Jump to content

Talk:Lewis H. Lapham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

The article was written by Celia Farber and was published in the very first issue after Lapham's stepping down as editor, under Roger Hodge's editorial lead. Lapham was not involved in the decision to publish it, AFAIK, nor am I aware of his publicly expressing any opinion on the matter (and certainly he didn't write it). CAVincent (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

Jennifer Senior incident - POV

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is "unfair" because I doubt Lapham or his fans consider it a serious criticism. He is an essayist, not a journalist, after all, so it is hardly a scandal. However, I think it is extremely problematic as undue weight. 1) It is a pretty minor event in a long career. 2. Perhaps more importantly, there simply is no such thing as a "Jennifer Senior incident". Senior wrote the review two years later, so it was hardly breaking news. Readers of Harper's (myself included) realized they were reading a review of a convention not-yet-occurred when the issue came out. As I recall, Lapham's apology was in the very next issue. Certainly far more people were already aware of this "water under the bridge" than became aware because of Senior's article. Finally, a Google search for Senior and Lapham brings only 143 hits, including a few blogs, copies of Senior's article and copies of this article. Hardly seems to merit the term "incident". I'm going to be bold and remove. If anyone is not convinced, let's discuss for some consensus. CAVincent (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

middle name?

[edit]

Anyone have a good source for what the "H." stands for? 271828182 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lewis H. Lapham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis H. Lapham. 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:

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) 22:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_H._Lapham&oldid=1236458031"