Talk:Lewis H. Lapham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Didn't Lapham write a Harper's article in early 2006 claiming that AIDS was not cased by HIV (which was described as a harmless virus) but rather "toxic buildup" from recreational drugs and prescription drugs, including AZT. 12.10.223.247 05:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the AIDS/HIV article was it was written by a woman writer, the work assigned by Mr. Lewis Lapham. I read this in The New York Times. Menkbabe 08:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Peter Menkin

Mr. Lapham, an eminent American Editor and now emeritus editor at Harper's magazine has begun a literary quarterly. He is its editor. References to it are found in The New York Times archives, and in a Google search on "Lewis Lapham." At about 72 years of age, he has begun something new which besides a print version has an internet presence. Menkbabe 08:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Peter Menkin.

[edit] Jennifer Senior incident - POV

Section is POV - it basically is a re-hash of Seniors screed, using her words only, it contains no references or quotes from Lanham himself. It relies entirely on Seniors interpretation of events, entirely one sided. In addition, it is such a minor incident that it hardly bears mention (he did apologize and correct himself), much less be nearly as long as the rest of the article combined, it is way out of proportion. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely factual, based on information that appeared in The New York Times Book Review. Just because it doesn't put Lapham in a good light doesn't mean it is POV. If there is another "interpretation of events", simply provide them, but until there is proof of that, we have no reason to believe there is another "interpretation" out there. It is permissable to report the opinions of others, and in this case the opinion was very prominent. Noroton (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't trust the way she phrases things. It's not a question of "factual" but how it's presented, the spin she puts on it to make a good story. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I took another look at it but I don't know how that paragraph would be rewritten. She recounts Lapham's explanation and criticises it. It seems to me her critique is prominent and important. If there's some other source out there that we could use to cover the same incident, I'm very open to it. If you think this paragraph can be rewritten, I'm open to considering proposed new language. I am uncomfortable with using his defense as seen through her report, but I don't have another source. Noroton (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a comment on how the paragraph is written, but I am concerned about undue weight. Lapham is a legendary editor, and edited Harper's for many years. More information should be included reflecting this.Nonplus (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. I looked this over again about a week ago and found some sources on the subject of this particular section, and I do think it should be beefed up with them and rewritten. I'm just too busy at the moment. So far, there hasn't been much interest on anyone's part in lengthening this article. If nothing else, people could add web links about Lapham either to the "External links" section or here on the talk page if they don't want to actually write, and then someone else might use the sources to write more. I certainly don't want an unfair BLP. Noroton (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)