User talk:Streits

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing to the Washington Post article, "Journalists Say Their White House Advice Crossed No Line," in response to the criticism section of the Charles Krauthammer page. However, I'm confused as to why you repeatedly deleted the part of the criticism section that says Krauthammer acted as a consultant on Bush's innauguration speech. The article to which you point makes the same argument: "Krauthammer and Kristol have drawn some criticism since a Jan. 22 Post article described them as among those consulting on the inaugural address.

Liz Spayd, the paper's assistant managing editor for national news, said: "We stand by the story we wrote. We have a firsthand source who says it was crystal clear a primary purpose of the meeting was to seek advice on both Bush's inaugural and State of the Union speeches."

There is enough evidence from credible sources (the Post being a major paper that clearly you refer to, as do I) to put that information on Krauthammer's page. However, I think it's a good idea to include Krauthammer's response, which I added based on the Post article you cited. Take care, Langtry (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Streits,

Regarding Charles Krauthammer's page, I noticed that you again changed my edit citing my "bias." I ask that you will please not assume my bias as I am trying to incorporate the information you provided (thanks, again) in the way I've understood it, which of course could be incorrectly, but is not a matter of bias. On the page (which I have not changed), you say that the Washington Post notes that the Krauthammer did not advise on Bush's innauguration speech, but instead only attended a meeting on Middle East policy. In contrast, I had attributed those claims to Krauthammer himself. I'm hoping you can clarify your position. In the citation you provide, the Post writes: "Krauthammer, whose op-ed column runs in The Post and is syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group, said of his participation in a Jan. 10 meeting at the White House that it was "an informal, off-the-record discussion of U.S. Middle East policy. . . . This meeting was not designed to be the exercise in speech preparation. Nor did I have that impression during the meeting itself that it was. If I had, I would have mentioned it when commenting on it." It later says: " Krauthammer and Kristol have drawn some criticism since a Jan. 22 Post article described them as among those consulting on the inaugural address.

Liz Spayd, the paper's assistant managing editor for national news, said: "We stand by the story we wrote. We have a firsthand source who says it was crystal clear a primary purpose of the meeting was to seek advice on both Bush's inaugural and State of the Union speeches." There is nothing in the article I can find in which the Post itself supports Krauthammer's claims, they only report what he has said. In fact, as I've quoted above, they explicitly say they stand by their original article which initially reported that Krauthammer counseled Bush on his speech.

I understand if you disagree with the Post's position, but as far as I can tell you've attributed something to them that they didn't say. Could you please clarify? Is there another Post article you're referencing? Is there something in the Post article that we're interpreting differently, and if so could you tell me what and how you understand it? I don't think an edit war is useful but as far as I can tell, the Krauthammer page as it stands (the section we've been editing) is misleading. I'd really appreciate if you'd respond to me so we could discuss.

Thanks and take care, Langtry (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)