Talk:Joe Klein

Initial comments
Umm, why is Klein identified as Jewish in the last sentence because he's not Umm Umm, why is Klein identified in the Pelham Wikipedia??? --- On that note there is a weird drop-in here:

"In 1969, Klein began reporting for the Essex County Newspapers in Massachusettsthrough his Jewish family's connections with Jewish publishers, editors and writers in the media."

I guess all the Jewish references seem... excessive?

67.174.38.227 04:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Klein is great and he is awsome
? Is this relevant to his writing? Should this be removed? 171.159.64.10 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Bert
 * it's irrelevant and therefore I removed it. Jeepcreep 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's accurate, I see no reason it shouldn't be included in the article. It's a biographical article on a person, not that person's writings specifically...  So isn't their religion relevant? - Ecksem Diem 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I have no idea how to post, I know for a fact that he is NEITHER a Washinton native nor Washington based. Rather he is a New York native.

How Did Joe Klein Avoid the Draft and Vietnam?
No bio of a person Klein's age (particularly a writer who has an ideological viewpoint as Klein does) is complete without explaining how he avoided the draft and Vietnam (as Klein did). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.74 (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Moderate"
User:Equinox137 has removed the word "moderate" from the opening paragraph with the following comment:   I am not sufficiently familiar with (1) Mr. Klein's views, nor (2) Policy regarding the use of political labels to confidently restore or support this edit. However, a few points occur to me: So I request a more specific and detailed notation of Mr. Klein's political views. Zahir13 12:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither working for The New Yorker nor finding something positive to say about the Clinton presidency seems to me to disqualify someone from being a political moderate.
 * Moderate in my experience is a problematical political label, because many individuals use themselves as the only yardstick of what constitutes moderation.
 * Yet at the same time, it seems utterly vital to be able to accurately categorize political positions beyond Conservative or Liberal or some variation thereof.


 * I'll post some quotes from a recent Time magazine editorial Mr. Klein authored, titled Beware the Blogger's Bile to notate some of his political views:


 * "Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable." (When referring to radical left-wing bloggers).
 * "They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics."
 * "Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party's bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. (Rush) Limbaugh's show—where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates—has become the voice of the Republican establishment."
 * "In the long term, however, kowtowing to extremists is exactly the opposite of what this country is looking for after the lethal radicalism of the Bush Administration."


 * All I've quoted is pulled from only one of his editorials. It's kind of ridiculous to call him a moderate, even when he himself states he often agrees with the liberal position. Equinox137 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He claims to be liberal, but his consistent use of Republican, pro-war talking points tells a different story. 71.203.209.0 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because he may have argued for the war at one time doesn't make him not a liberal. Besides, I wouldn't exactly call referring to the Bush administration as specialized in big lies and smear tacticsand "poison" from the right-wing radio talk shows as Republican talking points. Just because he isn't always in lockstep with Lenin, Chomsky, Mao, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, et al, doesn't mean he's not a liberal. Kind of proving his first quote true, aren't you? Equinox137 05:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "at one time"? He still argues consistently in favor of the war, and in rhetoric quite similar to what you'd hear from Hannity or Limbaugh. For example, Lambasting Clinton and Obama for voting against the latest Iraq spending bill, with the standard GOP talking points about "precipitous" withdrawl. There's a reason the blogosphere refers to Joe as "Joke Line". And if it looks like a pro-war Republican, walks like a pro-war Republican, and talks like a pro-war Republican... 71.203.209.0 05:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "at one time"? He still argues consistently in favor of the war, and in rhetoric quite similar to what you'd hear from Hannity or Limbaugh. So? Even if he still argues in favor of the war, that's only one issue.  As I said before, Just because he isn't always in lockstep with Lenin, Chomsky, Mao, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, et al, doesn't mean he's not a liberal. Equinox137 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Joe Klein is a centrist - period. Just because he's not as conservative as Attila the Hun doesn't make him a liberal.Ericster08 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see....he's a "centrist" because YOU say so? If he's a centrist, then I'd hate to see who the real liberals and leftists are. Equinox137 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, as if it's JUST ME saying it. Paul Krugman? Yes, HE'S a liberal. Michael Moore? Yes. Al Franken? Yes. Randi Rhodes? Yes. We can go through the whole damn list if you like. If your only point is that Klein is a liberal because he's criticized the administration, that means people like Lou Dobbs, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck are liberals too - an idea that is just laughable. Ericster08 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this to you, the man describes himself as a liberal. How can you refer to him as a "centrist" (which liberals love to call themselves these days) when he himself doesn't agree with you?  Equinox137 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Equinox137--If memory serves, Adolf Hitler said he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. My point is this:  Just because a lunatic says that he fits in a certain category, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is being truthful/accurate.  Joe Klein's blatant lies in his writings on the RESTORE ACT amply demonstrates that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth and that, therefore, anything he says must have corroboration before it can be believed.  So:  He says that he's a liberal?  Let him prove it. --Nbahn 03:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome! The Godwin Law in action!  So much fun.


 * So.......Klein is an untruthful lunatic that needs to prove he's a liberal? Ummmm ok?  Equinox137 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever he is on the poltiical spectrum you need to be careful how we describe him in the article. This is a biography of a living person - Biographies of living persons and we cannot add any seriously contentious material. I think that if we are to describe his political viewpoint we could write Klein describes himself as liberal but some of his colleagues/opponents (whatever) describe him as moderate. That would address both your views so long as we add references from reputable sources for both. LordHarris 07:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, (I am no "expert" on Klein after all) it seems to me that the article does not require any additional edits at this time -- unless, of course, he has committed some other major faux pas that I am unaware of.....

--Nbahn 19:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Nbahn 11:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the Deputy Managing Editor -- who was the one who actually edited Klein's infamous column -- is not mentioned; I think that I'll amend the last sentence of the TIME section.

Wikify the article
Hi, ive tried to wikify the article and make it a bit more orderly. I have also attempted to write a section on his political views in his writings. I have read two of his books and a lot of his times articles, but it is difficult to judge a writers political ideas when they dont state them out loud and clear. I have written:

"His writings are generally considered to be moderate on the political spectrum, specifically in regards to his attempts to treat both Democratic and Republican news stories with an objective opinion. In his review of the Clinton Presidency "The Natural" he presents both a critical view and a favourable view on Clintons Presidency. However recently in several of his articles, such as "The Absurdity of it All"" in Time, he has criticised George W Bush and the Republican White House over some foreign policy mishaps."

If you have any complaints with this then please edit/discuss with me on my discussion. LordHarris 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say that his writings on certain areas have a tendency towards sloppiness. He doesn't provide objective analysis--he repeats Republican talking points without critical analysis (or sloppy analysis) occasionally with the sop along the lines of "Democrats say something else." Nicholastarwin (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree but this is our opinion. If there is a written published and reputable source which asserts this we could include this. If you can find some other verifiable columnists/writers who have stated such then by all means add it. LordHarris (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just F.Y.I......
Klein committed some major journalistic malpractice against the Congressional Democrats and the liberals are (quite justifiably, in my opinion) livid. Some intemperate souls may vandalize the page.

--Nbahn (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"controversy" section
I freely admit that I'm not very good with this; edits and criticism are welcome.

Nbahn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe Klein has many many more controversies under his belt, including a flap where he lied about criticism Markos of daily Kos heaped upon Obama for some ill-conceived comments. Nicholastarwin (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems somewhat overblown to focus so much on a current event, without providing a bit more background on this guy as a reporter. It also only provides a very subjective viewpoint (that of his detractors). 213.84.174.46 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell me exactly how it is biased. Everything is true and nothing is falsely implied.  I am strongly inclined to summarily remove the "biased/unbalanced" tag.  Please further explain your justification for the tag, because right now I'm quite dubious of its merits. --Nbahn (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of a lack of response from 213.84.174.46 I have reverted the article. I am still respectfully awaiting a response from the editor in question.
 * --Nbahn (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not wished to take sides in this but have just a comment - it would of been better to wait more than six hours before reverting. A few days would be a more adequare time for 213.84.174.46 to have replied per his contributions.  LordHarris  07:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, the more I agree with you; here's hoping that I haven't initiated an edit war. I have requested opinions from the Help Desk.
 * --Nbahn (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, my main concern is the balance between information about this guy's work for TIME in general vs. a current broo-ha-ha. The goal is to be encyclopedic, right, not so much to run with the hype-of-the-day? Perhaps adding the "current event" tag is more appropriate. I mainly came across this wiki-Article because I read a piece by mr. Klein and saw a lot of vicious comments there and wanted to know who this guy is (and what is his standing in American journalism). To only see information critical about him (and little to none about anything else since 2003) seems rather unbalanced. 213.84.174.46 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the doublepost. Another option might be to simple end the controversy information after the first period. The information after that is rather superfluous, and does take POV (for example use of scarequotes in "correction", and emphasizing the arguments of mr. Greenwald). It might be worth it to wait a while, to see if the controversy indeed continues in the media and provide a separate section, but right now, it just seems a blogosphere "spat of the day", not quite worthy of encyclopedic endorsement.213.84.174.46 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a "Current Event" tag is an excellent idea; unfortunately, I do not know exactly how to make one.....--Nbahn (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a current events template. Template messages contains lots of pre built templates. LordHarris  16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally the current and its relatives are used only for articles with many editors involved. As in a hundred or more, and even then, for a few days only. I recommend that the editors put the text of the change-ableness of the controversy into the article itself. Yellowdesk (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy (part II)
I'm an ass. I should have carefully read the article before making changes. Veteran editors may want to carefully go over my changes... --Nbahn (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Third Party Opinion -- Initiated

I don't see anything wrong with this, if it's all true and sources properly.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

'2007 Controversy'
I have a problem with that section. It is WAY out of proportion to Mr. Klein's career at Time. Under BLP and WP:WEIGHT, it must be reduced significantly in size.--Samiharris (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of doing so, as I believe is mandated under WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. Please do not revert until other reaction arrives from the BLP noticeboard, where I have requested input.--Samiharris (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You have definitely taken a liberty in regards to the word "disputed". You are falsely implying that there is a genuine disagreement as to whether or not Klein wrote false information.  EVEN KLEIN HIMSELF has backed down from his assertions and now the brouhaha has revolved around retractions.  I am replacing "disputed" with the previous phrasing.--Nbahn (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Has Klein admitted error? No. Let's leave the language neutral unless there is adequate sourcing. I've asked for a second opinion on the BLP noticeboard. There is no rush. Let us wait to see what comes from that quarter. Meanwhile the strict rule is to err, if at all, on the side of caution and neutrality. "Dispute" is correct and neutral, even if a stronger word may apply. It is not our job to take sides in such situations.--Samiharris (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although 'disputed' seems like mild phrasing, the use of 'factual errors' seems very un-Wikipedian, since we don't usually make flat statements about which side is right in a political controversy. (It appears to sacrifice our neutrality). The only alternative I can see is to make space for direct quotes from the people who think Klein is wrong.  It is likely that would make this section longer than it deserves. I don't immediately see any good alternative to 'disputed.' EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. I agree on the direct quotes, but then we have a WEIGHT issue. It really does not deserve more than a sentence or two in a biographical article of this brevity.--Samiharris (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since it now appears that Klein did admit the error to Howartz Kurtz (I saw a reference to that posted somewhere) I'm withdrawing my objection to adding the original language, though I believe the Kurtz article should be cited.--Samiharris (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about your original concern? The one about disproportionality?  To what degree is this still a concern of yours?--Nbahn (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the current emphasis is OK, though I'd still like to see more about Klein's Time magazine career to put it in perspective. --Samiharris (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) I think it would be helpful to provide a bit more nuanced language in this section. While it has now been clarified that this indeed was an error, right now that comprises half the section and that troubles me just a little. (I know, I'm changing my mind from above - so sue me! ;)) It clearly was not half his career at Time. The Howard Kurtz column can be used as a source as it deals directly with Klein's position. Maybe the language can be modified a bit. Any thoughts?--Samiharris (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with your proposal.--NBahn (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for neutrality check
I don't know that much about Mr. Klein, so I'm probably not the proper person to check for neutrality here. But, upon reading the article, I notice that virtually all the analysis of Mr. Klein presented (i.e. something other than simple statement of facts) is negative, or talks about critisism of him. This is particularly true in the two sections "Primary Colors", and "Working for Time", which cover the main part of his career. In those sections, all that is accusations that he is a liar or has trouble with the truth.

Surely, for example, something positive can be said about his writing at TIME? I doubt someone gets a regular column at TIME without something to recommend his work?
 * It has been said that Primary Colors is quite a good example of its genre. As far as the criticism of his 21st November 2007 column goes, I strongly suggest that you read all of the citations.--NBahn (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite enjoyed his account of Clintons presidency, I thought it was balanced;it was both critical and praising of the man, rather less so perhaps of his decision making process. i will try and locate some books reviews, hopefully I will find they are positive... I'll add them at a later date. As for other negative things, surely there are some columns, articles etc that have positive things to say about his published work? LordHarris  10:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the user placing the neutrality tag must cite specific examples of material omitted that violates NPOV. Now that the accuracy of the "exposed error" language has been confirmed, I have no problem with that section though I do think the language can be toned down a bit.--Samiharris (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

tqbf--
I realize that this is a minor thing; buuuuuut.....what, pray tell, is your reasoning for your edit? I am inclined to revert it.--NBahn (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If he's "best known" for Primary Colors, we source that and write "best known for". If he's not, we lose "best". "Perhaps best" implies that we can't verify it, and therefore it's inappropriate for the lede. The current wording won't confuse anyone and is straight and to the point. The previous wording was colloquial and disputable. That's my reasoning.


 * Hoping to spend a bit more time on this article this week; I like Klein's writing. 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by tqbf (talk • contribs)

Big chunk of material just added
Am I right that the previous version of the FISA controversy section was a finely-tuned compromise, that you guys were satisfied with? Does anyone like the new super-explicit version by Madman2001, that increases the size of the article about 40%? Curiously, this text is moved here from Time (magazine) on the grounds that it was imbalancing the Time article! I think we might take a hint from our colleagues at the other article that this section is an albatross that deserves to be minimized, or cut to the smallest size appropriate to the article it is in. Since this issue was Klein's mistake, it belongs here, but I think the version before Madman2001's edit is the one to keep. Madman should not be too displeased because I think his main goal was to get it out of the Time (magazine) article. What do you all think? EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think WP:COATRACK and will probably revert this stuff out. --- tqbf  05:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of writing an article which consolidates everything. I don't think that it's going to be a small article, and when I'm finished with it I will solicit feedback.--NBahn (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a real problem with the amount of space devoted to the Klein-Greenwald tiff. While I appreciate that Klein admitted the error here, I do not believe that it deserves such a large amount of space under WP:UNDUE. I am going to see what I can do about reducing the bulk of that section. Also, I am sure there must be more material available on his Time career than the Greenwald business.--Samiharris (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re the recent edit placing material out of references into the text: I agree that the material did not belong in a reference. I had not noticed it. However, the overarching problem is that there is too much space devoted to the controversy with Greenwald in this article, given its size. --Samiharris (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree; it also covers a squabble between Greenwald and Klein (and, admittedly, a chorus of political bloggers) as if it were an important controversy with clear arguments. I think even the three of us are thinking about this incident more than Klein ever did. --- tqbf  19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and there are possible BLP concerns to consider. Klein is a well-known author because of Primary Colors, but he may be covered by WP:NPF. If so, it is questionable as to whether this is relevant to his notability. Even without that, WP:WEIGHT troubles me on this. In my opinion it should be reduced greatly in size.--Samiharris (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do as you see fit; I'm working on an article -- see my User Page for what I have so far and where I intend to go with it -- that combines everything. It's really forcing me to think things through; I must confess, I was being intellectually lazy and merely accepting other bloggers assertions.  The most rigorous -- and demanding -- parts of the article I haven't even touched yet; even so, I'm hoping that I'll have it wrapped up by Monday.  We'll see.  I'm confident that I'll have it both literally correct in its facts and implications.  What worries me will be the styling.  Ah, well; only time will tell just what will stand, fall, and be revised.  I'm sure that I'll be gnashing my teeth while simultaneously doing my best to avoid edit wars. : -)--NBahn (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you spend a lot of time trying to massage that stuff --- there's very little chance that negative comments from sources like FireDogLake are going to survive in the article; even print sources like Wired are going to get culled, leaving only the best few sources (probably Greenwald and the best remaining print source).
 * The reason for this is that the Greenwald "controversy" is a tiny footnote in Klein's career. By way of contrast, "Primary Colors" should occupy several times more space in a properly balanced article.
 * I say this as a committed Dem (and a fan of several blogs that are openly derisive of Klein): I am very leery of trying to build an article about the blogosphere's reaction to Klein. Klein is a moderate with Dem affinities, which means he is constantly getting slammed by partisan blogs that want him to hew to the party line. I believe in much of that party line, but the focus on Klein is BS.
 * Klein is also openly critical of the Dem consulting machine, and particularly the Shrum school of campaign management, which I think ruffles some feathers among Dem advocates.
 * I'm just writing this as a heads-up, so you have some idea of who's paying attention to the article and where we're going to bog down. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with!. --- tqbf  05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * tqbf--
 * I think that you misunderstand me; I intend for the article to stand by itself -- with links to the following:
 * Joe Klein
 * Glenn Greenwald
 * Richard "Rick" Stengel
 * Priscilla Painton<br. />
 * Jane Hamsher<br. />
 * If you go to my User Page, you'll find an outline along with what I've written thus far (but I'm going to completely redo the citations so that the footnotes themselves stand out better from amongst the citations).<br. /><br. />
 * My point (and I do have one!) is that the stand-alone article will basically be only about the 21st November 2007 column and the only thing I intend to add to the Klein article is a "See Also" section with a wikilink to the new article
 * --NBahn (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My off-the-cuff reaction is that the controversy simply is not important enough for a stand alone article.--Samiharris (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, the article will persuade the reader otherwise.<br. />
 * --NBahn (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to consider if such an article would be permitted under WP:POVFORK. It is hard to say without actually seeing the article, but that would be one theoretical objection.--Samiharris (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOT, Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. If Joe Klein's 21 November column in Time becomes a major election issue, then things might be different. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My suggestion to Nbahn is that he proceed with a draft of the article on a subpage. Then it can be judged on its merits. I think this is better than just creating an article because of the hurdles mentioned above, and the possibility of a deletion nomination. If after a discussion he feels it should be an article, he can go ahead and create it. --Samiharris (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

criticisms/critiques requested.....
I've basically finished writing up a paper on the Klein/Time controversy. Before I submit it for a formal review, I'd like to informally get some opinions on it. Scroll down on my user page and please discuss on my discussion page. Thanks!<br. />--NBahn (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way even a fraction of this content is going to make it into the article. The "controversy" we're discussing merits perhaps 2-3 sentences, and everything in those sentences must be balanced and neutral. You've done an enormous amount of work, and I don't know what to tell you. --- tqbf  17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also would suggest that writing what was in effect a POV fork of this article is not an appropriate use of user page space. My suggestion is that Nbahn blank it. It really has no place in the encyclopedia.--Samiharris (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As you say you've finished writing up a paper. While interesting to read it certainly does not belong in wikipedia. The controversy is itself barely notable and at best merits a few sentances. The level of information you have would be better suited for a political article or blog. I really am amazed at just how much you have done. Take a look at Notability and espeically No original research. I do not want to discourage you from contributing so why not attempt to write a concise, balanced and referenced single paragraph for the article? LordHarris  18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Divided loyalty/anti-semitism/anti-neoconservative controversy
I expect this to hit the mainstream media at some point. Here are some pointers to the current coverage of this:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43384

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/joe_klein_on_neoconservatives.php

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/30/joe_klein_keeps_hitting_those/

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/joe_klein_continues_defending_jewish_dual_loyalty_claim_20080731/

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-levy/on-joe-klein-and-the-jewi_b_115999.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/why-is-joe-klei.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Jokeline.....
...but I'm afraid that this edit is simply and utterly out of bounds if for no other reason then that it is an uncited opinion.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Joe Klein is against unions
Saw Joe Klein on MSNBC today going against the union members in Wisconsin. I didn't hear him screaming about the rich paying their fair share, but was saying instead that everyone had to tighten their belts and that the union members in Wisconsin have too much by way of benefits. I was shocked. The problem with the economy is directly related to the Bush tax cuts, and the middle class is stuck with the bill. Joe Klein is so wrong. He should be ashamed. I can't stand him. He is obviously a beard for the rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.14.18 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like you are correct that Joe Klein is pretty much anti-union. His recent opinon piece The Shame of New York School Bus Drivers suggests as much. Please note, though, that a talk page is not meant for discussion of the subject of the article but for discussion of how to make the article itself as "encyclopedic" (accurate, informative, readable and neutral) as possible. On that note, Klein's views on unions may or may not merit a mention (with references) in the "Political views" section. But I am not familiar with his work and so don't know whether this particular stance of his is important enough to be included in the article. –Bwiki (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"lost the Peter Kihss award"
This doesn't list a Peter Kihss award being given in 1989, nor does it list Joe Klein among the recipients at any time. Did he actually "lose" the award, as our article states? If so, perhaps the article could explain further. (Forgive my ignorance on the matter.)--Wikimedes (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Klein describes himself taking a stand as a "mainstream Jew" during interview published by Atlantic
"Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want. I just don't want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not. In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don't want to go to war with Iran.  When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they're wrong.  I am anti-neoconservative.  I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, 'They don't represent us, they don't represent Israel.'" NNDB profile -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 08:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) There are no doubt more sources, as he has appears to have notability for his high profile criticism of the neocons, as demonstrated by all of the spirces listed above; moreover, it is a fact that he self-identifies himself as such in an interview on the topic of his criticism of neocons (with Jewish neocons being singled out at points) for dual loyalty. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post


 * The problem is he does not say "I am a mainstream Jew" but he says "mainstream Jews" should do something. F'rinstance, if I said "Mainstream Russians should reject Grnarphism" that is not the same as saying "I am a mainstream Russian."  Zat clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are overlooking the context of the interview as a whole, in which he is answering questions about specific incidents and allegations made against him in response to his criticism of the neocons. The specific context of the quoted paragraph, in which he is describing the reason he stood up and criticized the neocons the way he did is fairly clear; that is, because they(neocons) "are following very perversely extremist policies", while he is mainstream and standing up for his mainstream views. At least that's the way I read it. And other sections of the interview he is specifically questioned about his singling out of the "Jewish neocons". "JG: You seem very angry at people who you specifically identify as Jewish neocons. And you're using the word 'Jewish' in ways that we haven't seen Jewish reporters and Jewish columnists use."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to be "reading between the lines" which is not how reliable sources are used on Wikipedia. We stick to factual representation of the exact words of the source.  Collect (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't think it's necessary to argue with that because I'm not here to impose my views on the article, just to represent the subject and all of his notable accomplishments accurately in a manner befitting an encyclopedia. We haven't by the way, exhausted the sources by any stretch of the imagination.
 * Thank you for reading the entire article, and you no doubt notice another link or to to further discussions related to the entire series of interactions and coverage encompassed by his forthright act of standing up for his mainstream values.
 * I hope that we can work on an NPOV text for this article and the neoconservatism article in a collaborative manner without a lot of unnecessary friction.
 * Am I correct in assuming that you are now satisfied that he is in fact Jewish, but disagree with that the Atlantic interview qualifies him as "self-identifying" with respect to his religious affiliation?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 22:35, 5 February; 00:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is clear - we can only use his specific and non-ambiguous self-identification for religion, and that religion must have specific relevance to his notability - this has been discussed many times now, and the answer remains the same. We can not use what we think is true. Collect (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the question. The question did not directly address the question of "self-identification" or categorization, which is what your answer addressed.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And my personal opinions as an editor are and must be totally irrelevant - I simply rely on policy for edits - WP:BLPCAT because there have been so many egregious violations of it in the past, WP:NPOV because it is a "non-negotiable policy", and so on.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Time column, Swampland quotes
This piece, the underlined statement in particular, includes another candidate for "specific and non-ambiguous self-identification""I have now been called antisemitic and intellectually unstable and a whole bunch of other silly things by the folks over at the Commentary blog. They want Time Magazine to fire or silence me. This is happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society: There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who...Happily, these people represent a very small sliver of the Jewish population in this country... I remain proud of my Jewish heritage, a strong supporter of Israel and a realist about the slim chance of finding some common ground with the Iranians. But I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek.When Extremists Attack"Note that it is also quoted in the HP article linked to above On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And you can say "Jewish heritage" as a quote in the body of the BLP but that does not make the person "Jewish" by much at all -- a person who was 1% black could say "I am proud of my black heritage" but that does not mean Wikipedia should so categorize the person (even if abhorrent old laws did so).  I am, for example, part Welsh - but labelling me as "Welsh" fails as I do not self-identify as "Welsh".   Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

finally gives a source which is likely sufficient for Jewish ethnicity, but not for Jewish religion.



does not make any religion claims but appears to meet the requirement for ethnicity. Thanks for showing such a source - it is up to those making a claim to find sources, by the way. Collect (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

BLPCAT notability, repeated from BLP/N
Klein was specifically addressing "Jewish neoconservatives" in his reliably published statements that generated the controversy which has become notable as demonstrated by his being questioned about his singling out of "Jewish neocons", and by other sources also specifically address the controversy, etc. There are numerous sources demonstrating notability, including quotes by Klein himself, Jeff Goldberg and Daniel Levy; i.e, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates '''...the subject's beliefs... are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources'''] ''I have now been called antisemitic and intellectually unstable and a whole bunch of other silly things by the folks over at the Commentary blog. They want Time Magazine to fire or silence me. This is happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society: There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who...Happily, these people represent a very small sliver of the Jewish population in this country... I remain proud of my Jewish heritage, a strong supporter of Israel and a realist about the slim chance of finding some common ground with the Iranians. But I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek.'' ''You may have missed it, but renowned Time columnist Joe Klein and the Jewish neoconservative blogosphere are at war with one another. "You seem very angry at people who you specifically identify as Jewish neocons . And you're using the word "Jewish" in ways that we haven't seen Jewish reporters and Jewish columnists use.” "Joe Klein, a centrist columnist for Time magazine (and himself Jewish) wrote that the neocons pushed for the invasion 'to make the world safe for Israel'. " -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:33, 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor problem: You conflate quotes by Klein with quotes about Klein. BLPCAT requires his words. Your last quote, for example, is from Jeffrey Goldberg and not from Klein. Your HuffPo post is not from Klein either. And Klein's comment about others calling him "anti-Semitic" does not mean he is self-identifying as Jewish either. I have noted that he has said he is of Jewish heritage - but that does not mean that WP:BLPCAT then says he is of Jewish religion. For that reason, there is an RfC for WP:BLP to see if that needs to be loosened or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is your obstructionist rhetoric and refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. Three editors disagree, explicitly with your "parsing" regarding the meaning of "Jewish" and "Jew" by both Klein and others, and others referring to Klein as Jewish in the above context means that his Jewishness is notable to the controversy.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Jewish" falls under "religion" per many discussions at WP:BLP/N and was one of the reasons WP:BLPCAT exists. A consensus of three editors cannot override a Wikipedia policy. Nor am I convinced that his "Jewishness" is particularly notable and relevant  for his BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough sources have been listed, but you refuse to recognize the obvious; furthermore, the Atlantic article links to the response from ADL's Foxman"We were deeply troubled by your outrageous assertion on Time Magazine's 'Swampland' blog that Jewish neoconservatives 'plumped' for the war in Iraq and are now doing the same for 'an even more foolish assault on Iran' with the goal of making the world 'safe for Israel.' ('Surge Protection,' June 24).", which includes a link to Klein's response.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 18:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Time source finally provided allows for the Jewish heritage which I added to the BLP. Your latest one fails as anything remotely near self-identification. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Joe Klein. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080113145536/http://books.guardian.co.uk:80/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,2239268,00.html to http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,2239268,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 06:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Later career section
There is not much about his later career in this section and a lot about controversies. How about more NPOV information on what he has been doing (such as who he has been working for, books he has published, etc.) and a separate section for controversies? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Klein. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119045506/http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609190548/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/books/news/12/06/foster.anonymous/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/books/news/12/06/foster.anonymous/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Klein. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804002455/http://www.adl.org/media_watch/internet/Joe_Klein_Response.htm to http://www.adl.org/media_watch/internet/Joe_Klein_Response.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)