Talk:David Weigel/Archive 1

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)


 * Fixed. Truthsort (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

✅ - it now reads "two months later".--JayJasper (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

About the image
I have some concerns about the image we are using. What do other contributors think? CWC 15:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:, , ) that it was just a joke.

I agree with all of the above.--JayJasper (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Responding to a now-deleted comment:
 * 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)

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. Where is the lack of citations? KeptSouth (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good now, but I think a little precaution, considering the controversy, has not hurt the project. The protection ends on July 2nd. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 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"--still it's true that Weigel does self-identify as a libertarian shade of conservative (albeit one that voted for Nader, Kerry, and Obama)."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.--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"--71.187.173.34 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅I've added a mention of Weigel's libertarianism with the qualifier of "with left leaning tendencies" and a reference to the article.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum or soapbox
Admin Bearian who protected the article has agreed that "There are several comments that need to be removed from the talk page" So I am removing some material from this talk page per WP:BLPTALK policy "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices." KeptSouth (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Bearian (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This proves that my semi-protection was a good idea. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a liberal
Why does this article portray David Weigel as a liberal.. he isn't. Read any of the stuff from Northwestern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.235.237 (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)