Talk:Jacob Weisberg

message: In the final paragraph of this article, the writer describes an article that Mr. Weisberg wrote in Slate magazine. To this description, the writer then appends this sentence:
"Following this claim, he was roundly rebutted by James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, using sound logical principles to illustrate the logical failure of Weisberg's assertion".
Whatever Weisberg's assertion may have been, the above assertion is totally inappropriate in a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia strives to keep individuals from using its pages to give their private opinions and biases the aura of fact. But that is what is happening here. By what authority does the writer claim it to be an objective fact that Mr. Weisberg's arguments were illogical and that Mr. Taranto's were not? By what right does the writer insinuate that this judgement is Wikipedia's or that Wikipedia arrogates to itself the right to decide arguments of this sort? Lest anyone accuse me of being a Weisberg partisan, let me just say that I came to this article by jumping several links from a page containing Weiberg's review of a Kevin Phillips book, a review which I found totally wrong-headed.
Fufius Maximus (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Taranto 

message: I'm not sure how one could call Jacob a neoliberal, especially in light of his recent (quite spiteful) article about how Libertarian ideals caused the economic collapse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.5.2 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism? 

message: There should be a controversy section and the best topic in this case would be Liberal bias in his reporting and commentary. 66.227.84.101 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the current article needs a rewrite, and the last two paragraphs are really a coatrack.  I'm inclined to remove them. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Left Bias

message: Weisberg moderated a 2007 debate between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens. This debate hit the news after Al Sharpton made a comment that seemed to charge that Mormons did not "really believe in God." The moderator, Weisberg, was noted to have also made critical comments regarding Mormons, and in particular presidential candidate Mitt Romney.Lisa Riley Roche, Catholics and Evangelicals Leap to Romney's Defense, May 10, 2007, http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660219285,00.html Weisberg authored an opinion piece on Slate in which he argues it is not bigoted to refuse to vote for a Mormon, especially one who believes in the "founding whoppers of Mormonism."Jacob Weisberg, Romney's Religion, Slate, Dec. 20, 2006, http://www.slate.com/id/2155902, but see David Kravitz, Jacob Weisberg on Romney and the Mormons: Raising the Stakes, Yet Missing the Point, Jan 16, 2007, http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5985 (refuting Weisberg's logical analysis when compared to "mainstream" Christian churches) He also stated that he would never vote for a Scientologist or a young earth creationist.
In August 2008, Weisberg stated on Slate that the only reason Barack Obama would ever lose to John McCain is racism by white Americans against Obama. He stated that "If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth."http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/?from=rss
===Comment on removed material===
Let's take a closer look at this.  First, there was a minor, manufactured controversy that occurred between Sharpton, Hitchens, and Romney that was covered in the Deseret News, a newspaper owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Although some might find it entertaining to watch a Baptist, an Atheist, and a Mormon go at it, it's really a circus act and Weisberg isn't the ringmaster or involved in the debate.  But, this fact doesn't concern the Deseret News.  The paper has to take everybody to task for disrespecting Romney, and in the last paragraph of their news article about the May 7, 2007 debate, they add this off-topic zinger: "Weisberg wrote in the online magazine last December that rejecting a Mormon presidential candidate is not religious bigotry. "I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believes the founding whoppers of Mormonism," Weisberg said in the article."  Obviously, by the wording, the Deseret News assumes that rejecting a candidate because of their religion is bigotry, and Weisberg agrees.  In other words, he never said that he would reject a Mormon presidential candidate simply because they are Mormon, but rather based on what their actual beliefs entail.  Let's take a closer look at the Slate article and see what he really said.  
In a separate topic that has nothing to do with the former debate with Romney, Weisberg asks on December 20, 2006, "are you a religious bigot if you wouldn't cast a ballot for a believing Mormon?"  Weisberg concludes no because he would not 
under most imaginable circumstances, vote for a fanatic or fundamentalist—a Hassidic Jew who regards Rabbi Menachem Schneerson as the Messiah, a Christian literalist who thinks that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, or a Scientologist who thinks it is haunted by the souls of space aliens sent by the evil lord Xenu. Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd...By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.  By the same token, I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.
Weisberg's most important point here is that "objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender. Not applying a religious test for public office, means that people of all faiths are allowed to run—not that views about God, creation, and the moral order are inadmissible for political debate."  He goes on to address the problems with Bush's religious beliefs, and his frustration with not knowing what Romney really thinks, debunking the claim made by the Deseret News.  Weisberg does not at any time say that presidential candidates should be rejected because they are Mormon.  He says that any candidate of any belief is subject to his same criteria.  The singling out of Weisberg for criticizing "dogmatic, irrational, and absurd" beliefs is not notable.  Ultimately, Weisberg is uncertain if Romney holds these beliefs, but focuses the thrust of his article with the opinions of moderate and secular voters, and what kind of effect they might have on Romney's standing in the then, upcoming primaries. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Coatrack material

message: Let's take a closer look at this.  First, there was a minor, manufactured controversy that occurred between Sharpton, Hitchens, and Romney that was covered in the Deseret News, a newspaper owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Although some might find it entertaining to watch a Baptist, an Atheist, and a Mormon go at it, it's really a circus act and Weisberg isn't the ringmaster or involved in the debate.  But, this fact doesn't concern the Deseret News.  The paper has to take everybody to task for disrespecting Romney, and in the last paragraph of their news article about the May 7, 2007 debate, they add this off-topic zinger: "Weisberg wrote in the online magazine last December that rejecting a Mormon presidential candidate is not religious bigotry. "I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believes the founding whoppers of Mormonism," Weisberg said in the article."  Obviously, by the wording, the Deseret News assumes that rejecting a candidate because of their religion is bigotry, and Weisberg agrees.  In other words, he never said that he would reject a Mormon presidential candidate simply because they are Mormon, but rather based on what their actual beliefs entail.  Let's take a closer look at the Slate article and see what he really said.  
In a separate topic that has nothing to do with the former debate with Romney, Weisberg asks on December 20, 2006, "are you a religious bigot if you wouldn't cast a ballot for a believing Mormon?"  Weisberg concludes no because he would not 
under most imaginable circumstances, vote for a fanatic or fundamentalist—a Hassidic Jew who regards Rabbi Menachem Schneerson as the Messiah, a Christian literalist who thinks that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, or a Scientologist who thinks it is haunted by the souls of space aliens sent by the evil lord Xenu. Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd...By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.  By the same token, I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.
Weisberg's most important point here is that "objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender. Not applying a religious test for public office, means that people of all faiths are allowed to run—not that views about God, creation, and the moral order are inadmissible for political debate."  He goes on to address the problems with Bush's religious beliefs, and his frustration with not knowing what Romney really thinks, debunking the claim made by the Deseret News.  Weisberg does not at any time say that presidential candidates should be rejected because they are Mormon.  He says that any candidate of any belief is subject to his same criteria.  The singling out of Weisberg for criticizing "dogmatic, irrational, and absurd" beliefs is not notable.  Ultimately, Weisberg is uncertain if Romney holds these beliefs, but focuses the thrust of his article with the opinions of moderate and secular voters, and what kind of effect they might have on Romney's standing in the then, upcoming primaries. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on removed material

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacob Weisberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103181109/http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/Campaigning_on_the_Net/weisberg.htm to http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/Campaigning_on_the_Net/weisberg.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified