User talk:Shift DB11

I would like to discuss edits you have made to the entry for the Pete Hegseth Wikipedia page which I do not believe is "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."

Many of your edits are misleading and do not accurately reflect the information contained in your sources:

The articles mentioned that were published while Pete was editor of paper are not credited to him as a writer, nor is there any evidence that they were "controversial." As such, I do not not believe this has a place in his biography.

The so-called admission of campaign finance violations were simply accounting errors as is indicated in the letters linked to by Shift DB11. Such mistakes are quite common in campaigns and there is no admission of wrong-doing.

The incident involving two Senators resigning from Vets for Freedom is also intentionally misleading. The Senators did not step down because of the content or message of the ads, but because of McCain campaign policies. This is clearly stated in the article linked to by Shift DB11.

I do not believe that the wedding date of Hegseth and his wife nor the birthdate of his son are relavent. It seems to be an attempt to call Hegseth's character into question by dragging a one and half year old child into it.

Response to Mmmmbop49:

Thanks for your comments, and I am sorry that you think the additions were inappropriate. I will try to address your points below.

You correctly note that the reference to the articles as being "controversial" is uncited. You are right, and I apologize.

However, that assessment is not mine. It's Pete's.

In the 17 April 2002 issue of the Daily Princetonian, Hegseth wrote an op/ed piece entitled "Not your average publication." In that piece, Pete states:

"As to the question of the Tory's aggressive nature, the answer is simple: readership. The Tory has had a reputation for being a boring publication. . . . It is our hope that through controversial cover stories and bold headlines, Princetonians will actually read the articles. . . ."

These are his words. I shall add that to the Wiki article, in order to make the citation more fair and balanced, if you'd like me to do so.

As for the campaign finance violations, that these are common would not seem to mean they should not be cited. I am not sure I understand why doing so is an issue. They happened, and are documented and factual. Finally, Hegseth actually did admit wrong-doing in the letters cited (please have a look).

And, lastly, that the Senators resigned in response to the ads is, simply stated, an accurate statement.

Thanks for your communication, and i am sorry that you didnt understand the edits. Please let me know if I can otherwise clarify them for you.