Talk:Charles Krauthammer/Archive 1

Neoconservative Categorization Discussion
Krauthammer is a neoconservative, not a conservative. --HowardJ87 13:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. All neoconservatives fit into the broad category of "conservative," by definition and by their own words to that effect. By him stating that he is a "conservative" does not in any way imply or express that he is saying he is NOT a neocon. Not only has he never said he is NOT a neocon, he has never even bothered taking issue with being lumped together with any of the other well known neocons. The more accurate and therefore correct designation for him in this bio is a neoconservative. Even if he DID come out and say "I am not a neocon," that is STILL not grounds to change that designation in his bio. If he says "I am a Martian," that wouldn't make it either, would it? He has long supported policies that all neocons do, but far more "conservatives" do NOT. Aschoeff 07:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to correct something here in my logic. If we consider "neocon" and "conservative" as two sets, then the union and anti-union of the sets effectively cancel each other out, such that there is no real overlap (union).  Therefore the discussion cannot proceed along the assumption that "conservative" is a superset of "neoconservative."  A majority of "conservative" set members would specifically not join the "neoconservative" set, so they must be considered separately on their individual tenets and not confused.  Aschoeff 18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You go too far. Self identification is very important. MoodyGroove 13:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

"You go too far." What's that supposed to mean? Is that a veiled threat? I formally request you to specifically respond with a "yes" or a "no" before continuing this discussion. Aschoeff 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A threat of what, Aschoeff? How could I possibly harm you here on the talk page of the Charles Krauthammer article? "You go too far" means exactly that. You took your line of reasoning too far. Self identification as a conservative does not rule out being a neoconservative. However, if he did come out and say "I am no longer a neoconservative" (along the lines of Francis Fukuyama) then that would carry a lot of weight, because self identification is important. MoodyGroove 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've mistaken my question to imply that I think you actually could harm me. There is no need to evaluate that. I was asking if you were implying any kind of a threat. It's not about the capacity or even the rationality to carry it out, it's about the pathology involved in making a veiled threat in the first place. That's what is illegal, immoral, and least important but most relevant, against Wikipedia policy. But I digress. "You go too far" is not exact at all, and it's doubly offensive to me, personally and semantically, that you assume I should know exactly what you were saying when you were using inexact language that could trojan in many meanings. So I am going to interpret your words as saying you did not imply a threat, and we can move on. I know that this may seem a bit much, but in the interest of Truth I've learned I have to always asymptote towards clarity on wikipedia.

Now to reply, self-identification is only as important as it reflects truth and reality. In CK's case, it would take a very long and sustained period of demonstrating his (impending?) repudiation of neoconservatism and *all* of its tenets to convince anybody aside from his yes-men that he is no longer belonging in that previously self-ascribed category. When a convict asks for parole, saying he is a reformed citizen, the parole board doesn't look at each other and go, "Hey, he said he's no longer gonna be bad, so he's no longer bad, let him go!" I would love to see CK really and truly turn it around, because I admire his writing style and aspects of the mind behind it, but there's just a huge unavoidable gulf between saying something and living something. Real change has to come slowly, or else it's not under conscious control and therefore able to flip back equally quickly. What would you like to see him do? Aschoeff 18:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should have assumed good faith to begin with. MoodyGroove 19:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

It's not that I assume a lack of good faith, it's that I don't assume a lack of bad faith. I try to keep both in mind because that's the only way to fully respect the sentience and present state of whomever I am speaking to. I acknowledge I am quick to jump though, because I have had my good faith manipulated far too many times. Plus, the underlying issues of which we do not speak are so explosive and weighted, the slightest epsilon in any higher-order parameter I sense makes me feel the need to explicitly probe the intent. Aschoeff 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC) To be honest, I used to be an excellent liar and a manipulator which is actually the real reason I'm so quick to sense anything and jump. I'm really really good at it, so good I thought it was the right thing to do. It took me years to turn around from that position and hopefully use this "ability" for Good, and I'm still trying to do that, although I'm probably missing something and doing somewhat of the same still. Aschoeff 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we simply all agree that it is absolutely insane to call a man who supporter of immensely higher taxes, wrote speeches for Walter Mondale, supports abortion, opposes the death penalty, etc., etc., etc., a "conservative?" If Krauthammer is a conservative, I guess the definition of conservative boils down to a single issue: support for the war in Iraq.   Which means Pat Buchanan, George Will, etc., are all liberals?  I don't think so.

Headline text
Cleanup tag added. Many sections are tiny; some contain information not related to section heading. Almost all information in article is on Krauthammer's opinions; while they are what he is known for, some personal information might not be out of place. Skanar 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Replaced "In practice, Krauthammer developed several psychiatric methods still widely used to this day, and his papers are frequently cited. For example, in 1978, Krauthammer was, with one other, the first to describe describe secondary mania as a syndrome with multiple causes." Having written a scientific article does not mean "developed several psychiatric methods still widely used to this day, and his papers are frequently cited." "Frequently" and "widely" are evaluations hard to substantiate in this case. Get-back-world-respect 23:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does a comment about his shoulders being of uneven height belong here? This is not an American Most Wanted photo board. On the other hand, the fact that he was injured while doing sports (do not remember any details at the moment) may be relevant. Would someone please do some research on this? Thank you. Cema 09:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's also mention that he looks like Ralph Nader. --BDD 00:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reference to his experience at Johns Hopkins appears to be an error. From Cspan Q & A with Brian Lamb:

KRAUTHAMMER: My father moved us to Canada when I was five. I grew up in Montreal. I went to McGill until I was 20. I graduated in 1970 when I was 20. I went to Oxford and then I never returned to Canada.

I was always an American citizen because I was born here. I went to medical school in Boston and then later I came down here.

LAMB: Did you have a short time Johns Hopkins

KRAUTHAMMER: No

LAMB: Somewhere I thought I read that.

KRAUTHAMMER: No

LAMB: Your whole medical experience was at Harvard

KRAUTHAMMER: Yes. And I was a student there and then I did a three-year residency in psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital. In my last year I was one of the chief residents, published a few papers on bipolar disease and then came to Washington in 1978.

Amibiguous sentence

 * He was one one of the most vocal supporters for the war in Iraq.

Er, what part of the war did he support?
 * 1) That it should occur? (Hoping Iraq would become a war-ravaded nation, maybe?)
 * 2) That the US and England should topple Saddam?
 * 3) That Saddam's forces should fight to maintain the Baathist dictatorship?

The term "anti-war" is nebulous at best, and its supposed opposite war supporter is no better.

If he came out and said he supported the Allied invasion of Iraq, then Wikipedia should say so. And maybe even give his reasons.

("supporter of the war", without further explanation, becomes just a put-down phrase in some circles) Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Changed "saveing" to "saving". Spell-check is AWESOME. --Weirdoactor 14:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

entailment
Under the Torture section of this article I wrote Krauthammer argues that any ban of torture entails at least two exceptions which was changed to  Krauthammer argues that any ban of torture should entail at least two exceptions by an anonymous user who gave the following explanation any ban of torture SHOULD entail (entails sounds too controversial to me)

My version is more accurate because
 * 1) Krauthammer, in fact, argues that a ban on torture entails at least two exceptions
 * 2) Krauthammer's argument is controversial, which is why it's interesting, and should be represented as such

He argues that in these two exceptional cases we must use torture, not that we should. This is a distinction between obligation and permission, in strict ethical terms. Please take a look at the Deontic logic article for more on this distinction.

If I am wrong about what Krauthammer argues, please tell me on my talk page.

Collingsworth 00:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Collingsworth, I believe it should read "any ban of torture must entail at least two exceptions," though not for the previously cited reason. I don't believe, as was suggested earlier, that "entails" is POV any more than "should entail." The way it is now worded "ban...entails" implies that in McCain's proposal, these 2 exceptions are implicit; however, they are not implied in the McCain proposal. In fact, the "ban" on torture allows NO exceptions. Krauthammer appears to be making a different proposal, therefore, "must" (or even "should") is more appropriate (for example, in the article, starting with "Outside the military, however, I would propose,..."). In fact, Krauthammer's entire article explains how he thinks policy "should" be (not as it "is"). My opinion on this is the same before and after reading his article. Tell me if you disagree with my assessment. Ufwuct 00:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Palestinians
"He is a vehement defender of the far right Likud party in Israel, and has argued numerous times against the rights of Palestinians to return, to a land, and to a just settlement."

The above quote displays bias by implying that Palestinians do in fact have those rights. Also, I don't think Krauthammer has ever been against a "just settlement". I think he sees his ideal solution as quite just for both the Israelis and Palestinians. Finally, though I believe that he has argued against a Palestinian state in the past, he is today in favor of withdrawal, which would give the Palestinians a "land" (whatever their "rights" may be). Due to this, I changed the statement.Skanar 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"These predictions were vindicated by the launching of the second intifada in 2000." This is a biased statement, implying that the Oslo Accords inevitably led to the launching of the Second Intifada 7 years later. 128.143.231.24 (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Krauthammer and Religion
I think this section should be cleaned up and expanded, or possibly deleted. I am uncertain whether it was the author's intention, but as it stands, it conveys the impression that Krauthammer is an opponent of religion per se. If indeed that was what the author meant, then more references need to be cited. Love Of Fate   talk   21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How can it be said that Charles is not religious? He is Jewish, I don't understand but accept there are atheistic Jews, but he attends synagogue. If you will google Charles Krauthammer wife, you will see a story that in a Jewish oriented online rag that he and his wife have donated money to preserve Jewish music from the 19th century. Further, they recount how she converted to Judaism before their marriage and he says, "she's more Jewish than me." Does that sound like someone who is ambivalent.

I am interested in his religion for essentially one reason, and that is his political commentary. His blind support of Israel is disturbing to me, and his faith, his insistence that his wife convert all indicate that he has more than a disinterested religious tie to the controversial state.

I personally support Israel, and her right to exist, however I think they have overreached, much as this country has. Some of the wrongs we committed can't be righted, what we are supporting in Israel is not finished, and our own redemption lies in us all appealing to our common heritage and respect for each man, as everyman I affect is my neighbor.

I am Irish/Scottish/English, I have stronger feeling about the IRA than I do about the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Similarly, It seems relevant that when one seeks to understand the biographical background of Charles Krauthammer that certainly his Jewish identity should be noted and likely affects his attitudes toward Israel, Palestinians, Iranians and Arabs generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottindallas (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass Reformatting Edits
Well, I will admit I am an outsider to this article but it appeared that it needed to be cleaned up and reformatted to make a little more sense. Overall, the article is now divided into the main sections of Career, Opinions, References, & External Links with subsections within some of them.

In addition, some information was deleted that appeared to have been repeated or not to have had a large amount of importance to the article at large, including the remark about him writing about his brother, etc.

Hopefully, I wanted to get this article to move into the right direction and hopefully more editing corrections will follow! Does anyone have any remarks about the work I have done or further work to be done on this article? | Chris 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fukuyama
I felt the controversy between Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer deserved at least a brief mention in the article on Krauthammer, and have tried to add something about it.

Andrew Szanton, 4/06
 * I don't think that Ch. K. denies that he supported going to war in Iraq; he denies that he claimed it would be an umitigated success.Skanar 07:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have trouble making sense of what is trying to be said in this paragraph. There appears to be no logical contradiction in being a proponent of something and still supporting it as the right thing to do after the fact, even if it fails. I suppose you could call that 'principle' or 'stubbornness,' depending on your point of view. Also, "not very plausibly" seems POV. Good to see this part has now been removed. I'll try to reword the paragraph a bit. Let me know if disagree with my interpretation. Ufwuct 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

From liberal to conserative
We should have something in his bio covering his transition from a speechwriter for Walter Mondale to becoming a conservative Republican. Homey 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Krauthammer and the Irish Times
I noted the syndication with the Irish Times. As I noted on Mark Steyn's page why are Irish people being fed this neo-conservative drivel. Yes, it offers an alternative world view but we could have world filled with unhinged christians and muslims...hold on a minute...


 * I've changed your edit to merely say that his column is syndicated internationally, rather than noting the Irish Times specifically. I don't see any reason for singling out that paper as opposed to any of the other papers in which he is syndicated. (As for "unhinged christians and muslims," note that Krauthammer is Jewish. You're probably also aware that many Americans believe Ireland is "filled with unhinged christians," seeing the north as conflict-ridden and the south as a Catholic theocracy. National perspectives can be so different.) --Groggy Dice 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I'm aware Krauthammer is Jewish and was not referring to him as unhinged, conversely I think he knows exactly what he is saying. And who are these Americans that believe Ireland is a Catholic theocracy? Are they all really that isolated that they see the Ireland of decades ago. I don't believe Americans are in the throws of prohibition! I suspect that many Americans are very much aware that the north is no more conflict ridden than some areas in their sphere and not a Catholic theocracy. I also suspect writers like Krauthammer portray an isolationist and paternalistic America and that many in that nation must be very despondent about their present international standing. --The Three Jays 23:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Brendan Nyhan
I've just removed the following from the article:
 * ===On Threats===
 * According to The American Prospect{ref}KRAUTHAMMER'S HACK HITLER ANALOGIES The American Prospect, Brendan Nyhan, August 30 2006{/ref}, Krauthammer has a penchant for comparing modern states to Nazi Germany. Krauthammer made the connection in several columns, with China in 1989, Russia in 1994, North Korea in 1994, and Iran in 2006. Every comparison contained a quote from Senator William Borah &mdash; comparing Borah's appeasement strategy to modern politicians such as Jimmy Carter. Brendan Nyhan of Time Magazine believes his comparisons have probably influenced remarks made by Donald Rumsfeld, also quoting William Borah{ref}Why the Nazi Analogy Is on the Rise Time magazine, Brendan Nyhan, August 31, 2006{/ref}.

(I've replaced the angle brackets with braces, so we can see what's in the &lt;ref&gt;s.) Note that CK has been writing a weekly column for 20 years or so. Using the same comparison four times in that many columns is not at all remarkable; calling a Pulitzer-Prize-winning a columnist a "hack" for doing so is remarkable: remarkably stupid. Let's save Brendan Nyhan (not the worst columnist in the world, but a hack compared to CK) some embarrassment by keeping this out of mainspace. (In addition, the deleted text violates WP:BLP and WP:RS.) Cheers, CWC (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I did think it was a stretch having a blog (essentially the same blog twice) listed as a source, thought I would give a try challenging the content with {&#123;fact}} tags. I guess your way might work; let's see how it's received by others.  Regarding your last statement (in parentheses), are you saying that the deleted text violates WP:BLP for Krauthammer or Nyhan?  Or both?  Thanks. Ufwuct 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't very clear there, was I? I meant Krauthammer. And yes, the use of blogs is the problem. (Frankly, I was disappointed by Nyhan's Prospect.org blog post; I thought he was better than that.) Cheers, CWC (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the clarification. Ufwuct 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well in spite of your criticism nyhan's piece has caught on, with now a link in Andrew Sullivan's column, praising it. Furthermore, a couple of points need to be picked apart on your argument. CK did not just use the same comparison (in fact that comparison has probably been made more than the times Nyhan cited)--he used the exact same quote--which was later used by a powerful government official and many think the two are connected. Not far-fetched thinking considering CK has advised them in the past. I think such an addition would show his effect on how the US government is talking right now, an important accomplishment for a columnist. Also, your whole reasoning stinks of POV. You are defending him by saying "Nyhan is a hack compared to CK" that is not an argument for Wikipedia. In addition you cite that these aren't reliable sources, but one is a famous magazine (Time), and this is not research on physics, these are just quotes from a columnist. Also take a careful examination over the article--this biography on a op/ed columnist--there seems to be a dearth of criticism of CK present, which seems a little suspicious imo. I notice you point out where he say disagrees with Fukuyama or McCain, but I think any person who gets famous writing opinions, especially controversial ones, deserves to have some criticism inserted in his bio. I think it should be revised though, drop the blog link, keep the TIME link, and maybe add a few more links, which one could have unearthed with a cursory google search. Here they come: http://www.docstrangelove.com/2006/05/05/charles-krauthammer-and-hitler-attack-israel/

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/stop_krauthamme.html I hope you will take this into consideration, I wonder if some blog or news organization has tracked the number of pure hitler/nazi germany comparisons he has made. Those are sure to exceed Borah quotes. Cokane 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)cokane september 14 2006


 * http://www.docstrangelove.com/2006/05/05/charles-krauthammer-and-hitler-attack-israel/ 
 * This is not any more notable, IMO. It's probably even less so, since the blogger writes under a pseudonym.


 * http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/stop_krauthamme.html
 * This is still a blog, but it does look more notable. It's associated with TIME, PLUS the piece is by Andrew Sullivan.  This source might not be enough by itself (I'm still borderline on including it); let's see if there are more developments (as you say is inevitable) and add it then (OR if there are other notable sources that have addressed the issue, I'd be interested to see those too).  Also, if (or when) this material is added back in, I would suggest qualifying Brendan Nyhan's TIME blog with Andrew Sullivan's because:
 * Both are associated with TIME
 * Andrew Sullivan's piece refers to Nyhan's blog
 * Andrew Sullivan seems more notable


 * I wonder if some blog or news organization has tracked the number of pure hitler/nazi germany comparisons he has made. Those are sure to exceed Borah quotes.
 * I think we should be careful not to do original research, but keep your eyes peeled to see if news organizations cover this. I think blogs addressing this point would be even less reliable than the Borah quote issue because while the Borah quote issue is easily verifiable (Krauthammer either used the quote in an article or he didn't), Third Reich comparisons seem a lot more subjective.
 * Thanks for having the patience to bring your comments to the talk page first rather than reverting. Ufwuct 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Afterthought: I wonder this could explain why Brendan Nyhan wrote that post. CWC (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Place of Birth
I followed the link to the article from USA TODAY about "many" pro empire advocates were actually born abroad. There it says Mr Krauthammer was born in Uruguay. Is this incorrect or is the current article?" [contributor not identified]

Hi. I read how CK was born in Uruguay, not NYC, so I changed that, and added a ref, although I read a comment here referring to a different source as well. Does anyone know for sure? Please check this out before just reverting it, please. Aaron Schoeffler 00:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked this page after a few months, and sure enough someone removed my edit about him being born in Uruguay, and reverted it to NYC without citing any reference whatsoever. Don't do this unless you have a source, people. Place of birth is about as unspinnable a fact as you can get. Aschoeff 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I also found a column he wrote where he states his parents were French citizens, and I just added that.


 * Why did you send me a stupid, insulting message to me about this? I have nothing to do with this place-of-birth controversy, and I certainly didn't revert your edit. — J M Rice 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the one using epithets like "stupid." And unless someone else is using your account, yes you did make the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Krauthammer&oldid=95741673 Aschoeff 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "I'm the one?" Are you all right? The edit I made was over a month ago, and there have been plenty of edits since then.  The edits I made have nothing to do with reverting Uruguay to NYC.  I still have no idea of what you are talking about — J M Rice 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The subsequent edit that was not done by you did indeed change his place of birth from Uruguay to New York, but your immediately previous edit removed the REFERENCE. Without the reference, claiming Krauthammer was born in Uruguay is indeed specious, so it's totally understandable some unnamed person reverted it.  So yes, indeed, Rice you did do this, whether it was just sloppy editing or no, you need to be more careful.   And I need to not assume you had any motive behind this.  I apologize for assuming you had an agenda.  Aschoeff 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My last word on this subject is that I do not think you should be an editor for wikipedia. If you don't understand that any statement offered up as fact needs to be referenced, especially if that statement is a point of contention, then you lack the expertise to responsibly and fairly analyze and edit other people's work.  Whether that statement is about a place of birth or not is utterly irrelevant.  Good luck to you, and if you respond I'll give you the last word.  Aschoeff 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just emailed Jeet directly and asked for some clarification about sources. Uruguay seems a tall claim if Jeet can't provide evidence. I guess we wait and see if I get a reply. Aschoeff 08:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the following initial response from Jeet:
 * "Hi -- My source for that was Peter Brimelow, who I interviewed for my article. I also think there was some print source as well that my editor at the Boston Globe found. But I just did a quick google search and can't find anything else. I'll check with Brimelow again. It could be that he conflated the fact that Krauthammer lived in Uruguay in the 1950s with the fact that their son was born there. I'll let you know if I come up with something. If not, I'll correct the article on my website. Best, Jeet" Aschoeff 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good News! I (finally!) found CK's biography page at the Washington Post Writers Group (WPWG), which says flat out "Krauthammer was born in New York City and raised in Montreal." (I'm going to be lazy and wait to see if Jeet Heer and/or Peter Brimelow come up with anything before editing this into the article.) Cheers, CWC (talk)

Here is Jeet's subsequent response:
 * "I've tried to contact Brimelow to see if he can confirm the Uruguay story but he hasn't returned my e-mail and calls. Like I said, I'm pretty sure there was a second source beyond Brimelow and I'm doing a search for that -- but unless I come through with that or hear from Brimelow, then we have to go with Krauthammer's say-so. But I'll do more of a search and hound Brimelow a bit more. Best, Jeet "

I'd say this largely invalidates that whole entire article unless Jeet ever finds anything, so any other wiki using this article as a reference should be moved to a discussion page as it is here. The WPWG link CWC found isn't the best at all, as it's not an independent source in my opinion. Moreover, the wording of the paragraph regarding his birth has been eerily like the one in that link (check it out, look at previous revisions), so I'm wondering if the original text was taken from there, or vice-versa. As such, I think we can't use this link because it appears to be a circular reference. Where did the original information come from? I think we should continue to omit his place of birth, given the controversy, or else we need to include it in such a way as to make clear that it has been a point of contention, and that being born in NYC is based on CK's word entirely. Any way you do that is going to be clunky, so I still opine we should omit it entirely from the main page. That there is a high degree of ambivalence is relevant, but that's what the discussion page here is for. Aschoeff 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WPWG Bio: I just called the 800 number listed at the bottom of CK's bio page on the WPWG site, and talked to the woman who answered the phone. I didn't ask her name. She told me that Charles Krauthammer gave them that bio directly, and that they never checked it in any way. It should be clearly noted that therefore it is only CK's word, and has not undergone any kind of fact-checking or editing, unlike his editorials have for JWR that we are using to cite his parents as being French citizens. Moreover, CK didn't have to sign something saying his bio was accurate, like you have to as a journalist for any article you publish, which really makes this a poor citation. Based on this, I am of the opinion we should continue to omit his place of birth. I think it's interesting that we now know that CK's personally written bio bears some eerie resemblance to parts of the wiki here. I wonder how that evolved. Aschoeff 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A person's word about her place of birth is a sufficient source to establish verifiability. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, here again you are drawing conclusions with no citations of any kind. Biographies of Living Persons have their very own, very clear policies about verifiability. See specifically Reliable_sources and then apply all the tests therein to the known sources we have for CK's bio, and you will see that none meet the bar. See my talk page for more discussion of this, and I can go into detail about my reasoning if you need me to. Aschoeff 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

POV tag, February 2007
User recently added a {&#123;POV}} tag to the article, with the edit summary: As evidenced by the edit debate, some editors do not wish to reveal frequent criticisms or polarizing nature of CK I presume that this relates to an anon editor's desire to include the following text in the lede paragraph:
 * a story at CBS News regarded him as "very possibly the worst journalist working in America today".

What do other editors think about this POV tag, and this attack on Dr Krauthammer? CWC (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that one can't compare a factual citation, like receiving an award from Financial Times magazine, with an editorial one, as in a single reporter/pundit using an obviously meaningless superlative like "worst journalist working today."  The latter is a single-person editorial, and as such could go in a different section discussing what talking heads say, but definitely not where it was.  More generally, because even basic facts about CK are in dispute, with people (myself included) crying ulterior motive or bias, I think that the POV tag is a given. Aschoeff 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Issue
I mentioned above that I found CK's bio at the Washington Post Writers Group:. As user:Aschoeff has pointed out, our article has some similarities to that bio. At least one edit seems to have used text from that bio. So we may have a copyright violation. OTOH, maybe the way we've used the bio falls within fair use. I wouldn't know (IANAL), so I've asked for help at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.

BTW, I found another bio of CK here. It greatly resembles the WPWG bio ...

Cheers, CWC (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly a pertinent question that needs answering, but the answer will be trumped by the discussion of these sources passing the posted reliability standards, as is taking place above in the Place-of-Birth section, and also on my talk page. If these sources aren't reliable we can't use them as a basis let alone for anything specific. Aschoeff 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Page Log
This list is given in Most-Recent-First order. Locations are taken from Geotool.


 * 2007-02-15: 70.17.97.61 resolves to pool-70-17-97-61.res.east.verizon.net Location is Washington, DC.
 * 2007-02-06: 129.100.157.150 resolves to dyn129-100-157-150.wireless.uwo.ca Location is London, Ontario, CANADA
 * 2007-02-05: 74.112.160.12 resolves to CPE00132024599b-CM0011e67a4187.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com Location is CANADA
 * 2007-02-05: 66.28.71.162 resolves to NONE. Location is Chicago, IL
 * 2007-02-04: 151.200.23.188 resolves to pool-151-200-23-188.res.east.verizon.net Location is Washington, DC
 * 2007-02-04: 70.49.160.165 resolves to bas1-toronto01-1177657509.dsl.bell.ca Location is Toronto, CANADA
 * 2007-02-03: 68.0.255.177 resolves to ip68-0-255-177.ri.ri.cox.net Location is Cranston, RI
 * 2007-01-29: 129.100.158.254 resolves to dyn129-100-158-254.wireless.uwo.ca Location is London, Ontario, CANADA

Comments
I started this log because of this anonymous edit to the main page, and this slightly older anonymous edit. The first anonymous editor at 70.17.97.61 added some good referenced information regarding CK's career as a psychiatrist, but at the same time deleted an embarrassing quote about the Iraq War for no reason which I restored. The second anonymous editor at 151.200.23.188 smeared me by anonymously calling me an antisemite over the birthplace dispute, which I am still pissed off and majorly offended about. Using Geotool I noticed that these users are on the same network (Verizon) in the same geographic location (Washington, DC). Looking at the log, the probability that these two are from the same or related entity is considerable.

As we go forward this log can help neutralize any unethical exploitations of anonymity. Aschoeff 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone wandering onto this page for information for an article on torture and the evolution of the respectailbity of arguing for torture in American public discourse, I have to say that this article on Krauthammer is bland and more like a press release than particularly informative; it is far too positive and treats a pundit, no matter how intelligent, as someone with ethical or political standing. Getting hung up on the word jew or on minor biographical details seems to me a tiny bit beside the point when the article itself lacks bite and heft. And, sadly, this comments page is full of deeply strange rhetorical turns that make it seem vaguely hazardous to participate.

I am not convinced that using a mainstream-press and/or blogosphere pundit to deflate another is reasonable. There are plenty of articles against the use of torture with far greater weight than either Andrew Sullivan or the debate around John McCain's amendment. Aside from the long history of ethical and moral arguments, there is also international law, which hardly sounds a peep on this page, although the US of course is signatory to the Geneva Conventions. And, sinply put, the ticking time bomb scenario was old when Methuselah was young and has no credibility with ethicists, on the one hand, or antiterrorist police, on the other. Krauthammer, of course, does not bother to cite the basis for his lofty decision that is a moral imperative to torture (another ancient bit of rhetoric). Finally, being a neocon does not mean you are necessarily a Straussian. You could be like Christopher Hitchens (i think), a former Trotskyist--or a former liberal who has become a realist /pro-statist on a mission; generally it is war, conquest and even empire that creates such neocons. There is no necessity for either neocons or paleocons to be anti abortion or any of the other traits cited in the head-scratcher over his very clearly neocon politics. Is there a solution here?Actio 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yglesias attack
When user added an over-the-top attack on CK by Matthew Yglesias recently, I reverted it. However, Aschoeff got me to take another look (discussion on my talk page) and now I've put it back with a very different lead-in, as a sample of hostility to CK rather than a trustworthy opinion about CK. My wording is pretty bad. Instead of fixing it, I'm going to invite other editors to rewrite it. Let's see what we can produce together; it's bound to be better than anything I could write. Cheers, CWC 13:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
I do not see the need for the POV tag, because the article content is largely Krauthammer quotes. Abe Froman 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * POV is half to designate what-didn't-make-it-and-why as reflected in the talk page, which is highly relevant for this particularly controversial article. The POV tag directs people to check this discussion page for the full story which is very POV.  The other half is because when you have a controversial figure for which everything has to be referenced, then the method of referencing and quoting itself gets manipulated, and therefore comes under scrutiny for POV issues, even in the absence of much original text.  Aschoeff 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That argument is hard to follow. Which parts of the article, specifically, warrant the POV tag?  Abe Froman 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to follow? Hmm.  All I was doing was paraphrasing Neutral Point of View, so I should have just pointed you there.  If you look at the edit history for this article, you can see when this particular POV tag was placed on the article, it was done in February 2007 by an anonymous editor (not me FWIW).  There has been an open discussion since just a few lines above, here.  Have you read thoroughly through this discussion page?  That may give you the "why" answer you are looking for.  Aschoeff 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question. Specifically, which sentences or passages are POV?  Abe Froman 16:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Abe, the onus is on you to justify your actions on wikipedia. That you continue to ask about specific sentences tells me you haven't read Neutral Point of View, and are convinced you are justified in removing the POV tag based on your single criteria of "the article content is largely Krauthammer quotes," which isn't true.  You have also not altered the quotes you added about the Iraq war that I personally feel are POV, which tells me that you have dismissed the NPOV criteria for having quotes in a better context, and to include a "balancing" positive quote when possible.
 * I do not want to seem evasive by not answering your specific questions, but I have a well thought out reason for doing so: neither of us has responded to what we feel to be the substance of the other's argument, so we clearly feel the discussion lies in different areas, and any actions of delete/restore that are going to occur are a precursor to the eventual discussion of the NPOV criteria itself, as it should be. So I am choosing to wait for that and just say "have at it."  On a side note, you could have thanked me (or at least acknowledged me) for looking up your references.  It's kind of hard for me to treat your intentions as earnest and reflecting a legitimate desire for discussion when you start off like that.  Aschoeff 01:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If examples of POV sentences or passages cannot be given, how can there be a POV problem with the article? Abe Froman 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See, I've already given you a great starting example of POV passages: Your posting of those two quotes, without giving references, omitting any context, choosing an overly concise formulation, and for not looking for other CK quotes where he may have expressed a different opinion than at those times (I know it's sort of nauseating, but that's what fairness means). That arguably violates Undue weight, Good Research, Fairness of Tone, and Attributing and substantiating biased statements.  And then even if nobody wants to bother giving you something specific, the end game of this is an RfC to find out people's touchy-feely opinions, because the entire point is that if a majority of competing viewpoints *believe* the article to be biased, then it is.  I'm not against an RfC on this because I'm curious myself what would happen, and whatever opinion expressed is what decides it by definition.  More than anything though, I encourage you to put these questions of policy to a well-respected uninvolved admin, and listen.
 * Now, I've given you the answer you seek, so please go back and address everything I said, and refrain from dismissing even this post. The argument is becoming pretty clearly one-sided in terms of good-faith efforts.  Aschoeff 05:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The two quotes I added, which emanated from Krauthammer's pen, are unequivocal statements from the author. For example, "Iraq is hitlerian Germany..." does not beg for context.  I invite you to open an RfC, but I do not think it will go very far if the refusal to actually enumerate problems with POV in this article continues.  Abe Froman 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've found me out; I am being evasive because I know deep down that the POV tag isn't justified. NOT.  Is that what you think is the subtext here?  When this evolves to an RfC there will be a higher standard for making your argument, which is what I'm waiting for.  But really, until you've actually deleted the POV tag with the incomplete and therefore invalid criteria you are fixated on, this is a moot point.  *looks expectantly in Abe's direction*  Aschoeff 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't provide a straight answer to the questions, I'll remove the template. *Exactly* what in the article do you object to and how do you propose we fix it?  --ElKevbo 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that you think I'm being evasive. Aschoeff 15:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fix it, or say what is wrong with it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just begin the RfC. I'm playing the devil's advocate more than my own position, which isn't getting us closer to resolution.  Aschoeff 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kev, I never put the POV tag on the article in the first place! It was put on there IN FEBRUARY by an anonymous editor, and has remained until today. I didn't even mean to end up in this position of defending the POV tag, I was responding to Abe who came along and asked about it. I actually do care if the tag ends up off or not, but making a change should happen in a deliberate manner. Also, having it off immediately like you are suddenly righteously demanding gives the mistaken impression that I'm trying to "slap it on" as you put it, rather than the truth which is that it has been on there for months, and the debate has been for the only the past two days to take it off. I'll stop reverting your edits. Also, keep the discussion here unless absolutely necessary please.  Aschoeff 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. You seem to be saying that we must justify removing the template when the inverse is true: the template's presence must be justified. It doesn't matter how long it's been there if there isn't a good reason for it to be there. If you or anyone else can justify it then I'd be happy to let it sit there until the problem is solved. But no one has justified it and therefore it needs to go. If someone can figure out some good reasons for it later then it can (and should!) be replaced. --ElKevbo 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I am saying, and I am again saying you are in error to conclude that there has been some sort of consensus or faithful review about the tag needing to be removed. I am quite wishing there to be such a discussion though.  Have you read the POV policy?  Because if you have I would be happy to begin my actual explanation.  Aschoeff 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on those who wish to add or keep the template. We don't have to establish that it should be removed until there are good reasons for its inclusion.  So far none have been presented.  --ElKevbo 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a neutrality dispute, there is no reason for the tag. A neutrality dispute requires an actual dispute about neutrality, not an assertion that there is one, or that there might in principle be one if someone complained, or that it has not been proven that there is not one. Tom Harrison Talk 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PRO Let's begin.  I think that the POV tag should be on the article. Aschoeff 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And your reason for believing this is...? This isn't a vote - it's a discussion.  --ElKevbo 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well not a single person ever edited in support of the POV tag, so I agree it should have come down. I am glad someone expanded the CK quotes though, I think the article is much closer to "neutral" now. Aschoeff 07:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the POV tag as I think there is a lot of praise for Krauthammer with little criticism. In particular I am concerned with the Criticism section. It says that the watchdog group FAIR claims Krauthammer helped write Bush's inaugural speech, which he later praised without making his involvement public. The next sentence claims that the Washington Post notes that Krauthammer attended what was a Mid-East policy meeting, not a speech-writing meeting. I've read the article several times and while the Post reports Krauthammer's claims, it explicitly says that those claims were made in response to an original Post article which said that he had indeed helped write the speech. There is a sentence in the article that says they stand by their original article. No where can I find where the Post itself agrees with the statements made by Krauthammer. Every time I make an edit the user Streits changes it, so there's no point in me changing it again (Streits and I are equally to blame for an "edit war" that lasted a couple of weeks, but I realize now it's inappropriate and will not continue to make edits on the page itself).

I think others need to look over the Post article in comparison to what is written in the Criticism section. It is completely possible I'm mis-interpreting or there is another source Streits is using but has forgotten to cite. Unfortunately, my attempts to communicate directly with Streits have thus far been ignored. I hope in considering the POV tag editors will keep in mind this particular paragraph on the page. Please see the "Criticism" section on the talking page for more on this issue. Thanks. Langtry (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)