Jump to content

Talk:Charles Krauthammer/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merger proposal - Bush Derangement Syndrome

Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is a pejorative political term coined by the American conservative political columnist Charles Krauthammer in a 2003 column. There's not much more to say about it than what already is in the Bush Derangement Syndrome article. Not enough content to be an independent article. It should be merged into this article. Please contact an admin at WP:AN to close this merge proposal on or after 19:37, 15 September 2007. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; the term has been used several times by other columnists besides Krauthammer. [1] I agree that the article seriously needs to expanded, but it's still an independent topic. Revolutionaryluddite 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose a merge. The article can be improved. I just did a quick google news search, and added four or five secondary sources, most from this year. And these were not just examples of use, they referenced Krauthammer and discuss the concept. - Crockspot 03:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article has been vetted a few times through the afd process. The BDS term stands out by itself and is frequently used outside contexts involving Krauthammer. Also see the BDS talk page as it has been proposed and rejected in the past to merge.Dman727 05:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. The phenomenon was recognized before Krauthammer named it, and the term is in frequent use amongst conservative reporters, columnists, writers of editorials and bloggers throughout the Anglosphere. Wikipedia's reputation amongst conservatives is already bad; doing this merge would be widely (albeit wrongly) regarded as telling conservatives that Wikipedia is not for them. Does WP:SNOW apply yet? CWC 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The term has taken on a life of its own and deserves its own article. Jinxmchue 15:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the consensus is against the merge, so I've removed the tags. CWC 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing by nearly Anon users

I find it interesting two users only edit Krauthammer articles, and are nearly anonymous. Looking at their edits, material that could cast Krauthammer in a less than ideal light is immediately removed without discussion. I wonder if we could have a PR firm on our hands... Abe Froman 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I added a section on criticism because I although it wasn't an overtly biased article, I thought information on his awards (i.e. his Pulitzer), a clear indication of praise, warrant mention of the criticism he's received. When I edited, the only included criticism was from Fukuyama, so I added some other criticism. I also added a "Criticism" section and made the "Foreign Policy" and "Ideas" sections completely separate, which I hope others will agree make the entry easier to navigate. I hope this is a helpful contribution. Langtry (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In striving for NPOV, I deleted part of what I added to this entry because someone who read it told me it may be read as biased. Although I think we both agree it provides illumination onto Krauthammer's distortions, for which he's been critcized, I don't think it's helpful to have an example that some people might think is progressively biased. The part I deleted was on Krauthammer's use of a misleading partial quote by Hugo Chavez on which he made it seem Chavez was making anti-Semitic remarks, but after more consideration I decided it's likely that it would just seem like a defense of Chavez or criticism of Krauthammer's views on Chavez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langtry (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some back and forth with the user Straits over the criticism section. He has repeatedly deleted something I added, which others (and just now I) have put back in. Here is what I wrote on Straits' talk page, which I hope will clarify the edit:

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) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's simply not enough criticism in the article. I've added a pov check tag as a result of the perceived imbalance. Viriditas (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again the user straits has changed the criticism section in a way that is overtly POV. I tried conversing with the user via this page as well as their talk page and have gotten no response. The user, according to mentions in their past edits, disagrees with the criticism that Krauthammer praised Bush's innaugural speech publicly while omitting that he helped write it - a charge Krauthammer denies. I had added this criticism, which Streits deleted, pointing to a Washington Post article which says that Krauthammer denies the allegation, although stands by an earlier Post article that says he did indeed serve as an adviser to the innaugural speech (Washington Post, "Journalists Say Their White House Advice Crossed No Line," Howard Kurtz, 29 January 2008.). I appreciate the cite and undid Streits' revision but added the info from the Post article. Streits then changed my edit, leaving the criticism, but removed the Post citation and included a very overtly partisan description of the "facts" about how Krauthammer did not help on the speech - facts with no citation and which, as far I can tell, are based only on Krauthammer's claims in the Post (which the article disagrees with). I'm therefore changing Streits' edit and re-inserting the Post cite. I'm keeping most of what Streits added in terms of Krauthammer's denial but clarifying that those are Krauthammer's claims, not verified facts, unless Streits or someone else can provide a reliable citation other than Krauthammer's say-so. I'd really like Streits to respond so we can talk this out in the talk page rather than having this "edit war." I'm not really sure what to do from here. Should I tag this page for POV or something like that? (I;m new to editing). Please help! Thanks. Langtry (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

After the newest edit to the Criticism section, which claims the Post noted that Krauthammer attended a meeting on Mid-East policy, not on Bush's inaugural speech, I re-read the cited Post piece and, as far as I can understand, the Post in fact only reports Krauthammer's claims to that end and in fact explicitly contradicts his claims. I have left the following message for Streits, who made the edit, on their talking page. I am leaving it here as well in hopes that Streits will respond so we can discuss this seeming miscommunication (I am not changing the edit as it seems we've gotten into an edit war, which is not productive):

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) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the criticism section. The thing about Bush's speech was so unclear and the other point was very trivial. I wouldn't worry about a lack of criticism. His views are given, those who agree will like him, those who don't will dislike him. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve, it wasn't trivial and it was covered in multiple sources, including Snyder, Jack. (Nov-Dec 2004). "One World, Rival Theories". Foreign Policy. No. 145. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. pp. 52-62. See below. This was a notable criticism, far from being described as "trivial" in the loosest sense of the word. Viriditas (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the removal of any criticism from this article. Krauthammer is an extremely controversial figure, and so many of his political positions and statements are so off the wall and removed from what can be described as reality, the need for a criticism section becomes even more important. I suggest the criticism section be added back in or merged into the appropriate place if required. When someone like Krauthammer argues that tobacco smoking is a good thing because it kills people off quickly and saves the government from having to pay health benefits for healthy non-smokers who live longer, there needs to be an effort to maintain a neutral POV. Krauthammer's unique perspective on reality has been repeatedly questioned by reliable sources, and this needs to be accurately represented in the article. Many of the most significant criticisms of Krauthammer's arguments do not even appear in this article. I will compile a list of missing critical sources below. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


  • Burner, David. West, Thomas R. (1988) Column Right: Conservative Journalists in the Service of Nationalism. New York University Press. ISBN 0814711650
    • summary tba
  • Alterman, Eric. (1999). Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801486394; Alterman, Eric. (2008). Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America. ISBN 0670018600
    • Criticism of Krauthammer's claim to fame, the reliance on the ad hominem personal attack in his columns, and the use of this technique to question the motives of any political opponent in New Republic editorials. Crediting Krauthamer with the invention of the Reagan Doctrine and using it to promote "lies and dissimulation", Alterman condemns and indicts Krauthammer's influence on American policy in the strongest words possible, linking it to the most controversial political scandals of the 1980s.
  • Johnson, Robert H. (Autumn, 1988). "Misguided Morality: Ethics and the Reagan Doctrine". Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 103, No. 3. The Academy of Political Science. pp. 509-529
    • Johnson criticizes Krauthammer's moral argument in favor of the Reagan Doctrine as defective since "its moral perspective is based upon a substantially fictional, ideological view of the Third World."
  • Freeman, Michael D. A. Lewis, A. D. E. (2000). Law and Medicine: Current Legal Issues. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198299184. Golden, Janet. (Winter 1999) "An Argument That Goes Back To The Womb: The Demedicalization Of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, 1973-1992". Journal of Social History
    • Observes Krauthammer's participation in the 1989 U.S. crack cocaine moral panic . Krauthammer seriously proposes passing laws and creating isolated colonies where pregnant mothers accused of using crack cocaine will be forcibly confined in order to protect their unborn children.
  • Bennett, W. Lance. Paletz, David L. (1994). Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226042596
    • Observes Krauthammer's techniques of persuasion in the days before the U.S. involvement in the 1990 Gulf War. Although not the first to use the Hitler analogy, Krauthammer was the first columnist to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler before the U.S. invasion, a comparison that gained currency around the country and was entered into the Congressional Record. Right after the invasion, the Hitler analogy permeated the media, appearing at least 228 times in the following six months and formed the basis of public opinion.
  • Schulte-Sasse, Jochen. Schulte-Sasse, Linda. (Autumn 1991). "War, Otherness, and Illusionary Identifications with the State". Cultural Critique. No. 19. The Economies of War. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 67-95
    • Jochen Schulte-Sasse and Linda Schulte-Sasse observe Krauthammer as "one of the most polemic warmongers and boosters of militaristic interventionism among U.S. syndicated colunists." They also describe how Krauthammer (circa 1991) "articulates with astounding clarity the connection between the disintegration of the Soviet empire, the need for an external enemy substitute, and the even greater need for a new internal enemy." Schulte-Sasse go on to portray Krauthammer's belief system as irrational and consumed by fear and desire.
  • Greenwald, Glenn. (2007). Unclaimed Territory
    • According to Glenn Greenwald, as early as 1993, neoconservatives like Krauthammer were "agitating for war against Iran" based on an alleged nuclear threat that Greenwald summarizes as "two full decades of fact-free warmongering" and "fictitious, war-urging commentary".
  • Knuth, Rebecca. (2006). Burning Books and Leveling Libraries: Extremist Violence and Cultural Destruction. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0275990079
    • Observes Krauthammer's participatory role in promoting the 2003 Iraq War invasion and deflecting criticism by outright denying the National Museum of Iraq was looted during the conflict. It is a matter of historical record that the museum was looted.
  • Hall, Stephen S. (2002-07-19). "President's Bioethics Council Delivers". Science. New Series, Vol. 297, No. 5580. American Association for the Advancement of Science. pp. 322-324
    • James Q. Wilson criticizes Krauthammer's position against cloning for research and rejects Krauthammer's slippery slope argument, attributing Krauthammer's postion (according to Hall) as a "historical pattern of social fear of new technologies."
  • Agin, D. P. (2006), Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us. Macmillan. ISBN 0312352417
    • Critically explores the flaws in Krauthammer's argument against stem cell research
  • Snyder, Jack. (Nov-Dec 2004). "One World, Rival Theories". Foreign Policy. No. 145. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. pp. 52-62
    • Details the debate between Fukuyama and Krauthammer. Fukuyama critized Krauthammer's defense of the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East, which Snyder characterizes as "faith in the use of force and the feasibility of democratic change in Iraq". Fukuyama said this "blinds him to the war's lack of legitimacy, a failing that "hurts both the realist part of our agenda, by diminishing our actual power, and the idealist portion of it, by undercutting our appeal as the embodiment of certain ideas and values."
  • Mooney, Chris. (2007). Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. Harcourt Trade. ISBN 0151012873
    • Criticism of Krauthammer's global warming denialism
  • Greenwald, Glenn. (2007-04-20). "Charles Krauthammer takes rank hypocrisy to new lows". Salon.com
  • Media Matters for America. Charles Krauthammer
    • At least 33 allegedly false or distorted claims made by Krauthammer from 2006-2008, complete with transcripts and/or video

That's a small sample. I would be happy to add more. Viriditas (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Spinal Cord Injury

I realize that the biographies of living persons tread on thin ice at Wikipedia, but I find it curious that this article has no mention of the spinal cord injury Mr. Krauthammer suffered in a 1972 diving accident, one which rendered him quadriplegic. I worry that this is a deliberate omission – it is both relevant (as it relates to his own views on stem cell research) and it's fairly common knowledge (it was even mentioned on this talk page back in 2006). Can anyone explain why it's not in the article, and/or why it shouldn't be? — VoxLuna ☾ orbitland   17:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention his injury because that is why I came to this article in the first place...only to find nothing. Will someone please include this information? Thanks.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, that is why I did as well. Before adding it, it will need to be well referenced. Packetmonger (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Accident

I have not posted this material into the article because I cannot confirm it through refence sources I have available to me. I think the article might say more about K's "accident". As I recall (I lived in Boston at the time), K dived into the deep end of a swimming pool, I believe at the Holiday Inn on Blossom Street, near Mass. General Hospital. The builders had modified the pool design to permit an additional room to be built under the pool. As a result, the deep end was only about 6 feet deep. Apparently, they left in place a diving board intended for a 12 foot depth. It was reported that K was an experinced diver. When he jumped into the pool (apparently without looking, or at least not seeing) he hit his head on the bottom and broke his spine, resulting in severe paraplegia, though considerably short of Christopher Reeve's riding accident. ldmjr@comcast.net, 24 November 2006.

Source it or forget it. Malvenue (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Found some sources, a disability blog: http://coralandopal.blogspot.com/2009/03/wisdom-and-strength-of-charles.html confirmation of condition but not exact cause: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer082800.asp confirmation of diving accident in med school as cause: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22743_Page2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.157.168 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page appears to be the subject of recurring anti-semitic vandalism. Can anything be done? Malvenue (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now it's low-enough intensity that we should just watchlist it and revert when it pops up. If it becomes much more frequent, we can ask for semiprotection. RayTalk 17:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Recurrent vandalism is not surprising, given that the name "KrautHammer" seems to be a recent and deliberately constructed ethnic slur, which, given Krauthammer's Jewish ethnicity, suggests antagonism and violence against Germans. (As a psychiatrist, Krauthammer himself would agree.)
In view of that, the article would be greatly improved, and vandalism would likely be reduced, by including what Mr. Krauthammer's actual family name was prior to the second World War II. As it stands, the article reads like a closely edited self-promotion. 24.35.121.108 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

F.A.I.R.

The criticism by FAIR appears to violate WP:BLP as it is not a neutral secondary source. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability." Malvenue (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it, I have to agree. The Washington Post article makes it fairly clear that this was no big deal at all, and given the length and scope of Krauthammer's work, we shouldn't reprint a particular partisan attack of no particular note to his career -- WP:UNDUE is implicated. RayTalk 19:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been no objection, have we reached consensus? Malvenue (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable doing the "consensus of two editors" thing, but I notified Ser of this discussion two days ago (he being the only editor who consistently restores the section for the past month or two when somebody tries to remove it), and he has been active on Wikipedia since then. I'd say we give him (or any other interested editors) an extra day or so to reply, and if there isn't a reply, go ahead and remove it, and still be open to discussion afterwords. RayTalk 15:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I should've gotten 'round to this sooner, but I haven't had the gumption.
Honestly? I don't really care one way or another; I've only been restoring it on the grounds that I think it's being deleted improperly. The reason being given is that "Wikipedia is biased", and I think that's wrong, because it's being used as a reason for wholesale deletion of all criticism from the article (and it's not the first time - there have been three or four editors, over the span of a few months, basically removing the entire section without giving a reason). That in itself smacks heavily of bias, and my reason for restoring the deleted criticism was for just such a discussion as this. I figured that if it proved to be troublesome, better to remove it properly, and with discussion, than to just axe it all at once.
Does that make sense? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I take it this means you feel there isn't really a dispute going on, and it's okay to remove the section? I feel this conversation was mainly started in the belief that you thought the material should remain. But if you were only objecting to unexplained deletion, and don't disagree with our positions above, then we can close this out. RayTalk 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No, no. By all means - if you think deletion is warranted, then go ahead. As I say, my concern was more to do with the fact that I felt people were removing it without really considering why. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. You have to have a reason for removing content and you need to find consensus first.Malvenue (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion

He was obviously brought up Jewish, he went to Herzliyah High School. Why isn't this mentioned in the religion section? Someone's religious background is relevant to his current affiliation. If he is atheist I would think it would make a difference if he was brought up that way or decided on his own as an adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.68.174 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add, if you can appropriately source. RayTalk 13:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This page has suffered from repeated anti-semitic vandalism and this looks to me like another backdoor attempt to introduce discussion of his religion, which is not notable. IMO the fact that this comment was added by an unsigned IP address supports my theory. I agree with Ray. Malvenue (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, without proper sourcing it would be a deliberate synthesis, which, while interesting as an intellectual exercise between friends, does not belong on an encyclopedia we're trying to make authoritative. RayTalk 17:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Overcategorization"?

Levineps feels that having this article in the categories of "Journalists" and "Columnists" is "overcategorization" stating that "a columnist is a journalist". I'm not sure what the point here is but that statement is overly broad and makes too many assumptions to justify unilateral removal of a category. Malvenue (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Columnist is a subcat of journalist. If you need consensus on every little minor detail, nothing would ever get done, Consensus is more like for moving pages, deleting entire sections, etc.--Levineps (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That's true except when consensus has been demonstrated not to exist. I disagree with your change here. As a result you have a responsibility to discuss it here before reverting the change. Please point to where "overcategorization" is even an issue. I suggest you revert it back yourself and attempt a consensus so as to avoid a WP:3RR complaint. Malvenue (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This goes to more our category setup than any strong opinions. Journalist is a catch-all term, and for such broad categories, we usually prefer to put into subcategories wherever possible (quite possibly more than one!). Mal, I think you and Levine got off on the wrong foot here; the move to a more specific category is well within standard practice, and not normally controversial. Best, RayTalk 19:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I recognize I'm new here and learning. I apologize if I seemed antagonistic. Please note I took it to the talk page rather than start a war, file a complaint, or get nasty. /grin Malvenue (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the short edits but I remembered something I was going to ask before. If you only file under one category, won't that exclude searches on the other? Meaning in this instance if Krauthammer is listed as a columnist, one who writes regular columns, would he show up under a list of Journalists, people who engage in journalism that's not necessarily print journalism? I guess that's the basis of my original question though I didn't express it well at first. Malvenue (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no problem, no need to apologize - you're earnest and good-willed, and it takes everybody time to learn the ropes (I'm still learning the ropes in particular areas, after nearly a year and a half here). The way it would work, is if somebody goes to Category:American journalists, there will be a list of subcategories, one of which is Category:American columnists, and below the section on subcategories, there will be a list of articles in the main category (but not the subcategories). So anybody looking should recognize that they should go to the more specific subcategory, and from there they will get a listing. That's categories. There are also separate articles called Lists of "subject name here", which are not related to categories at all, and are separately maintained. On a general note, we tend to follow a bold, revert, discuss cycle for reaching consensus in article space -- that is to say, somebody goes ahead and makes the change, if somebody else finds it objectionable, then they revert and discuss. But you can always make an edit you think is needful without prior consultation, unless there's something special going on about the article (like a prior agreement to discuss first in a particular area). RayTalk 01:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really sure where to post this but I wanted to tell you guys you've done a great job with this article. I'm so used to seeing bias (POV?) in the articles I search on Wiki that I always check 'discussions' first. Today I read the article first and was really impressed with the fact that I could just get the raw info. I think it's good that much of the article were direct Krauthammer quotations. Keep up the good work, happy holidays! 174.51.97.16 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam

The editors of this page provide one meaningless accolade after another and not a single criticism. The Politico praise is high comedy--one group of mediocre writers praising another one, and it shows up on Wikipedia as proof of his greatness.

Lame, truly lame.

Just as one example of where this article is lacking--as a reader, I would like to know why Krauthammer, who has never met a war he didn't like, failed to serve in Vietnam when he had ample opportunity prior to his accident. How many deferments did he have to receive? Did he have help with them? Without such perspective, this article is hopelessly biased, naive, and unprofessional.

Seems like a sign of intelligence to me.

Also, the textbook that (wow, gee, amazingly! and allegedly) had 12 references to Krauthammer in an earlier edition now only has 4 references to two articles in the 2007 edition. Also, since when is a pure count of the number of references a sign of significance? Perhaps the writers are redundant? Finally, by what measure is that particular textbook considered "the standard." Most adoptions in leading medical schools? Total number of sales? Some combination? Can that point be substantiated in any way?

Oh, just the tiniest bit of further research shows me that of the two articles "by" Krauthammer, he is one of two authors on one paper and one of five authors of the other. In neither case it it clear that he was the primary researcher. Indeed, the papers were published when he was a resident, so it is highly likely he would have been only been doing some work under the supervision of the primary researcher. Indeed, it's quite clear that in the case of the two-author article so fawningly referred to here, Krauthammer was the junior researcher. His "colleague," G. L. Klerman, was in fact the director of psychological research at Harvard Medical School and was 21 years' Krauthammer's senior.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/06/nyregion/gerald-l-klerman-63-an-expert-on-depression-and-schizophrenia.html

So Krauthammer's academic research achievement could be much more accurately summarized as "he helped conduct some research." In other words, him and virtually every other medical student who studied in the past 75 years.

More rank amateurism.


Apparently you don't know much about how peer-reviewed papers are done.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.196.34 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above commenter, at least with regard to the psychology topic. The only references to Krauthammer's significance in psychiatric research appear here and in Krauthammer's own biography (on his facebook page and elsewhere). It appears the first five paragraphs of the "life and career" section here are lifted verbatim from his official biography. This is very sloppy work, arguably plagiarism (unless Krauthammer included these sections himself), and completely unverified.
I agree--this article is really amateurish.
Then may I suggest that you fix it? I don't know a thing about his contributions one way or another, so I'm not touching it - psychiatry isn't my field, and I wouldn't know where to begin for the rest of it. If you have access to the sources, then edit the article. I don't think anyone will complain. That's what WP:BOLD is for, after all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have far better things to do with my time than fix a Wikipedia article on a fifth-rate political hack. I don't think he rates an article, frankly, but obviously some people "cared" enough about the topic to plagiarize material on his behalf. I suggest those same people do some real work and re-write the article. Otherwise, I suggest the article simply go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.196.34 (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you suggest OTHER people do work that you want done. Interesting.
But evidently not too much time to write several diatribes on it. Truly, I congratulate your sense of priorities. RayTalk 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That makes two of us. Doing the congratulating, that is.--Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the petty, ad hominem responses. Very classy. In the meantime, the article still is guilty of plagiarism and apparently none of you fine folks care. No wonder Wikipedia loses more and more credibility every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.196.34 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No, Wikipediddlia loses credibility because of its army of Asperger's editors and wannabe editors.
That wasn't an ad hominem response, BTW. We get it, you took Philosophy 101 in college. So has everyone else. Well done. Now just learn what the term means before you try to play Mr. Intellectual Superiority again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.175.214.33 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's plagiarism now? Tell me where it plagiarizes, and I'll remove it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
So in addition to only offering ad hominem attacks, you didn't read the point above, "It appears the first five paragraphs of the "life and career" section here are lifted verbatim from his official biography. This is very sloppy work, arguably plagiarism (unless Krauthammer included these sections himself), and completely unverified." I guess active Wikipedia "editors" don't like to write, don't like to actually edit, and don't even like to read, but are happy to make petty criticisms of others who make justified criticisms of the work here. Very classy. Krauthammer's official biography appears on his Facebook page and elsewhere and is repeated here verbatim. Last time, I checked, that was plagiarism. This will be my last comment. Do your work, or, as suggested, trash the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.196.34 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Life, politics

a rather bizarre section. The author leaves us with little more than a sketchy piece on his life. Ie was he ever married? Is he a confirmed bachelor? His transition from serving liberal democrats to his obvious involvement in the Neoconservative movement. How did that come about. This article is more a Paean than a historical piece. Bereft of even marginal criticism. His blatant warmongering for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.33.130 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that two years later, this is still the case. And no, I didn't post the original unsigned comment. --Michael K SmithTalk 14:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Image

I added an image of Krauthammer; however, there may be an issue with the sourcing of it. Wrightchr (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel

I'm not sure about the source that cites that "Contrary to many conservatives, [Krauthammer] supported Israel's Gaza withdrawal as a step toward rationalizing the frontiers between Israel and a future Palestinian state," but I'm looking at an editorial right now where he states

"Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack."

There are probably a couple of available sources, but here's the one that I was reading: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2010/06/04/israel-disarmed/

It's probably worth considering an edit of the section that discusses his views on Israel. IRSpeshul (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediaite

The phrasing of the Mediaite piece sounds awkward. You don't want to have a sentence just about the founding of Mediaite by Abrams. Where is the Krauthammer? It should be CK-centric, something like "The media website Mediaite rated Krauthammer..." Also, as the Mediaite ratings vary over time, what is the point of running what Krauthammer's rating was at one particular moment? I'm sure the week after he was #7, he was #8, and probably #7 the following week. It seems really arbitrary and content-free. How about cutting the whole thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.33.110 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Error on Charles Krauthammer page

Unable to make the correction myself, I am asking for help to edit Charles Krauthammer's page. I found the error in "Life and Career." In the first paragraph, a reference is made to his diving accident during medical school which is reference number 5. Reference number 5 is a reference to Wikipedia's Washington Post page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post) not to Mr. Krauthammer's diving accident. It appears to me that the correct reference should be to reference number 4, an interview with Brian Lamb. In that interview, Mr. Krauthammer discusses the accident. When I attempted the edit, I could not determine how to change the reference from a 5 to a 4. Aquapedia (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Another error is reference 29, his speech in 2006. He did not refer to the Arab Spring in this speech, the Arab Spring never even happened until 2010. If you read the text of the speech on reference number 29, he never uses the term "arab spring." Please correct this immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.45.83 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

White House apology

Is this really significant enough to warrant an entry? It seems a very petty and unimportant matter to be included in a online bio. 156.22.9.252 (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Anon editor - 1) Wikipedia is not an "online bio" and 2) it was a newsworthy event as it was carried by several source. Its overall significance may be debated, but not the relevance. Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Then as above it should be objective and truthful. Which it appears it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.200.125 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It's written objectively/NPOV and contains the facts concerning the incident. What more do you think should be done? Winkelvi (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It is neutral and truthful. You seemed to have missed my point. Just because I said it MAY NOT be significant, doesn't mean it isn't 100% verifiable and relevant. Me thinks your politics/POV are getting in the way of your own objectivity... Ckruschke (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

"White house" apology

The apology was a personal one from Dan Pfeiffer, and Krauthammer specifically said in his demand for an apology that it come from Pfeiffer. It is not correct to say that the apology was issued by the white house, regardless of how loose you want to be with definitions. Ninahexan (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


Additionally, this segment should include the fact that Krauthammer had inferred President Obama had willfully returned the bust as a slight to the British in keeping with the contrived narrative that the U.S. British relationship once enjoyed and entrusted during previous administrations is now exterminated under Obama. shiznaw (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC) shiznaw


Reading all of the citations for this topic led me to wonder why this is here at all. Reading all the citations actually puts Krauthammer in a bad light.

This section itself seems to have a bet of a biased slant to it. It's making Krauthammer out as having been offended for having his "assertion"(Krauthammer own word) called a "ridiculous claim" and "patently false" and he seems to think that an assertion equals fact/truth when it is actually defined as a "declaration with no support or attempt at proof". Dan Pfeiffer apology seems to have been a personal apology for his having been personally rude and not for calling Krauthammers "assertion" a "ridiculous claim" and "patently false".

"White House" here is also misleading one to believe that the Executive Branch issued this apology when in fact it was Dan Pfeiiffer who issued this apology in privet and then used a White House web page to make his privet apology public and this is not the same thing as the Executive Branch giving an apology.

Krauthammers "assertion" was that the Obama administration was responsible for moving the Bust. Below is from one of the citations for this topic(my highlight);

"On January 20, 2009 -- Inauguration Day -- all of the art lent specifically for President Bush’s Oval Office was removed by the CURATOR'S OFFICE, as is common practice at the end of every presidency."

So? Krauthammers "assertion" was wrong AND the Executive Branch did not issue this apology. Again, Why is this here? If this is a highlight of Krauthammers life then maybe he should try another career. To mister Krauthammer I ask, If one says or does something wrong in a civil society is it not proper for one to man up and apology's ;-) ?71.23.17.196 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Global Warming

The new paragraph/section on his view of so-called 'Global Warming' is critical of Krauthammer as if it were 'settled science' when in fact, that is what he is talking about: that science is 'discovery'. The new paragraph does not reflect the points of his article and is undue weight to this article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this section should be updated to include his more recent statement of early May: "It's always a result of what is ultimately what we're talking about here, human sin with pollution of carbon." and "It's the oldest superstition around. It was in the Old Testament, it's in the rain dance of Native Americans -- if you sin, the skies will not cooperate." These quotes more clearly demonstrate Dr. Krauthammer's feelings that global warming is an irrational cult-like belief. [1] LaurelhurstLiberal (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The secret behind Mr. Obama's talk to the nation on 09/10/14

Dear Dr. Krauthammer:

I'd like to take a few minutes to let off some "steam" while typing what I feel is a huge scam (or devious scheme) that will be perpetuated at Pres. O'Bama's press conference this coming Wednesday, September 10, 2014. He will stand before the television cameras and take credit for playing a major role in the re-valuation of the Iraqui dinar as well as fixing the main leadership problems in Iraq. His alleged participation appears to have made Iraq into a puppet state for the U.S.A. This is in progress now along with the revaluation of 180+ countries who are supposedly going to be a part of this global re-valuation of each of their individual country's currency. I just find it absolutely incredible that something as big as this global occurrence is not being discussed on main stream national t.v. or any other media sources that the average person, such as myself, would actually know about. I'm guessing only the wealthy and upper-class or wealth management people have the exclusivity of inside information pertaining to this matter.

Because the re-valuation of the U.S. dollar as well as all the other nations involved have kept this information as a low-profile historical item, most people have absolutely no clue about the impact this will have and the potential of dramatic changes not only to our country but to the world economy. What I am particularly irked about and this is speculation on my part as he will be standing in front of the nation probably with a new found classification as a "billionaire", himself. Then he will "trumpet" his comments to reflect that he is our new found savior in that he has almost single-handedly worked out a deal on the Iraqui dinar re-valuation to pay back our national debt to the Chinese. He will make further comments as to how he literally saved our economy and oh, now he has enough money in the coffers to balance the national budget as well. He'll say, "See what a good guy I am"? I wonder if the "elite" in the Congress and Senate are involved with this as my "gut" tells me, the likes of Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and a whole "gaggle" of our infamous D.C. players have their sticky fingers in this global "cookie jar" as well!

You sir, are a refreshing breath of fresh air with your candor and remarks that seek out those who want unadulterated truth. It doesn't have to be sugar-coated or lengthy discussions, just continue to provide the simple, as well as hard facts. You are a "light" in this world and I wanted to let you know that there are many of us who listen with all of our might, mind and heart because it gives us "HOPE". I just needed to vent and to assure you that I am a Patriot and it "galls" me when this president stands up with a litany of remarks that are lies, half-truths and shear non-sense.

I hope this reaches you before he speaks!

Sincerely,

Lorrie Cuthbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6012:53:40CC:11CD:E0B2:B6D1 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Krauthammer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

and not a word about supporting tortures?

With Alan Dershowitz he is one of the biggest supporters of tortures, support that was meaningful. That's should be a section not a comment. unfortunately my english is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.76.50.6 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The article needs to include Krauthammer's spectacular errors in not understanding Trump's candidacy or its potential. Krauthammer found that McGill, Harvard, and Oxford were actually very poor preparation for understanding blue collar anger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Krauthammer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Krauthammer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Please clarify the Champion/Tuck Award for Economic Understanding per source below. Suggest: Champion Media Award for Economic Understanding from Amos Tuck School of Business Administration.

 Done--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Spammer

Regretfully, the article needs to be locked due to repeated bouts of spamming -- especially if featured on main page (per above). —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks (the lock icon needs to be added, however). —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Please remove cn-tags for his name in lead and infobox -- add/move <ref name="Bernstein"> as needed. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- (removed as "frivolous" by Ad Orientem)

Liberal vs. Conservative

As frequently mentioned in his columns, interviews, etc., it should be noted in this article that Krauthammer was originally a liberal (e.g., Jonathan Turley: "Yes, Charles Krauthammer was once a classic liberal"). He was a contributor to the (liberal) The New Republic, speechwriter for (Democrat) Walter Mondale, columnist for (left-leaning) Washington Post , etc. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there is mention of the transition in the ideology section. Kintpuash (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Quite vague, however. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

Please remove the POV term "forcefully" from the lead. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 21:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

In the Career as columnist... section, please replace ...focusing on the promotion of democracy in the Middle East".[citation needed] with ...addressing the challenges of confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism[2]

References

  1. ^ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/charles-krauthammer-climate-change-superstition
  2. ^ AEI Press (March 1, 2004). "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World". aei.org. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved 23 June 2018.

2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

no Declined The proposed language would need to be employed by reliable secondary sources, probably multiple ones. The cited source represents a single primary source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
(The current language is supported by zero sources, secondary or otherwise) —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Paralyzed from the neck down or the waist down

I've noticed that editors are changing it back and forth, the part about Charles being paralyzed from the neck or the waist down. There needs to be a consensus about this fact so it can stay one or the other. In a piece about Charles by Fox News that the narrator stated that he was a quadriplegic, which means he would be paralyzed from the neck down. He has very little movement in his arms and hands and needs to have things done for him. Let's come to a consensus on this. Coryphantha Talk 11:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As you point out, sources state he was quadriplegic, and by definition, this can mean partial motion in the upper extremities. Saying paralyzed from the waist down seems an incomplete way of trying to say quadriplegic without the additional modifier of paresis, or partial paralysis, in the arms and hands and consequently misleading. So in the lede it now says, "Krauthammer became permanently paralyzed from the waist down after a diving board accident that severed his spinal cord at C5." Perhaps a more accurate way to say it, "Krauthammer became quadriplegic with paresis in his arms and hands after a diving board accident that severed his spinal cord at C5" ?? Kintpuash (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Kintpuash That does seem like a more complete way of stating it and may satisfy both sides of the argument. Maybe that will help keep it from flip-flopping from one to the other, thank you. Coryphantha Talk 15:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Well-respected"

@יניב הורון: Where is the source for the term "well-respected" that you are referring to? And either way, how does it not fall under MOS:PUFF? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How about "well known" or "prominent"? Following the NYT article here:[2] LK (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that those terms are quite the same, but regardless, I don't think that is the source יניב הורון is referring to as they suggested the relevant source is already in the article. And more importantly, how would the inclusion of that term in the lead not fall under MOS:PUFF, even if it were sourced? (There's good reason why our article on Albert Einstein doesn't start by saying "Albert Einstein (1879–1955) was a well-respected German-born theoretical physicist...") 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Books authored

There needs to be a section of Krauthammer's books he has authored. Most can be found listed at Amazon. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I added a brief section, containing three printed works (including a printed version of his 2004 speech). — Loadmaster (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Krauthammer/Archive_2&oldid=1144087486"