Talk:Victor Navasky

Untitled

Someone added the following text to the article Monocle:

Monocle was also a US satirical magazine, published irregularly from the late 1950's until the mid-sixties. For at least the majority of its run, it was edited by Victor Navasky. [1]

I'm moving it here for safekeeping. Pages on Wikipedia are organized by sense, not by name. If there is enough material to write an article, one could create Monocle (magazine) and move this material there. If not, it needs to be worked into some other article; perhaps this one.--Srleffler 02:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What a joke

Good lord, talk about a freakin whitewash. I am used to entries on Wikipedia concerning left-wingers being cleansed of anything embarrassing or less-than-flattering, but to have an entry on Navasky without mentioning the two things that he is most famous for is just plain laughable. Christ, writing an entry on Navasky without discussing The Nation's DECADES-long apologia for the Khmer Rouge under his editorship and his laughable insistence, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs are innocent is akin to removing any mention of impeachment from an entry on Bill Clinton. This "encyclopedic" (please, don't make me fuc*ing laugh)entry is yet another prime example of why Wikipedia is so readily dismissed by so many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. An authoritative article on Navasky and his magazine might start with Susan Sontag's late-life estimation, made to Navasky's face in 1982. "Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Reader’s Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the same period who read only The Nation or the New Statesman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of Communism? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?" Her take on the Nation having been on the wrong side of history all those years, is quoted, discussed at length, and rebutted in Navasky's own magazine, The Nation. June 22, 2013. Rather feebly rebutted but it's tough to make a good case for people who defended, to the bitter end, the Soviet Union and "scientific" Marxism, the phlogiston of economic theory, which beggared half the globe for a century. But sure, start with the Nation piece. http://www.thenation.com/article/week-nation-history-susan-sontag-avant-garde-communism-and-left/ Be kind. Profhum (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)