Talk:Andrew Sullivan

NPOV

I removed the "nuetrality of this article is disputed" label left by 4.158.63.161. Because, really, the neutrality of this article hasn't been disputed--apparently not even by him! Not one posting was added to this page, let alone one which accused the article of a non-NPOV. If he wants that label added, let him contest it here. User did the same with David Brock. Ex1le 06:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite of content

Editorial Comment, (11/2006): It appears that currently, Mr. Sullivan, in Wikipedia, has provoked many contributors as to "if he is, or 'if he is not" a "conservative", thus making many deltas here to the original body and text. The definition in politics of "conservatism", in my opinion, should be left to the individual, claiming to be of any political persuation. Andrew Sullivan considers himself a conservative, and has dedicated a lot of his time, by his own definition, of what the meaning should be. I think the fact that he has recently written a book on the subject qualifies him to be what "he is" here. Pardon, but if other contributors , making comments, care to spend several years of their time writing a book on the subject, and have it published by Simon and Schuster, Putnam, Random House, Harper-Collins, or any other major publishers then may have the right to dispute whether Mr. Sullivan, again, "is or is not", by his own definition, a "conservative".

I thought the way the article addressed the Sullivan sex scandal was written from an anti-Sullivan POV. I've rewritten that content to be, I hope, closer to NPOV -- I've tried to describe the positions of both sides of the debate. I removed the David Brock quote because I don't think it added to the article, and was very clearly biased against Sullivan. I felt it was better to summarize the arguments of the anti-Sullivan camp. Neilc 05:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response: I think the above was a very good idea. Thanks. I do feel that the portion of this entry, "the sex scandle", although being public knowledge, is far too long and in depth relative to the rest of the article about Mr. Sullivan. Although it may be relevant, it takes up nearly one-third of this article, and I personally feel until more information can be written on Mr. Sullivan to reduce this ratio, this currently seems an excessive ratio of "bad to good" information, albeit relevant and important to include. I hope someone else has a concern here as well. (thanks..not yet a wiki member). Feb. 02, 2005

Ok, I'm an amateur wikipedian, so I hope this gets read and taken seriously... I'm a big fan of Sullivan. He was crucified for his actions by a malicious jerk whose only claim to fame seems to be The Sex Scandal. That said, The Sex Scandal is VERY important. For a man whose early career is predicated upon pushing monogamy and implied, if not explicit, condemnation of homosexual promiscuity as well as an idealized view of gay marriage, to be found trolling for sex online is not a "small thing", and its not unimportant in the face of that man's career. It calls into question the legitimacy of much of the things Sullivan preached...if Sullivan doesn't see fit to live his morals, one has to wonder why the rest of us should as well. If gay marriage's biggest proponent can't even make a stab at the ideals of marriage, do homosexuals really deserve it? Fallacious arguements? yeah, but that is tough...the public thinks that way, and Sullivan answers to public opinion, not exacting logic. To remove this rather embarassing blemish from the article is to ignore something that greatly influences the population's ability to stomach Sullivan and everything he teachers. Sullivan's scandal is essential to an understanding of him and how his beliefs are received Does the sex scandal eclipse a lot of the rest of Sullivan's article? Probably does, but I'm not comfortable with the removal of vital facts simply because those facts, taken without additional context, present an unpleasant view of their subject.

Throwing out some ideas for talking points?

Mention he was a gap model. Mention his obsession with barebacking (see his highlighting its presence in Brokeback Mountain, as if the action at the time the film took place had the same cannotations as the action in modern times), mention his desire to see a "post gay" culture, his introduction of Charles Murray (and possibly speculation about what this means if rumors about his preferences for sexual partners of certain races are to be believed)...

Gossip

I've removed some of the gossip from the page, on the grounds it's not really encyclopedic:

He dropped the sponsorship in the ensuing uproar, and found other ways to make money through his blog (although he has credited various fund drives from his readers with raising in well excess of $100,000 over two years, some have found his claims that more bandwidth is needed to be specious and note that in late 2004 he nearly lost his beach home over a two-year old overdue property-tax bill, yet still renovated the house in the meantime).

(Content in italics removed). Neilc 01:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Citizenship

Andrew is described as Anglo-American, yet his bio states that he was born in England. Does Andrew have American citizenship? If so, when/how?

Netsrik 31 Jan 2005

He's been here for 20+ years according to the article. I know he voted in the last election, so he has to be a citizen. I restored "Anglo-American" to the article. Dave 21:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

And how do you know this? He is HIV positive, and unless he's gotten a special "HIV waiver" is barred from becoming an American citizen. PL, 5 Oct 2006

Andrew recently addressed the question of his citizenship in an interview about his recent book: "It’s a terrible thing. I’m here on a recurring visa and unfortunately my HIV status bars me from becoming a citizen even though I qualify. So I am – that is the situation." A transcript of the interview can be read at http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1097 -J

This article is extremely low on actual content

I'll start doing major revisions when I have time. Can anyone else pitch in? He's a relatively important figure and deserves much better than this. Dave 02:38, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

What is all that text then? Hyacinth 02:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scattered. I should have been more specific. It has surprisingly little about his ideas and positions on issues. The biography section is not a problem as far as I can tell. It needs a brief section on each of the following:

• • • • Support for the Iraq war and opposition to the way it's been handled (possibly two sections).
      • Support for Bush in 2000.
      • Support for Kerry in 2004 should be split from homosexuality, which should be renamed.
      • Disputes with other conservatives on fiscal issues.
      • Disputes with other conservatives on social issues.

Right now, "Summary: Andrew Sullivan" and "remarks on homosexuality and the 2004 election" are the only sections dedicated to his ideas, so a reader who wants to find out what he thinks on an important issue can't find it quickly and may have to piece together information from three or four different paragraphs in different sections.

Dynzmoar 21 March 2006. I think the major unanswered question is why Sullivan is identified as conservative. I'd like to know his stand on a host of issues, say, each plank of the Republican platform, before I would call him conservative. And, of course, conservatism isn't easily defined.

Has he identified with the Log Cabin Republicans?

In a recent blog he kind of tried to answer that. He said that he opposes affirmative action and government funding of abortion while supporting gun-rights and low taxes. Also he does believe that are genetically significant distinctions between races, genders, and sexual orientations. (On that last I don't mean he thinks homosexuality is genetic. I think he favors the studies that indicate homosexual men are genetically different than heterosexual men in how they read maps or their sense of smell) That stated I think he's mostly a moderate libertarian or classical liberal and not a conservative. He doesn't like that view of him though from what I can tell. (His blog is extremely irritating, but occasionally I read it as he's politically odd enough to be occasionally entertaining. He's not at Justin Raimondo level weirdness, but still odd)--T. Anthony 08:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs Sources

Can whoever put in the following information please provide sources?

• Morton Kondracke
• Camille Paglia article on Hillary Clinton
• Departure from TNR
• The Sex Scandal

Thanks. Dave 03:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's been more than a month and no one has provided these. Please do so. I don't want to take out this stuff if it's true. Dave (talk) 23:43, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK. A lot of this is in a Vanity Fair article from 1995 or so; can't remember the exact month but the author is or was Marjorie Williams.

Hope it helps

Sullivan's views on Abortion?

While these articles shouldn't be lengthy checklists of views on every and any subject out there, abortion is a big enough topic to warrant a mention and Sullivan has had some interesting things to say on it. How about an inclusion?

Balance/Bias in Relation to Full Content- an editorial comment

This entry, in my opinion, has too much content about "scandal" (in proportion) to the entire entry. I am not one to delete contents of previous contributors, but please refer to the terms Wikipedia has regarding bias vs. objectivity. Every writer has their own opinon about "balance", but in my opinion, the word "scandal" is used too many times, and is or/are much too long relative to the entire article/entry about Mr. Sullivan. No person or entity should "bearback" on top of another person/and/or/entity for their own gain.

Why did you get rid of the references to another blog? Doesn't that count as a "third party" source?

I am the person that originally wrote here about "Balance/Bias" about Andrew Sullivan. The previous sentence ( prior to mine above, starting with the word "why"), was not a deletion by me as I know it. I changed what I did, as someone with an idea of objectiveness and quality control in accurate descriptions of people, again, in a timeline, to their whole balance and body of work, relative to the person/enitity at the present point.

Sullivan and Benedict XVI

Where is the section I wrote and why is it gone?

The current version of this section is almost totally WP:Original_Research. It uses the primary material ie. Sullivan's blog to convince the reader that Sullivan incorrectly criticizes the Pope without providing any 3rd party critics of Sullivan. Additionally, it contains many POV assertions 'near defamatory', 'rhetorical excess'. etc Ashmoo 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you always just excise a person's work without explaining why?

Ashmoo explained just why. It's very biased (and indeed, near-defamatory in places). It's unsourced, apart from to blogs, and it's basically completely your own original research about his ideas. I'm no fan of Sullivan's, but this is completely beyond the pale. Rebecca 07:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well, I fixed it. I included several articles from Catholic writers and took out the adjectives so that it would be as neutral as I could make it. I give his own words and don't put my take on them. I then refer to other sources, both magazines and blogs, and do not put my descriptions there either.

It was still biased original research, and has thus been reverted again. Firstly, you quote an array of Sullivan's blog posts completely out of context to make a case for him being hysterically anti-Catholic. You then cite eight critics with no balancing view, most of which are from blogs. Wikipedia is not a place to advance a political agenda. Rebecca 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How tiresome. Did you seek to help me out? Did you seek to tell me what is needed? No. You just whip out your "delete" gun and go at it. Your WHOLE article is full of one-sidedness. Wake up and smell the coffee, Honey. And, btw, NONE of those things cites were out of context. I didn't make him out to be "hysterically anti-Catholic." I know that the distinction may be lost on you, but I only quoted what he said ABOUT THE POPE. The pope, you know, the guy in Rome. Sullivan is NOT anti-Catholic. Those attributions to him were all correct and none was out of context. Did you even check? Somehow, I guess you don't care. This is fucking bullshit. I will never contribute to Wikipedia again. You run it like a gulag. Let me know when and at what time Sullivan wrote to let you know how displeased he was.

I don't know if I agree with you, but I do agree something concerning his views on the current Pope and Catholic Church needs to be stated. Catholicism is mentioned a fair amount by him and not just in the Blog.--T. Anthony 12:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)