User talk:207.172.81.242

You are entering materials that don't exactly fit in, e.g., Peretz entry. If they dont fit in the section you chose, or if they arent coherent were you have put them, then they should be removed. I think you are entering well known facts, but they are entering the wrong spots or are written in an awkward way. PaulR

--- Hi 207.172.81.242, Welcome to SourceWatch. Just so you understand at SourceWatch we aim to ensure all key points are supported by a reference/evidence. This allows a sceptical or curious reader to follow the point to a primary or secondary source. Nor do we reproduce wholesale what someone has written especially if it is already available on the web. Our aim is to add to what is known or at least provide a condensed guide to a topic or organisation and provide links to other resources. So I have reduced the David A Harris page to a one line decsription of the position he occupies and a reference link to his article.

I have also reverted the addition to the Peretz article (which in itself needs work) as it is an unsupported opinion. For example, I have no idea whether it is true that TNR has lost readers and/or lost them to The Nation beyond what is an opinion. Maybe both are true but for readers such as myself who don't know that's the case it is best to provide some supporting evidence that persuades me rather than asking me to take the statement at face value.--Bob Burton 18:28, 31 Mar 2005 (EST)