Talk:Charles Krauthammer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Irony 2 Headline text 3 Amibiguous sentence 4 entailment 5 American Jew 6 Born in NYC? 7 Palestinians 8 Krauthammer and Religion 9 Mass Reformatting Edits 10 Fukuyama 11 From liberal to conserative 12 Krauthammer and the Irish Times 13 "American citizen BUT a zealous supporter of Israel"? 14 Protecting Brendan Nyhan 15 Place of Birth

[edit] Irony

Ironic that a jew from New York is named Krauthammer. Was his name changed by his disgruntled parents during the war? or is the irony just coincidental? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.134.206 (talk • contribs) 25 September 2006.

[edit] Headline text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAMB: Did you have a short time Johns Hopkins

KRAUTHAMMER: No

LAMB: Somewhere I thought I read that.

KRAUTHAMMER: No

LAMB: Your whole medical experience was at Harvard

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

[edit] Amibiguous sentence

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

Er, what part of the war did he support?

1. That it should occur? (Hoping Iraq would become a war-ravaded nation, maybe?)
2. That the US and England should topple Saddam?
3. That Saddam's forces should fight to maintain the Baathist dictatorship?

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

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

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

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

[edit] entailment

Under the Torture section of this article I wrote

Krauthammer argues that any ban of torture entails at least two exceptions

which was changed to

 Krauthammer argues that any ban of torture should entail at least two exceptions

by an anonymous user who gave the following explanation

any ban of torture SHOULD entail (entails sounds too controversial to me)

My version is more accurate because

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

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

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

Collingsworth 00:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] American Jew

It sounds really weird to call him that. Isn't "Jew" considered mildly pejorative? 68.215.208.254 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as pejorative as saying "Christian" or "Muslim". GreatGatsby 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Born in NYC?

I followed the link to the article from USA TODAY about "many" pro empire advocates were actually born abroad (Jeet Hee/ Jeet Heer: the link uses a different name vs. the article). There it says Mr Krauthammer was born in "Uruguay." Is this incorrect or is the current article?"

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

Andrew Szanton, 4/06

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

[edit] Palestinians

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

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

[edit] Krauthammer and Religion

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

[edit] Mass Reformatting Edits

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

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

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

[edit] Fukuyama

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

[edit] From liberal to conserative

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

[edit] Krauthammer and the Irish Times

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

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

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

[edit] "American citizen BUT a zealous supporter of Israel"?

Use of the negation form in first paragraph is unclear: One can be both an American citizen and "a zealous supporter of Israel", even if the two countries' interests do not necessarily or automatically coincide.

[edit] Protecting Brendan Nyhan

I've just removed the following from the article:

===On Threats===

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

(I've replaced the angle brackets with braces, so we can see what's in the <ref>s.) Note that CK has been writing a weekly column for 20 years or so. Using the same comparison four times in that many columns is not at all remarkable; calling a Pulitzer-Prize-winning a columnist a "hack" for doing so is remarkable: remarkably stupid. Let's save Brendan Nyhan (not the worst columnist in the world, but a hack compared to CK) some embarrassment by keeping this out of mainspace. (In addition, the deleted text violates WP:BLP and WP:RS.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I did think it was a stretch having a blog (essentially the same blog twice) listed as a source, thought I would give a try challenging the content with {{fact}} tags. I guess your way might work; let's see how it's received by others. Regarding your last statement (in parentheses), are you saying that the deleted text violates WP:BLP for Krauthammer or Nyhan? Or both? Thanks. Ufwuct 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't very clear there, was I? I meant Krauthammer. And yes, the use of blogs is the problem. (Frankly, I was disappointed by Nyhan's Prospect.org blog post; I thought he was better than that.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the clarification. Ufwuct 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well in spite of your criticism nyhan's piece has caught on, with now a link in Andrew Sullivan's column, praising it. Furthermore, a couple of points need to be picked apart on your argument. CK did not just use the same comparison (in fact that comparison has probably been made more than the times Nyhan cited)--he used the exact same quote--which was later used by a powerful government official and many think the two are connected. Not far-fetched thinking considering CK has advised them in the past. I think such an addition would show his effect on how the US government is talking right now, an important accomplishment for a columnist. Also, your whole reasoning stinks of POV. You are defending him by saying "Nyhan is a hack compared to CK" that is not an argument for Wikipedia. In addition you cite that these aren't reliable sources, but one is a famous magazine (Time), and this is not research on physics, these are just quotes from a columnist. Also take a careful examination over the article--this biography on a op/ed columnist--there seems to be a dearth of criticism of CK present, which seems a little suspicious imo. I notice you point out where he say disagrees with Fukuyama or McCain, but I think any person who gets famous writing opinions, especially controversial ones, deserves to have some criticism inserted in his bio. I think it should be revised though, drop the blog link, keep the TIME link, and maybe add a few more links, which one could have unearthed with a cursory google search. Here they come: http://www.docstrangelove.com/2006/05/05/charles-krauthammer-and-hitler-attack-israel/

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

http://www.docstrangelove.com/2006/05/05/charles-krauthammer-and-hitler-attack-israel/

This is not any more notable, IMO. It's probably even less so, since the blogger writes under a pseudonym.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/stop_krauthamme.html

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

1. Both are associated with TIME
2. Andrew Sullivan's piece refers to Nyhan's blog
3. Andrew Sullivan seems more notable

I wonder if some blog or news organization has tracked the number of pure hitler/nazi germany comparisons he has made. Those are sure to exceed Borah quotes.

I think we should be careful not to do original research, but keep your eyes peeled to see if news organizations cover this. I think blogs addressing this point would be even less reliable than the Borah quote issue because while the Borah quote issue is easily verifiable (Krauthammer either used the quote in an article or he didn't), Third Reich comparisons seem a lot more subjective.

Thanks for having the patience to bring your comments to the talk page first rather than reverting. Ufwuct 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Place of Birth

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