![]() | Biography Start‑class ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Chicago Start‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Libertarianism Start‑class | |||||||||
|
Controversy Section
The first sentence in the controversy section doesn't make sense - it references a "second tweet" but makes no mention of the first tweet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.91.222 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- How incredibly lame that there is no mention at all of anything that was contained in Weigel's emails. I think it might be a wee bit worthwhile to note that he wished for the death of Rush Limbaugh and referred to Matt Drudge as an amoral shut-in who Weigel wished would die in a fire (the assertion that such statements were made in jest is a remarkably lame defense). Yet another piece on Wikipedia that has obviously been sanitized in an attempt to protect someone's reputation. Exhibit #5053048694850834 in the case of "Why Wikipedia isn't an enyclopedia".
Using quotes for his controversial statements
Checking out the sources for Weigel's wish for Limbaugh to die etc. it's clear to me that he worded his statements to parody those he was supposedly (it seems to me, jokingly) cursing. The article as it stands doesn't show that angle of his comments. Is reporting joking comments without their humor intellectually honest? Should the humorous references (tasteful or not) be included? Or is pointing out that two people said the same thing (i.e. "I hope he fails") in different contexts, one as a joke, considered original research? I think that as the article stands it is misleading. OWiseWun (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hahahahaha, he wants Rush Limbaugh to die. Hahahahahahahahahah, that is so hilarious, to wish someone's death. Almost as hilarious as his wish that Matt Drudge die in a fire and his insinuation that Drudge is a child molester; what a side-splitter. Hahhahahahahahahahahahahaha, these humorless drones at the Washington Post.
Mathematically impossible
He can't start writing a column in April and resign three months later in June. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Done - it now reads "two months later".--JayJasper (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protection
This article is now linked to DailyKos, and has been extensively edited, without citations. I have it semi-protected for 3 days, when the controversy over the recent change of jobs should calm down. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I am puzzled by your statement that the article lacked citations. Here is what the article looked like at the time you protected it. [1] Where is the lack of citations? KeptSouth (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
About the image
I have some concerns about the image we are using.
- In the reduced size used in the article, the writing on the sign is unreadable.
- DW's face is so off-center that the top of the photo runs through his forehead.
- Per WP:BLP, anyone who clicks through to File:Teabagger!.jpg probably should be told that DW has said (via twitter: [2], [3], [4]) that it was just a joke.
What do other contributors think? CWC 15:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above.--JayJasper (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And yet another attempt to sanitize Weigel's record. He has referred to tea partiers by the derogatory term "tea baggers" and has implied racism is the motive behind all their actions. The notion that the sentiment in the image provided is a joke is itself a pathetic joke. The picture that accompanies this article sums up very nicely the attitudes that have made this clown "famous" in the first place, and as such, it should stay. Why is it that when one particular segment of the political spectrum makes offensive remarks, their are those who are so willing to except the lame "since I got caught, it is just a joke" defense? And even if it is a "joke", it is very revealing of Weigel's breathtaking lack of professionalism. Weigel's so-called joke would be the equivalent of a straight news reporter for the Washington Post who is covering the Presidential elections attending a party dressed in a KKK outfit that had "McCain" emblazoned on it. Quit straining to give Weigel a pass for everything he has done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.75.230 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about "telling the Complete Truth" or even drawing conclusions. Instead, we aim to summarize what reliable sources say about topics, in a verifiable way. (At least, that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work ...) Moreover, we are supposed to be especially careful about statements about living people. This often means we sometimes end up leaving important or interesting things out of articles merely because their sources are not 'reliable'. In the long run, though, this turns out to be the best (or at least least-worst) way to produce useful encyclopedia articles
- Long story short: we know we're not able to work out, let alone state, the complete truth about topics.
- Best wishes, CWC 04:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Stance of subject's commentary
The article makes no mention of the spectrum of subject's political commentary. Granted that Weigel was no "conservative equivalent to the Post's E. Klein"...
The Post has hired such left-leaning bloggers as Klein -- also a contributor to MSNBC and Newsweek -- who came from American Prospect. [...] This new breed is expected to report for their online columns while also offering a point of view, and Weigel's "Right Now" blog was meant to be in that mold. [...] I think conservatives expected Dave would be the writing the right-of-center equivalent of Klein's column.----WaPo[5]
--still it's true that Weigel does self-identify as a libertarian shade of conservative (albeit one that voted for Nader, Kerry, and Obama).[6]
His diverse choice of venues on Monday may reflect his political views. He has described himself as a libertarian and a registered Republican who has repeatedly voted for Democratic presidential candidates.[7]--NYT
Weigel himself told the Nat'lReview
It’s totally fair of people to say, “if you were a real libertarian then you wouldn’t do this.” Yes, if I was your kind of libertarian I wouldn’t. Fine. But it seemed to me that pretending that a couple of simple texts could solve the problem is not the way to go. So issue to issue, ideological fight to ideological fight, I re-examined it. And the case has been for a while, throughout the Obama presidency certainly, that nobody has a great idea how to get out of this, and I wasn’t convinced that traditional libertarian ideas were going to work. [... ... ...I]f you’ve got to have somebody cover the Tea Party you could do worse than someone who’s read Atlas Shrugged and who’s read Constitution of Liberty; and who at Reason was editing articles about the Federal Reserve for years; and who knows the history of the conservative movement and its ideology.--D.WEIGEL[8]
--71.187.173.34 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)