Talk:The Weekly Standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

More citations needed[edit]

"Despite the magazine's perceived closeness to the administration, William Kristol has called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld multiple times in the pages of the magazine. Donald Rumsfeld resigned shortly after these articles were published." This may very well be true, but it is still quite a claim. How about pointing us to these articles with a citation, or giving us some other measure of what "shortly" means with proof to back it up... right now it sounds as if the author hopes to imply that the publication of the articles was the immediate cause for Rumsfeld's resignation...


The sentence "It been described as a "redoubt of neoconservatism" and as "the neo-con bible" is inappropriate for the second sentence in an encyclopedia entry, even by Wikipedia's unique standards. The generalized factual introduction should come first. This could safely include that The Weekly Standard is conservative, but the labels of the sentence in question qualify as opinionated criticism, and it's weaseling to wedge them in with the publication's foundation and history. I moved it to the end of the introduction, since there is little better place to put it. - Chrysostom

Compare this article with the article on The Nation, then try and tell me that Wikipedia isn't liberally biased. Haizum 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Critics have claimed that the Weekly Standard lacks objectivity"
Well of course it lacks objectivity, it's advocacy journalism and doesn't pretend to be anything else. Mattm1138 05:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Be bold - Biederman 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Your statement is illogical. Considering that anyone and everyone can edit and contribute to Wikipedia, how then can the site be "biased"? The site is representative of the general population. That notwithstanding, certain factions are always quick to serve up the pejorative "bias" whenever anything doesn't back up their POV 100 percent. 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this page is terribly biased. I'm a political independent who didn't even know what the Weekly Standard was, and came here out of curiosity. I am amazed that the editors of Wikipedia would allow this article to exist in this state. Nearly the entire thing is quotations of criticisms of the magazine. It's terrible. (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice the commentary is all negative, I also notice that recent edits made sure to delete the outright listing of quotes that demonstrate the importance of the magazine in American politics (and replace it with a link) but the huge, pointless quote from a young writer who works there (not an editor who sets policy, just a writer) somehow rates a quarer of the article or so. Motivated by the very highest standards of objectivity and sincere intellectual discourse I have no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Corresponding Publication[edit]

Is there a liberal version, so to speak, of this magazine? Is it The Nation?

I think that Weekly Standard is rather unique and does not have a direct match on the other side of the political divide, but The Nation is close -- although you think of that publication and National Review as twins more so. Rlove 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs citations[edit]

Especially for big claims like this: "It is viewed as a leading outlet of the influential neoconservative movement." Says who? Armon 23:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

why is it neo-conservative? What is wrong with just conservative?
Because it's not "just conservative" -- in fact, some would argue that it isn't conservative at all. It is clearly neoconservative. csloat 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't expand your fight on Juan Cole to unrelated articles. See WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. I frankly don't care if the WS is "conservative" or "neoconservative", my point is that if we're going to say absolutely what its ideological stance is, it should be properly cited, ideally with a self-description of such a stance. <<-armon->> 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
OK I've cited it myself -neoconservative seems the most accurate description. <<-armon->> 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Great, you cited it, proving my point (which was never controversial to begin with). The WS calls itself neoconservative; it is silly to pretend otherwise. As for Cole, please WP:AGF and WP:NPA. This has nothing to do with Cole other than that he is a respected author making a claim in a WP:RS about this magazine. I will restore the accurate and sourced criticism of this magazine to the article. Please do not expand your fight on Juan Cole to other articles. Thanks! csloat 01:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole "critique" of WS[edit]

Entire paragraph from which Cole quote on WS is produced:

"It is sad to see Hitchens reduced to publishing in the Weekly Standard, intellectually the weakest of the right-wing propaganda fronts for the new class of billionaires created by the excesses of corporate consolidation in recent decades (it is owned by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch). It is even sadder to see this grotesque, almost baroque, essay carom from one extravagant argument to another, miring itself in a series of gross fallacies and elementary errors in logic. I have read Hitchens for decades and usually admire his acute wit, his command of detail, his polemical gifts, and his contrarian sense of ethics, even when we disagree. He must surely know, however, that his argument for the Iraq misadventure is growing weaker every day, since he clearly does not any longer care to defend it rigorously."

Other than stating where Hitchens' piece was published, this is the only mention of the WS in the entire Juan Cole cite. I've removed it for the following reasons; 1) the subject of the piece is not the Weekly Standard, but Christopher Hitchens, and WP is not the place to insert any tangential criticism which anyone manages to find, and 2) it's an assertion, not a critique. A "swipe" at an example of Advocacy journalism, from the opposite "side", in another example of advocacy journalism,, is not notable in itself. This is why I've reverted the edit. <<-armon->> 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The claims made by Cole are both legitimate and on point. The fact that the article is about Hitchens is not relevant - he makes legitimate claims about the magazine in question, not just a swipe. I protest this censorship, but I'm not going to fight about it, as I have more important things to attend to. If you are going to use this page for hagiography of your favorite magazine, go ahead, plant your little flag here. Perhaps I will get around to researching other well sourced claims about this rag, but in the meantime, my protest in talk will have to do. csloat 10:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Using Cole's silly attack is not acceptable. He is not an expert on journalism, the right, neoconservatives or anything else relevant, so he is not a WP:RS. That his wild attack on the WS is a stray blow in an even wilder attack on Hitchens also makes this inappropriate to cite. Furthermore, it was wrong to mention Cole without pointing out that the WS has strongly criticized him more than once.
More importantly, Cole's claims are nonsense. Hitchens still publishes in all his usual outlets; the WS is not "propaganda" but (as the article rightly says) advocacy journalism; Murdoch's wealth does not come from "corporate consolidation" but from running the consolidated businesses; the WS (unlike other Murdoch print properties) sets its own editorial line. Moreover, to use the quote to smuggle in an unsubstantiated assertion of intellectual weakness violates WP:NPOV.
Surely we can find a critical article about the WS in one of the left-wing newspapers or magazines that we can cite—and, preferably, quote. (But please avoid the anti-semitic conspiracy theorists ...) I see that User:Babin 7 has found an attack from the paleoconservative right.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


This page: indicates Claudia Anderson is the managing editor of the Weekly Standard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

I think their Web page may be out of date. I know it was in some respects out of date when I added a few things a while back. Or it may not be. The most up-to-date information should be on their masthead in the print version (or the PDF file if you get it online). I'll check it and report back. Thanks for the heads up. Noroton 05:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Masthead checks out, changes made, article on her now up, thanks. Noroton 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

NYT Link[edit]

The New York Times external link requires a subscription to the magazine. 23:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sigh. ("Times Select" is not one of the NYT's wiser innovations.) We can use that link anyway, until someone finds something better to replace it. I've edited the article to clarify things. Thanks for pointing that out. CWC 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Illustration of the magazine cover[edit]

The magazine cover that formerly illustrated this article is no longer around, so I tried to use another magazine cover, but I'm having problems. I was able to upload a pdf file from the magazine's Web site: Image:WeeklyStandard13August2007issue.pdf but I can't seem to put it on the article page. Any help would be appreciated. (I've also left a note at the "Help desk" page). Noroton 19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I used to subscribe to the magazine online, so I picked a cover from one of my saved copies. See Image:WeeklyStandard-cover-2005-05-30.jpg. I've edited the article to use it. Feel free to substitute a better image. Cheers, CWC 12:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a million! (the check's in the mail) Noroton 18:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Please do not delete sourced and accurate material just because you find it critical of a magazine you like. If you have sourced material indicating the critique is invalid, or indicating that the Weekly Standard did not perpetuate the myth that Saddam was behind al-Qaeda, please feel free to add it. But POV-pushing deletions really ought to stop. Thanks. csloat (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess this refers to an edit I made. As it happens, I was more concerned with the sourcing than the content: I do not regard The American Conservative as a Reliable source regarding neocons. Furthermore, the quoted text is hostile opinion, not argument (and note that it works in PNAC, per all those conspiracy theories about the "neocons"). In addition, I was worried that the article spent too much space on TAC instead of TWS. I'd be happy to retain this critique if we had a better source for it. Cheers, CWC 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no evidence that it's not a WP:RS; it may be biased (no more so than the Weekly Standard itself, of course, which is cited all over Wikipedia as a source), but it is certainly reliable according to Wikipedia standards. It also doesn't seem that hostile to me at all - it quite accurately describes WS coverage of the alleged Saddam/al-Qaeda connection - I don't think anyone can deny that they led the charge on this particular conspiracy theory for several years (and they've never backed off of their ludicrous claims in this regard, though they have taken a much different approach lately in the face of all the evidence that they were flat out wrong). In any case, if your only objection is sourcing here, you really don't have a leg to stand on -- you yourself accepted this source as reliable almost a year ago when you opposed a quote from Middle East expert Professor Juan Cole (see the discussion above) by claiming that he wasn't a reliable source. csloat (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not soapbox an opinion piece because you find it critical of a magazine you don't like. CWC's version was fine, and yours unbalanced the article. <<-armon->> (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, your hysterics are completely out of place here Armon. The version you are calling "my version" was the version in place here for about a year until CWC came along and unbalanced the article by removing the one piece of legitimate criticism that existed on the page. Please don't jump on the bandwagon just to re-fight an old feud; like CWC, you accepted this criticism here a year ago when it was first inserted by someone else. You are the ones POV-pushing here. csloat (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess my negative attitude towards TAC as a RS here comes from seeing too many overheated claims from them about "neocons". But I like the Commodore's recent edit (though that didn't stop me from tweaking it—see what you think). I'd still prefer a better source of criticism, but we're certainly moving the article in the right direction. Cheers, CWC 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your tweaks; thanks for working toward a compromise. We probably won't be able to convince each other of each other's opinions about this magazine but I hope we can agree that a NPOV article about this magazine would include mention of notable criticism as well as praise. It would be better to be looking for more items to add to the article rather than trying to delete items that are already in it. csloat (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What "praise"? <<-armon->> (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, "praise" is the wrong word here. Actually I'm not sure what to call the comment by Labash. csloat (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

needs clean-up[edit]

The article needs work. The 'Support' section is not an encyclopedic entry - this needs immediate attention. Also the criticism section is a {{quotefarm}} - that needs rewriting. These issues are not major - they should be easily fixed--Cailil talk 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Please click links at the ends of sentences before making rash reverts and writing incorrect edit summaries. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This edit is just ridiculous. Is there anyone in the world who doesn't think the magazine is neoconservative? Why would you remove a link from the editor of the magazine describing neoconservatism and clearly identifying himself with this trend? Why would you make edits that make the language obfuscatory when the clear concise statement is 100% noncontroversial? The original statement was clear and there was nothing wrong with it. The Kristol link is a key editorial statement on the neoconservative phenomenon by the magazine who carried the banner for that cause at the time. Why would you want to remove evidence of this, or cast skepticism on it with the weasel-worded "has been described as"? Kristol, who edited the magazine, is considered the "godfather" of neoconservatism, as he states in the article. I have never in my life read anyone who claimed that the magazine was not neoconservative. Why is it important to you to remove a label (or cast aspersions on it) when 100% of published commentators, including the magazine's own editors and journalists, agree implicitly that the label is accurate? And why go through contortions in the lede, disrupting readability to insert qualifiers on non-controversial statements? csloat (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Kristol statement" is not a key editorial statement for the simple reason that it was written by IrvingKristol the father of the magazine's editor, not by BillKristol. As a note, Irving has often said that he (Irving) is the neo-conservative, and his son just a conservative. Of course this has a lot to do with the changing definition of neo-conservative. Irving Kristol was one of the original "neo-conservatives"; leftists who had eventually migrated to conservatism. Irving made the point that his son Bill had never been a leftist, and hence was not a "neo-conservative" in the original sense.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding moving the word neo-conservative to the end of the sentence, it now matches Wikipedia's other opinion magazine ledes.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Lastly, "neo-conservative" has been used widely as a perjorative, and too frequently as shorthand for "jew". The magazine describes itself as "conservative", while you have identified sources that characterize it as "neo-con", its use is far from non-controversial. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the current wording is good. Soxwon (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
D'oh! My error on the Kristols - Sorry I snapped over that; I'm putting some salt on my hat right now. But I still disagree that the use of "neoconservative" for the WS is "far from non-controversial" -- I still don't see any sources that even question its neocon status. I think the claim that neocon is "shorthand for 'jew'" is ridiculous race-baiting that has no place here. The term has nothing to do with religion. It's particularly inappropriate here since I don't think there's anyone trying to claim that WS is a "Jewish" magazine like, say, Commentary. In any case, your changes are fine with me, and I feel a bit silly about the Kristol thing. csloat (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding categorization: it says explicitly in Category:Neoconservatism "Articles of ideas and concepts related to neoconservatism. This category is not used for categorizing people as "neoconservatives"". This publication, whatever else it might be, is not an idea or concept related to neoconservatism. RayTalk 05:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand how several books and a movie are included in the category but not a magazine. csloat (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Point me at them and I'll remove those too. The only things in there should be articles on ideas and concepts related to neoconservatism. RayTalk 06:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You can click the link yourself; you provided it above. csloat (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll give it a look when I have nothing better else to do. In the meantime, the fact that other entries violate the category's inclusion criteria (aka Other Dumb Stuff happens) is not a reason to replicate the behavior. RayTalk 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion pieces[edit]

This article contains numerous citations to opinion pieces. This is not appropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)