Talk:The Weekly Standard

message: 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)
thread_title: Corresponding Publication

message: This page: http://www.weeklystandard.com/AboutUs/bio_anderson.asp
indicates Claudia Anderson is the managing editor of the Weekly Standard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.37.210 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think their Web page may be out of date. I know it was in some respects out of date when I added a few things a while back.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)
replies: text: Masthead checks out, changes made, article on her now up, thanks. Noroton 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor 

message: The New York Times external link requires a subscription to the magazine. 200.70.97.194 23:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NYT Link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks a million! (the check's in the mail) Noroton 18:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration of the magazine cover

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  POV-pushing 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think the current wording is good. Soxwon (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You can click the link yourself; you provided it above. csloat (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  neoconservative 

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

message: The article says the last issue will be December 17, 2018, but the cover shown in the summary box to the right shows the 12/24/18 issue. That issue is available online here: https://www.weeklystandard.com/issue/24-16  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluminghausen (talk Bluminghausen (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending publication date