Talk:Robert Scheer

Comment from article

For 35 years, ex-Trotskyite and now right-wing ideologue and pit bull David Horowitz has been trying to use this fact to smear Scheer as a hardline Communist. Problem is, not only was Scheer never a Communist, Horowitz gets all his facts wrong, for example, placing Scheer in a Berkeley commune called Red Sun Rising, when he was actually never in that commune. Now this Wikipedia entry has become a battleground for this character assasination campaign.

This comment, while possibly true, doesn't seem encyclopedic. Maybe there's a better way of saying this. If Horowitz has been a longtime critic of Scheer then some mention may be relevant. -Willmcw 19:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

---

I've also removed this disputed sentence, as there is no source:

In the early 1970s, shortly after his state-sponsored trip to North Korea, Scheer joined the Red Sun Rising commune which was devoted to "armed struggle" and the teachings of Kim Il-Sung.

It is not mentioned in the FrontPage reference. -Willmcw 00:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a source. The referenced source says:

I submitted a column to Salon on Wen Ho Lee with the following reference to Scheer's politics: "While we were divulging the secrets of America's electronic intelligence agency in the pages of Ramparts back in the '60s, Scheer was joining the Red Sun Rising Commune [in Berkeley] and becoming an acolyte of North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung." A Salon editor contacted Scheer to ask him about the veracity of the claims about his dalliance with Kim Il Sung that I had intended to include in the column. He stated flatly that they were untrue. I let the denial pass at the time, and the mention was not included in my column.[1]

On that basis I edited the text to say that Scheer denies the association with Red Sun Rising. -Willmcw 00:57, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why completely remove the charges? Because Horowitz makes the allegation or because it is ludicrous? Certainly we can see that according to the “statement” he signed he clearly had deep sympathies for the DPKR and it revolutionary brand o’ anti imperialism?

Certainly it is noteworthy.TDC 21:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Could I have a source for Horowitz's retraction? TDC 22:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please read the entire column. After accepting the denial ("I let the denial pass at the time"), Horowitz offers no other proof that Scheer was a commune member. He does mention that Scheer did a radio interview where he was effusive in praise of Kim Il Sung's North Korea. If you like we can include that. -Willmcw 22:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Realistically, what kind of "proof" could he provide, a picture, sworn affidavit? Certainly they ran in the same circles for much of the 60's and 70's, and Horowitz did have a great deal of contact with him. TDC 22:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? He could provide the name of one person who was in Red Sun Rising who places Scheer there, he could provide a legitimate news article that places him there, etc. (or even establishes that their was such a commune). Bottom line is: If you have a damning accusation, like "You've been beating your wife lately," then you damn well better have more proof than one ideologue-for-hire's foggy memory of 35 years ago. As has been well documented, the already high-strung Horowitz completely lost his mind after he, in a moment of terrible judgement, recommended an accountant from Ramparts to be the accountant for the already corrupt Black Panthers -- and she ended up floating in the Bay. After that, anybody on the 60s Left became a murdering Communist in Horowitz's eyes, and he has held to that line even as the 60s have become a distant memory. Half of the perhaps apocryphal Red Sun Rising commune now probably work at Charles Schwab...

He doesn't even repeat the assertion. His last word on the subject is that Scheer denied it and so it wasn't published. The ball was left, as it were, in Horowitz's court and he didn't do anything. -Willmcw 22:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ramparts and women

I have deleted a few incorrect points from this entry about Scheer's time at Ramparts magazine. For one thing, there was a lot of material about Eldrige Cleaver, and it seems to me that belongs in Cleaver's own Wiki entry. The excuse to include it here is that Scheer allegedly hired Cleaver, however it was Ramparts' publisher who did so. The note that Cleaver led a trip that Scheer attended is relevant enough and I left that alone. Also there was a false claim that Scheer, along with David Horrowitz, had loaned out an employee to the Black Panthers who was later killed. Scheer had been forced out of Ramparts by that time and would not have had any say in its employees' comings and goings. All of this is well documented in a recent book, "A Bomb in Every Issue" by Peter Richardson. I suggest using it to check some of these facts if anyone objects to them.

I also deleted some text about Scheer's alleged antagonism to women. There is no basis for this claim other than his having written for Playboy magazine. Scheer has written for many magazines, including Ms. He is married to a feminist and has written extensively in defense of the rights of women. His playboy writings focused on politics and national and global affairs, not pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.167.62 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Scheer's wife.

Hi, not sure about the format for discussion, or the protocol for wikis in general, but I've changed something and thought I would explain. I'm actually one of Scheer's sons, which is how I found this article, and also why I objected to something in it. Actually, there are a couple of points I find misleading, also some ommissions, but nothing too gross. One exception, the item I altered, was the suggestion that my mother was both an editor at the Times when he began work there (she was a reporter at the time), and that she somehow aided him in his career. In fact, he'd made a name for himself by then, and she was in no position to assist him should she want to. Anyway, I wouldn't want to edit anything else, considering a natural bias, but these two points are simply fact, so there you have it. Have a good one.

-Peter Scheer

Thanks for fixing the error. That's what Wikipedia is all about. You are not prohibited from editing due to your connection to the subject, but some folks find it hard to treat issues they are close to with the requisite neutral point of view. If you see any other specific errors please feel free to point them out. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

PS: While we welcome editors with direct experience of events, we require that all editors rely on sources that can be verified by other editors. I doubt that your edit would be controversial, but if it were it'd be difficult for other editors to confirm it. This falls under our core "no original research" policy. Cheers, -

Truthdig vs. FrontPage

I'm just curious as to why FrontPage.com is described as a "right-wing" blog [2] while Truthdig is described as "progressive"? -- Gerkinstock 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the article and see if anybody objects. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

POV

I think the following paragraph does not comport with Wikipedia's NPOV standard:

The editor of the LA Times Op-Ed page, Andres Martinez, later wrote and published a less-than-persuasive defense of the Scheer firing, saying: "It's also true that some of our columnists are not easily labeled on either side of the ideological divide, which we think is healthy." Yet just as Scheer was fired the columnist Jonah Goldberg, Bush booster and son of conservative political maven Lucianne Goldberg, was hired and began appearing on the LA Times Op-Ed page. Johnson himself has never deigned to publicly defend or justify the Scheer purge.

The L.A. Times is still a very liberal newspaper and publishes Left-leaning commentaries on a daily basis. In particular, the phrase "less-than-persuasive" lacks objectivity. Less-than persuasive to whom? To the author? To Mr. Scheer's supporters? --Gerkinstock 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. I removed "less-than-persuasive" and the "deigned" portions. Wikipedia need only summarize the explanations for the firing—we can let readers decide how persuasive they find them. 165.189.91.148 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, even with the removal of the offending fragments, this paragraph still leaves an impression that somehow, it was an attempt to remove any anti-bush columnists within the Opinion pages. It doesn't give any context that other, apparently moderate to liberal writers were added, including Joel Stein, who is so far left that he makes Robert Scheer looks positively fascist. Rilindo

Replacing Scheer, who had a GUARANTEED space on the page every week and a super-loyal following (witness the protests, etc.), with random liberals whose work could and would be rejected or accepted on an individual column basis, is hardly a straight trade. Ditto right-wing Ramirez, who was not replaced by an oped cartoonist (but did not have the same vocal following) The Times got back more power to the editors while also dumping two controversial voices.

Please remember to sign all articles by striking the tilde key four times. And kindly keep the discussion to the article itself. If you want to make changes yourself, by all means do so. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Political Views section

I added a "Political Views" section with a sub-head, "Iraq War." I thought this added a lot to the article, which had almost no information on Scheer's stance on the War - a stance which was often controversial and played a big part in Scheer's career. I hope others will find it balanced and informative.

I also added a bit more to the part about Scheer's dismissal from the L.A. Times. When I first read the section I found it a bit confusing and think the added information clarifies the controversy while maintaining, I hope, a balanced NPOV. Langtry (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

North Korean trip coverage

There is a reference to Scheer accompanying a lefty/Black Panther delegation to N. Korea in 1970. No documentation is provided. The entire section seems to be a weaselly Trojan Horse to associate Scheer with some strident Panther agitprop which concludes the section. If documentation for this isn't provided, I'll delete the entire section.

Tapered (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Scheer is mentioned in it (or how often), but Cleaver's notebook from the trip is available online somewhere.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hagiography

Scheer's role as a New Left radical and his numerous, crazy associations and advocacies, (Kim Il Sung for God's sake!), are totally downplayed in this sanitized, left-leaning, depiction of someone who's never had the moral courage or integrity to answer for all the reckless, wrong, immoral positions he's taken, consistently, throughout his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.85.38 (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the article. Simply provide the sources, within the article if you like, and let somebody else do the footnoting for you. Sincerely, and all the best, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Scheer. 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/20120126031720/http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=15 to http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=15
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=421762l424168l0l424465l3l3l0l1l0l0l766l1438l5-1.1l2l0&q=cache:dlbZQ9EwtM0J:http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/zeitlin.html+%22Root+and+Branch%22+Scheer&ct=clnk with https://web.archive.org/web/20111122110200/http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/zeitlin.html on http://www.bruinalumni.com/articles/zeitlin.html

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) 06:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Guevara's Diary

The sentence about his meeting with Castro makes no sense to me. He already had the diary or the rights to publish it, but went to Castro nevertheless? --Ralfdetlef (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)