Talk:Karl Zinsmeister

message: This is also a message for Sandstein. Why was the "resume padding" section removed? [Much controversy also surrounded Zinsmeister’s claim to have founded The American Enterprise. On his resume and in the official White House press release, Zinsmeister claimed to have “launched,” “conceived,” and “founded” the publication, even though the magazine had already been around for four years when he took over in 1994.] It was prominently featured in the Washington Post article that was referenced, and "resume padding" is generally deemed a big deal.
This is a message for Sandstein.  
Please forgive me if this is not the right way to reply to your message; I am not expert at Wikipedia.
I don't understand why you undid the edits I added recently to this page. 
1) the first two links are broken, the third is insignificant and out of date. I replaced them with the bio for subject's current work, from official White House web site. 
2) It seems very tendentious to add the special freestanding paragraph, much less with a block-letter headline, on "Controversy." As I flip through pages I don't see comparable treatments of similarly minor dustups for most other figures in politics. I have noticed double-standards and unnecessary editorializing in some political biographies on Wikipedia, and believe these implicitly editorializing comments and formatting decisions should  be removed. 
3) This individual has two other books which I tried to add. Why did you eliminate? That is precisely the sort of substantive, factual, non-subjective information these articles should focus on.
And so on. I believe my edits were good, and hope you will consider restoring them.  
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.4.186 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for taking the time to explain your edits. On reflection, I think you are correct, and have reinstituted your version of the article. Sorry if I came across as brusque, but it's an unfortunate fact that on Wikipedia, virtually all edits by unregistered users that remove content are vandalism. In this case, I should have been quicker to assume good faith. Best regards, Sandstein 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :This discussion moved here from User talk:Sandstein.
I'm new to this, but why did you remove this section:
Much controversy also surrounded Zinsmeister’s claim to have founded The American Enterprise. On his resume and in the official White House press release, Zinsmeister claimed to have “launched,” “conceived,” and “founded” the publication, even though the magazine had already been around for four years when he took over in 1994.
From Karl Zinsmeister's biography? It was prominently featured in the Washington Post article that was referenced, and "resume padding" is generally deemed a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.34.148 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you for your message. With biographies of living persons, we must be extra careful not to make any mistakes (please read the link for the important details!). In this case, there was no specific source given for the claims that there was "much controversy" about this issue and that the magazine predated his contributions. However, now I see that the latter is indeed referenced in the WP article, so I suppose re-adding this material is OK. But unless some other reliable source has described the whole issue as a matter of "much controversy", we must not do so. Rather, we should limit ourselves to the facts, such as: In 2006, the Washington Post reported that Zinsmeister claimed in his resumé to have founded The American Enterprise, even though the magazine had already existed for four years when he took over in 1994.
:I've re-added the content in this form; feel free to edit it further. Also feel free to ask me if you have any questions. I'm copying this discussion to the article talk page; let's please continue article-specific discussions there. Sandstein 23:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post new messages at the bottom, and sign them with four tildes (~~~~). I've restored some of the content you mentioned. While I agree that it need not be the focus of the article, any controversy that is the principal subject of Washington Post articles probably bears mentioning; and in the interest of fairness and neutrality, such mentions must be reasonably precise. Please see also, in that regard, WP:BLP. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: I've reverted a partial rewrite of the article by , because that version violated our policy of neutrality by omitting the controversies Mr Zinsmeister has also been a part of. I have tried to integrate the new content provided by Tenthfirst into the article without removing the previous content. What about this? Sandstein 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions proposed by Tenthfirst 

message: Is there a particular reason why the link to TNR keeps being deleted? Sandstein (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNR link 

message: I have reverted edits by Qwikifix on 8 November at 21:55. This has been a persistent problem on this page, with users who may or may not be associated with the subject deleting well-sourced, neutral content on aspects of the subject's record he would no doubt regret. Qwikifix's most recent edit removed several well-sourced episodes involving Zinsmeister under the guise of "cleaning up" while adding positive material (including a gushing quote from William J. Bennett about Zinsmeister's magazine that is sourced to... Zinsmeister's own website) on his own projects. Whether Qwikifix is associated with Zinsmeister or not, the major edits he/she made are a violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX.Salamander420 (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing?