Talk:Joe Klein

Initial comments

Umm, why is Klein identified as Jewish in the last sentence because he's not

--- 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.

"Moderate"

User:Equinox137 has removed the word "moderate" from the opening paragraph with the following comment: <this guy worked for "The New Yorker" and is a Clinton apologist - there's nothing "moderate" about him> 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:

• 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.

So I request a more specific and detailed notation of Mr. Klein's political views. Zahir13 12:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll post some quotes from a recent Time magazine editorial Mr. Klein authored, titled Beware the Blogger's Bile [1] 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)

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 - Wikipedia: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<reference> but some of his colleagues/opponents (whatever) describe him as moderate<reference>. 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 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.
--Nbahn 19:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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[2]. 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. <br. />--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.....<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a current events template. Wikipedia: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 | Contribs)} 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.<br. />--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?<br. />--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 [3] 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.<br. />--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.<br. />--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.<br. />--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.<br. />--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)