the Yom Kippur War in 1973. See http://web.archive.org/web/20030604055731/http://john-loftus.com/bio.asp

I added this to his entry, but phrased it by saying that he "claimed" to have done so. It sounds like BS to me. But I don't have a source backing up his claim, or one that refutes it. Can we say there is no evidence to back up his claim? Does anyone else have any other information?

Thanks.

Bronxpolwatcher (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life section

I erased the Personal Life section, which stated that he is gay. I personally know John Loftus, and he is a married Catholic, and is not "openly gay," as the article stated. I'll assume that this was some sort of mistake.

--JoseKirly (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Loftus (author). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://john-loftus.com/bio.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.john-loftus.com/apology.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514135709/http://207.234.249.73/mwd/talk_radio.htm to http://207.234.249.73/mwd/talk_radio.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320062834/http://menewsie.3.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=655 to http://menewsie.3.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=655

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)