Talk:Robert Scheer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
Contents |
[edit] Comment from article
- For 35 years, ex-Trotskyite and now right-wing ideologue and pit bull David Horowitz has been trying to use this fact to smear Scheer as a hardline Communist. Problem is, not only was Scheer never a Communist, Horowitz gets all his facts wrong, for example, placing Scheer in a Berkeley commune called Red Sun Rising, when he was actually never in that commune. Now this Wikipedia entry has become a battleground for this character assasination campaign.
This comment, while possibly true, doesn't seem encyclopedic. Maybe there's a better way of saying this. If Horowitz has been a longtime critic of Scheer then some mention may be relevant. -Willmcw 19:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I've also removed this disputed sentence, as there is no source:
- In the early 1970s, shortly after his state-sponsored trip to North Korea, Scheer joined the Red Sun Rising commune which was devoted to "armed struggle" and the teachings of Kim Il-Sung.
It is not mentioned in the FrontPage reference. -Willmcw 00:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing a source. The referenced source says:
- I submitted a column to Salon on Wen Ho Lee with the following reference to Scheer's politics: "While we were divulging the secrets of America's electronic intelligence agency in the pages of Ramparts back in the '60s, Scheer was joining the Red Sun Rising Commune [in Berkeley] and becoming an acolyte of North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung." A Salon editor contacted Scheer to ask him about the veracity of the claims about his dalliance with Kim Il Sung that I had intended to include in the column. He stated flatly that they were untrue. I let the denial pass at the time, and the mention was not included in my column.[1]
- On that basis I edited the text to say that Scheer denies the association with Red Sun Rising. -Willmcw 00:57, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Why completely remove the charges? Because Horowitz makes the allegation or because it is ludicrous? Certainly we can see that according to the “statement” he signed he clearly had deep sympathies for the DPKR and it revolutionary brand o’ anti imperialism?
-
- Certainly it is noteworthy.TDC 21:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Could I have a source for Horowitz's retraction? TDC 22:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Please read the entire column. After accepting the denial ("I let the denial pass at the time"), Horowitz offers no other proof that Scheer was a commune member. He does mention that Scheer did a radio interview where he was effusive in praise of Kim Il Sung's North Korea. If you like we can include that. -Willmcw 22:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Realistically, what kind of "proof" could he provide, a picture, sworn affidavit? Certainly they ran in the same circles for much of the 60's and 70's, and Horowitz did have a great deal of contact with him. TDC 22:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Huh? He could provide the name of one person who was in Red Sun Rising who places Scheer there, he could provide a legitimate news article that places him there, etc. (or even establishes that their was such a commune). Bottom line is: If you have a damning accusation, like "You've been beating your wife lately," then you damn well better have more proof than one ideologue-for-hire's foggy memory of 35 years ago. As has been well documented, the already high-strung Horowitz completely lost his mind after he, in a moment of terrible judgement, recommended an accountant from Ramparts to be the accountant for the already corrupt Black Panthers -- and she ended up floating in the Bay. After that, anybody on the 60s Left became a murdering Communist in Horowitz's eyes, and he has held to that line even as the 60s have become a distant memory. Half of the perhaps apocryphal Red Sun Rising commune now probably work at Charles Schwab...
-
-
-
-
-
-
- He doesn't even repeat the assertion. His last word on the subject is that Scheer denied it and so it wasn't published. The ball was left, as it were, in Horowitz's court and he didn't do anything. -Willmcw 22:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Scheer's wife.
Hi, not sure about the format for discussion, or the protocol for wikis in general, but I've changed something and thought I would explain. I'm actually one of Scheer's sons, which is how I found this article, and also why I objected to something in it. Actually, there are a couple of points I find misleading, also some ommissions, but nothing too gross. One exception, the item I altered, was the suggestion that my mother was both an editor at the Times when he began work there (she was a reporter at the time), and that she somehow aided him in his career. In fact, he'd made a name for himself by then, and she was in no position to assist him should she want to. Anyway, I wouldn't want to edit anything else, considering a natural bias, but these two points are simply fact, so there you have it. Have a good one.
-Peter Scheer
- Thanks for fixing the error. That's what Wikipedia is all about. You are not prohibited from editing due to your connection to the subject, but some folks find it hard to treat issues they are close to with the requisite neutral point of view. If you see any other specific errors please feel free to point them out. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- PS: While we welcome editors with direct experience of events, we require that all editors rely on sources that can be verified by other editors. I doubt that your edit would be controversial, but if it were it'd be difficult for other editors to confirm it. This falls under our core "no original research" policy. Cheers, -
[edit] Truthdig vs. FrontPage
I'm just curious as to why FrontPage.com is described as a "right-wing" blog [2] while Truthdig is described as "progressive"? -- Gerkinstock 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I think the following paragraph does not comport with Wikipedia's NPOV standard:
The editor of the LA Times Op-Ed page, Andres Martinez, later wrote and published a less-than-persuasive defense of the Scheer firing, saying: "It's also true that some of our columnists are not easily labeled on either side of the ideological divide, which we think is healthy." Yet just as Scheer was fired the columnist Jonah Goldberg, Bush booster and son of conservative political maven Lucianne Goldberg, was hired and began appearing on the LA Times Op-Ed page. Johnson himself has never deigned to publicly defend or justify the Scheer purge.
The L.A. Times is still a very liberal newspaper and publishes Left-leaning commentaries on a daily basis. In particular, the phrase "less-than-persuasive" lacks objectivity. Less-than persuasive to whom? To the author? To Mr. Scheer's supporters? --Gerkinstock 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're right. I removed "less-than-persuasive" and the "deigned" portions. Wikipedia need only summarize the explanations for the firing—we can let readers decide how persuasive they find them. 165.189.91.148 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- You know, even with the removal of the offending fragments, this paragraph still leaves an impression that somehow, it was an attempt to remove any anti-bush columnists within the Opinion pages. It doesn't give any context that other, apparently moderate to liberal writers were added, including Joel Stein, who is so far left that he makes Robert Scheer looks positively fascist. Rilindo
