Talk:Philip Weiss/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
American Conservative magazine
The article states: "Philip Weiss is an investigative journalist who writes for...The American Conservative...." To "write for" wouldn't that inply that he writes for the publication regularly or has written several articles for that publication? As far as I can tell, Weiss has written only two articles for The American Conservative. And because the word "conservative" is in the title, the reader may get the impression Weiss is a conservative (which he is not). Your average wikipedia reader will know right away where The American Conservative stands, unlike, say, The Nation which, unless you are familiar with the magazine, is not identifiable as left-wing just by looking at the name as it does not have the word "left" (or something similar) in the title. The link to his article for TAC should remain but that he "writes for" the magazine should be removed.Rlh 1984 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Understanding WP:BLP
A number of IP addresses (which may be the same person) have been added unsourced criticism of Philip Weiss. I have removed this a number of times citing WP:BLP and also saying it was unsourced. These are two official policies of Wikipedia. You can not add unsourced material that makes strong claims, according to WP:V, you have to ensure that it is verifiable to mainstream reputable publications. Second, this is a biography of a living person. According to WP:BLP:
- "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."
The combination of WP:BLP and WP:V justifies my continued and repeated removal of this unacceptable content being repeatedly added by this individual or group of anonymous IP editors. I hope that this explanation makes it clear why I am removing this information in this fashion. --Lucretius (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)