Talk:Karl Zinsmeister

Untitled

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1) the first two links are broken, the third is insignificant and out of date.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)

Controversy section

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)

Yet again, unfair, inaccurate, and tendentious criticism has been injected into this bio. I have just looked up in Wikipedia more than a dozen comparable figures in American government, and none of their bios include these kinds of petty, scurrilous criticisms—much less gathered together under a freestanding headline labelled “Controversies”, making that the defining characteristic of this entry.

These “controversies” are very ill-founded. Note, for instance, that the resume posted as evidence for the magazine “controversy” does not support the claim that he said he was founder or misled in any way about his role there. Please note that the Washington Post story posted as evidence for the same criticism actually states that this blog attack was unfounded, and grew out of a misstatement by White House press office. Another falsehood: the corrected New Times article was not posted at the time of White House appointment but immediately after the New Times published, years earlier, as the contemporary accounts make clear.

In this case and a few others I’ve found on Wikipedia, bits of gossip, speculations, peccadilloes, falsehoods, and politicized critiques generated during a political appointment are being formed into negative life portraits. Making these sorts of contretemps and personalized sideshows the centerpiece of the biographies of figures with long and serious careers will ruin our claim to encyclopedia-style fairness, judgment, and balance.

I have restored a more professional, disinterested, and fair version, comparable to the best entries on similar persons elsewhere in Wikipedia. Also added some detail from his books, and corrected some repetition and errors. (E.g. Mapquest says Ithaca is an hour and 20 minute drive from Cazenovia. Come to think of it, it is not appropriate to post personal home info for public figures, so I have generalized that reference. Likewise, the resume posted previously includes personal home contact information which is not appropriate for public posting. And its provenance and authenticity is unknown. How is a personal resume like this obtained? Again, there are eerily personal intrusions here, and hints of an ax-grinding campaign.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.95.168 (talk • contribs)

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).

This is improved. Two further fixes just made: 1) The internet Wayback archive shows (http://web.archive.org/web/20040824175651/www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18194/article_detail.asp) that the reposting was not at time of White House appointment, but a couple years earlier in Aug 2004. 2) The resume you posted here shows there actually was NOT any "resume padding." The Wash Post story further makes it clear that the "founding" phrase came from White House press office, not the subject. There is no reason to eternalize a blog attack refuted by two pieces of evidence.

Additions proposed by Tenthfirst

I've reverted a partial rewrite of the article by Tenthfirst (talk · contribs), 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)

TNR link

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

Yes. Surely by now it must be obvious that Mr. Zinsmeister himself has been tenacious about whitewashing his own listing on Wikipedia over the months, or at least orchestrating the changes. It is clear that "Tenthfirst" is Mr. Zinsmeister or a member of his immediate family. Other IP addresses have also been used for the removal of "controversial" items, but Mr. Z's fingerprints (and editing habits) are all over them.

The TNR article that Mr. Z finds so distressing was very well researched by TNR, and was itself toned down greatly from its authors earlier drafts because so many of Mr. Z's former co-workers were silenced by fears for their careers, or bought off outright by American Enterprise Institute. TNR's legal people insisted that all info. in that article be backed up by hard evidence and / or vouched for by multiple sources.

I'm sure that many people would say that Mr. Z's bio at the White House link is perhaps even more politically tainted ... Mr. Z has long been prone to exaggeration and twisting of facts to suit his own (or his employer's) purposes. Witness his current stem cell research comments.71.245.94.92 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

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)