Talk:George Weigel

"Intelligent Design?"

Is there any reason why this is part of the Intelligent Design subset? I didn't see any book by Weigel on the topic, and it must certainly be stated that every Christian isn't an ID proponent. Is there a sourcing for this out of curiosity? 71.7.219.16 (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Off Topic"

This is an encyclopedic venue. All facts are appropriate and relevant to the subject.The facts entered are also cited. Your speed of edit response seconds after my entry denotes monitoring. This raises the question of your objectivity towards the subject. Future deletions will be re-entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.4.222 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1) No, not all facts are appropriate: Stating the pontiffs' and Newhaus's opinions on something independent of the article subject is not appropriate, even if sourced. They could go in the articles about those particular people, as they are their opinions, if you like. 2) the only question that raises is, do I use a watchlist? And of course you know the answer. You could use one too if you registered. My actions speak more to my adherence to the principles of the project then objectivity per se, although one of them is neutral point of view, so that's covered as well.

I'm glad you did not mention the insertion of what are really your own opinions and analysis to the article. That is original research, and of course should be avoided. You are free to use other venues for doing that; there are plenty, but Wikipedia just isn't one of them, that's all.

You may wish to read this intro; it and forward links therein may clarify some of my points for you. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Facts Stated

1)Weigel uses Neuhaus' journal.

2)Weigel has contradicted Popes JPII & Benedict.

These are Weigel's actions and are therefore facts directly related to him. His position and writing is well established, therefore this is not original research. The point of view is neutral as the range of established history/facts is being expanded. You may be uncomfortable with the the facts involving Weigel's writing and journals, but he is the source of these facts, not myself or anyone else. It is clear from your other edits to Roman Catholic material that the "principles of the project" are not your main concern. Future deletions will be re-entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.87.219 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, your reading of my concern and comforts is even poorer than your reading of how the project works. Nonetheless, I commend you for removing your OR. I incorporated your ref to the previously worded language which said the same things, but better, and tweeked it a bit further. You may wish to register an account - your edits are coming through at least 3 different IPs, so it would be hard to use your talk page.

Another link you may wish to read -- we are not a WP:SOAPBOX. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...Trying to narrow down my IP address? Sorry to disappoint you. Future deletions will be re-posted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.229.23 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of how the project works. Your IP address(es) are available already, and someone like me can find out things like where you live, who your service provider is, etc..

If you register then only a select few people here can do that, and certainly not me. That said, please note that this is an article about Weigel, and not about the Iraq war. Comments about the latter are fine so long as they are incorporated in a way that advance the topic, and do not try to make it a soapbox for your opinions on the war or some focused personal grudge against him, or any other possible inappropriate use. Another editor even undid one of your revisions.

That type of editing you are performing is called making the article a coatrack, whereas it is nominally about one topic, and edits are made to describe the topic's relations to another topic, but it's done in a disingenuous fashion so as to really advance a position on the second topic. This technique has been tried before, don't think you are on to anything new (see this, your motivation may be different but the message holds true; indeed I have already rooted it out).

Lastly, please note that the comment "Future deletions will be re-posted" goes against the fundamental of consensus building. Please start editing now from within the policies and guidelines of the project. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Threats and Attitudes

You cannot detect where someone lives from an IP address. YOUR REFERENCE TO "WHERE I LIVE" IS CONSIDERED A THREAT! I have no fear of you, and I am certainly not going to waste further time in responding to your attitudes,insults, and threats, all of which are innapropriate here. Future deletions will be re-posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.87.219 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Two Questions

1) Did anyone else get the feeling that this article was written so as to beg the question: "Did this guy write the article himself, about himself?"

2) Does Mr Weigel consider himself "More Catholic than the Pope"?

"In January 2009, Weigel expressed concern on the lifting of the excommunications of the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, essentially because the group has been critical of some aspects of the Second Vatican Council, especially its teaching on religious liberty, which Weigel strongly defends."

-- From the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.156.155 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pitfalls"

I don't know what was intended so I can't correct it, but the passage below makes no sense:

In his political writings, Weigel argues for a U.S. pitfalls of international relations. As such...

First of all, "a pitfalls" isn't grammatically possible, but how can you "argue" for or against "pitfalls"? 850 C (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Considering that the page is clearly self edited in almost a martyr-esque manner and details a person of little merit outside of a few conservative news sources, I think for it to exist is merely clutter.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Weigel. 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/20130706073237/http://www.archden.org:80/index.cfm/ID/10228 to http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/10228
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/about/nationaladvisors.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=64088
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026061851/http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3179/pub_detail.asp to http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3179/pub_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George Weigel. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/10228
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114010221/http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/id/342 to http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/id/342
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823132718/http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.14/scholar.asp to http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.14/scholar.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)