# Talk:Jonathan Krohn

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is (1) reliable, (2) intellectually independent, and (3) independent of the subject.

How about WP:ONEEVENT? Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the notability template because there is plenty of reliable, secondary, independent coverage of this person. On this talk page and in the article references, one will find plenty of sources that address the subject directly and in detail. Is there a dispute with the reliability of the sources? A dispute regarding their secondary nature? Whether or not they quality as independent coverage? Some other criteria? Ender and Peter 05:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Author of book - Define Conservatism
http://www.defineconservatism.com/
Speaker at Conservative Political Action Conference 2009
http://www.cpac.org/agenda_20808.html
Named Atlanta’s Most Talented Child, 2006 by Inside Edition
http://www.defineconservatism.com/index.php/authorsbio

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/jonathan-krohn-13-year-ol_n_170642.html
http://airamerica.com/anamarie/blog/2009/feb/27/day-2-cpac-jonathan-krohn-interview
http://townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowId=2&ContentGuid=f5ed1d9c-a4e5-4823-8244-2a52cbcfad6a
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/02/jonathan_krohn_addresses_cpac.html

This was removed by another user...
"...he had three callbacks for the part of Michael Banks in Broadway production of Mary Poppins."
I feel it's well worth including, so I added it back, but I wanted to note it here so we could come to a consensus. Does anyone else feel it's worth noting, or not worth noting? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's there anymore. I'm indifferent. I suppose it's an interesting factoid one might discover if they decided to look at the discussion page.Enderandpeter (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence. It is uncited, and I don't think it's very notable. Receiving "callbacks" for a part might be notable to one's own personal ego, but it's totally different when compared to actually getting cast for the role. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not uncited. If you go to the biography section of site, which was the citation, it says this information. And in a tiny theater you'd be right, but a callback in Broadway is very rare, let alone three. Three callbacks means he almost got the part. (Maybe the wording should be "Was in consideration for the role" or something, to avoid any confusion.) I think it's notable, although maybe the solution would be adding a new section called "Personal life" where we could include that, the cello, blah blah blah. This kind of thing is done for many biography articles. Thoughts? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. SultrySuzie (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The point still remains that he DID NOT get the part. Almost getting the part is still not the same thing. John McCain and Hillary Clinton were almost President of the United States, too, but do we add them to the list of Presidents? Dr. Cash (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
SultrySuzie's point is well taken. But Dr. Cash, we might not add McCain and Clinton to a list of presidents, but we obviously DO write about the fact that they were almost president in their articles; the fact that they didn't make it doesn't preclude it from being included. If it weren't for the fact that it was coming from a self-published source, the Mary Poppins thing would be notable for establishing that Krohn considered a career in acting and nearly had one before switching to politics. Writing about actors almost getting parts isn't uncalled for; Traffic (2000 film) talks about how Harrison Ford was almost cast in the movie, even though he ultimately wasn't, and that's one of only about a zillion examples. But, in any event, I'm not married to keeping this in the article, and since so many people seem passionate about excluding it, I'll drop the matter altogether. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So, the picture on this article says "Jonathan Krohn with a fan." Um, which one's Jonathan and which one's the fan?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.129.223 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 

Jonathan is on the left. The picture should really be cropped. SultrySuzie (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is potential for a section like this in this article, but the one in there right now needs a lot of work. It cites two blogs which I'm not sure pass as legitimate sources, and one reference (that I've since removed) to a free dictionary! Does anyone know of any stronger sources for what's here, or for any other criticism that could be added? — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It's probably a legitimate critique that he could be a hoax, and those critiques would likely come from blogs. And the claim is that "bloggers" have wondered about this, which seems fine, and true. About the free dictionary reference, I wonder if there is an official medical source for Williams Syndrome?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.193.218 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 
I realize that there is criticism about him being a hoax and speculation as to whether or not he has Williams Syndrome, but some of his mannerisms are consistent with autism: a particularly high-functioning form. Perhaps, those who are more expert in the field would consider looking into this hunch I have. It appears to me that what seems to be his "high intelligence" could be an effect of some disorder that deprives him of social skills.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.219.56 (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 
Interesting theory about autism. But what strikes these bloggers, and me, is that the *content* of his speech is so very poor, at best vaccuous and at worst low-functioning. Yet his social skills seem to be great, since he obviousl is capable of wooing the conservative establishment and making friends in high places.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.247.80 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 
Well, I might disagree. Put him a environment of children his age, and he will get laughed out of the room. Social skills carry further than making conversation, and his ability to make friends in high places is simply because of his coincidental existence (a young conservative preaching principles). I do agree, however, that his speech is vacuous. He seems to repeat the same talking points in great detail. For instance, when he will say the title of his book, he seems to always add, "Subtitled." The preciseness of speech (notwithstanding the impediments -- possibly nervousness) tells me he is a chiefly detail-oriented thinker: something common in many persons with autism, especially savants. Do not take my comment too far. I do not suggest he is a savant by any means. Only vague details hint that he could be autistic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.219.56 (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 

"I do agree, however, that his speech is vacuous. He seems to repeat the same talking points in great detail."
Couldn't this be said about just about any member of today's conservative movement (with the exception of David Brooks of course)? Most of the teabaggers, birthers, deathers, dittoheads, etc., seem to be just parroting what they hear on Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. It's hardly unique to this kid. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The question, "Couldn't this be said about just about any member of today's conservative movement…?" is based on a very general or universal assumption. What "most" of the groups mentioned "seem" to be doing is extremely speculative. Exactly how many are "most"? "Seem" to whom? I would almost think that these are merely Stonemason89's own personal, subjective  opinions.Lestrade (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

If you feel that way, my suggestion would be to start a section, make sure its as well sourced as possible, and then we'll look at it and go from there. — Hunter Kahn 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Start a section about what? Are you addressing me? I don't understand you.Lestrade (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
My mistake. I thought because of the subhead of this discussion you were saying there should be a criticism section, so I was suggesting you make one. I didn't read clearly enough and you were probably making an entirely different point altogether. Never mind. :D — Hunter Kahn 17:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm against including a criticism section. Any negative critical comments can be included in the main body and from the coverage I've read he created no notable controversy (and that's understandable: people won't readily bash him, he's a kid after all). Hekerui (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

He has changed his opinion on a lot of things on his Twitter. I am new to editing but could someone please do someone look at his Twitter cause it seems to verify that he is no longer into politics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 

Even if this is true, we need to be able to cite this from a reliable source, like a newspaper, magazine or journal article. His Twitter page is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If you find one, bring the link here and we can look at it... — Hunter Kahn 05:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
How is he saying it not a proper source? At this point, no one covers him anymore?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 
Also, have you looked at it? Rather than implying that it is not true, have you or someone looked at it. Since CPAC he has been non-active, and I used to follow his blog etc. so I am no hear to harm his reputation. The problem comes when it seems that new information about him is sparse. If the only thing he does is twitter now, should this be a page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 

This guideline link about reliable sources that I included above outlines the various components of a reliable source. Primarily, they must be reliable, published and neutral secondary sources. I believe the Twitter feed (which, yes, I read) constitutes a primary source, and would violate the guidelines that prohibit original research. — Hunter Kahn 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As a Historian, that might be a problematic policy. 131.247.152.4 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could bring it up at the policy's talk page. But that's how it's been for some time... — Hunter Kahn 22:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not into changing the policy. I just wonder how a person who has done nothing recently and no longer cares about politics can have an editorial written about him that is up to date? If no one has written about him, that shows a lack of relevance at this point. Clearly he is no longer active with politics if he is not writing anything and says so himself. I will say that the policy makes no sense if a video or a writing with them saying it is less of proof that a person writing that he has quit. I don't want to believe that Wikipedia really made a policy that outrageous when every academic organization considers research the most important if it is a primary source. On this level of logic, the boy himself would not be able to write it, as he did, because he is a primary source. I also changed him being influenced by William F. Buckley which was changed back in favor of Jonah Goldberg, on the Buckley page. Sadly, a current writer who has said he was influenced and is much more influential in the political world does not count. I guess I should write a research paper on conservative political thinkers, mention him, and then cite it through that.....--131.247.152.4 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think that you can call a (at the time) 14 year old kid a pundit. This little guy even if he has an important knowledge for his age, which I doubt, has no reason to be called a pundit. Not only that but with the suspicion of being a parrot of conservatives I don't think we can assume that his knowledge is genuine and enough nor that he has the qualification to be a pundit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.146.96 (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 

Following a revert, I was contacted by Jonathan Krohn, who pointed out some problems with the article. Some of his concerns are the following:

Well for starters, the first book I wrote was not written for The Classical School. That is a lie and misconception and I have no idea where that came from.
I am not active in the Baptist Church. Period.
I did not give a speech called "Conservative Victories Across America." That was the name of the panel I was on.
I gave up playing the cello when I was 11.
On taking a closer look, I think that there may be some neutrality concerns, as well as a need for better sources and some editing. Sunray (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed the above concerns. There remains a need to clean up the sources, with attention to neutrality. Sunray (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done removed tag. Sunray (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The infobox image has been removed several times now by an IP user. The only time a reason was given was the last time, and the reason was that the picture was "really old." Putting aside the fact that it's only four years old, this is still not a legitimate reason to remove a licensed infobox image. This picture comes from the exact time in Krohn's life when he became notable. I would ask the user removing this image to please discuss his or her reasons here before doing so again. — Hunter Kahn 22:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what is the relationship between Nietzsche, Wittgenstein,and liberalism?96.248.101.32 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)DeMikeal Brown

Has this kid done anything since renouncing conservatism in high school? The heft of this page (though not substantial) seems a bit much for 15-minute famer. Maybe cut pack on the middle section, and a bit off the final one? Some of it is a little self-serving anyway. --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.130.177 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

SchutteGod he is a 25-year-old man, not a kid. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)