Talk:Joe Klein

message: Umm, why is Klein identified as Jewish in the last sentence because he's not
Umm Umm, why is Klein identified in the Pelham Wikipedia???
---
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)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: ?  Is this relevant to his writing?  Should this be removed?  171.159.64.10 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Klein is great and he is awsome 

message: No bio of a person Klein's age (particularly a writer who has an ideological viewpoint as Klein does) is complete without explaining how he avoided the draft and Vietnam (as Klein did).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.74 (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Did Joe Klein Avoid the Draft and Vietnam? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikify the article 

message: Klein committed some major journalistic malpractice against the Congressional Democrats and the liberals are (quite justifiably, in my opinion) livid.  Some intemperate souls may vandalize the page.
--Nbahn (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just F.Y.I...... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy (part II) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.--Nbahn (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What about your original concern?  The one about disproportionality?  To what degree is this still a concern of yours?--Nbahn (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I don't have a problem with your proposal.--NBahn (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '2007 Controversy' 

message: 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.--NBahn (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for neutrality check 

message: I've basically finished writing up a paper on the Klein/Time controversy.  Before I submit it for a formal review, I'd like to informally get some opinions on it.  Scroll down on my user page and please discuss on my discussion page.  Thanks!--NBahn (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way even a fraction of this content is going to make it into the article. The "controversy" we're discussing merits perhaps 2-3 sentences, and everything in those sentences must be balanced and neutral. You've done an enormous amount of work, and I don't know what to tell you. --- tqbf 17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also would suggest that writing what was in effect a POV fork of this article is not an appropriate use of user page space. My suggestion is that Nbahn blank it. It really has no place in the encyclopedia.--Samiharris (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say you've finished writing up a paper. While interesting to read it certainly does not belong in wikipedia. The controversy is itself barely notable and at best merits a few sentances. The level of information you have would be better suited for a political article or blog. I really am amazed at just how much you have done. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability and espeically Wikipedia:No original research. I do not want to discourage you from contributing so why not attempt to write a concise, balanced and referenced single paragraph for the article?  LordHarris 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticisms/critiques requested..... 

message: I expect this to hit the mainstream media at some point.  Here are some pointers to the current coverage of this:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43384
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/joe_klein_on_neoconservatives.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/30/joe_klein_keeps_hitting_those/
http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/joe_klein_continues_defending_jewish_dual_loyalty_claim_20080731/
--John Bahrain (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divided loyalty/anti-semitism/anti-neoconservative controversy 

message: ...but I'm afraid that this edit is simply and utterly out of bounds if for no other reason then that it is an uncited opinion.—NBahn (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm no fan of Jokeline..... 

message: Saw Joe Klein on MSNBC today going against the union members in Wisconsin.  I didn't hear him screaming about the rich paying their fair share, but was saying instead that everyone had to tighten their belts and that the union members in Wisconsin have too much by way of benefits.  I was shocked.  The problem with the economy is directly related to the Bush tax cuts, and the middle class is stuck with the bill.  Joe Klein is so wrong.  He should be ashamed.  I can't stand him.  He is obviously a beard for the rich.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.14.18 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you are correct that Joe Klein is pretty much anti-union. His recent opinon piece The Shame of New York School Bus Drivers suggests as much. Please note, though, that a talk page is not meant for discussion of the subject of the article but for discussion of how to make the article itself as "encyclopedic" (accurate, informative, readable and neutral) as possible. On that note, Klein's views on unions may or may not merit a mention (with references) in the "Political views" section. But I am not familiar with his work and so don't know whether this particular stance of his is important enough to be included in the article. –Bwiki (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Klein is against unions 

message: This  doesn't list a Peter Kihss award being given in 1989, nor does it list Joe Klein among the recipients at any time.  Did he actually "lose" the award, as our article states?  If so, perhaps the article could explain further.  (Forgive my ignorance on the matter.)--Wikimedes (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "lost the Peter Kihss award" 

message: Klein was specifically addressing "Jewish neoconservatives" in his reliably published statements that generated the controversy which has become notable as demonstrated by his being questioned about his singling out of "Jewish neocons", and by other sources also specifically address the controversy, etc. There are numerous sources demonstrating notability, including quotes by Klein himself, Jeff Goldberg and Daniel Levy; i.e, ...the subject's beliefs... are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources</br>
I have now been called antisemitic and intellectually unstable and a whole bunch of other silly things by the folks over at the Commentary blog. They want Time Magazine to fire or silence me. This is happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society: There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who...Happily, these people represent a very small sliver of the Jewish population in this country...I remain proud of my Jewish heritage, a strong supporter of Israel and a realist about the slim chance of finding some common ground with the Iranians. But I am not willing to grant these ideologues the anonymity they seek. When Extremists Attack, Joe Klein, Time, July 29, 2008</br>
You may have missed it, but renowned Time columnist Joe Klein and the Jewish neoconservative blogosphere are at war with one another. On Joe Klein and the Jewish Neoconservatives, Huffington Post, May 25,2011</br>
"You seem very angry at people who you specifically identify as Jewish neocons. And you're using the word "Jewish" in ways that we haven't seen Jewish reporters and Jewish columnists use.”Joe Klein on Neoconservatives and Iran, Atlantic, July 29, 2008</br>
Joe Klein, a centrist columnist for Time magazine (and himself Jewish) wrote that the neocons pushed for the invasion 'to make the world safe for Israel'.  Israelpolitik, the Neocons and the Long Shadow of the Iraq War, Danny Poste, Huffington Post, February 2, 2015
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:33, 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is your obstructionist rhetoric and refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. Three editors disagree, explicitly with your "parsing" regarding the meaning of "Jewish" and "Jew" by both Klein and others, and others referring to Klein as Jewish in the above context means that his Jewishness is notable to the controversy.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Enough sources have been listed, but you refuse to recognize the obvious; furthermore, the Atlantic article links to the response from ADL's FoxmanWe were deeply troubled by your outrageous assertion on Time Magazine's "Swampland" blog that Jewish neoconservatives "plumped" for the war in Iraq and are now doing the same for "an even more foolish assault on Iran" with the goal of making the world "safe for Israel." ("Surge Protection," June 24)., which includes a link to Klein's response.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLPCAT notability, repeated from BLP/N[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=646040898#Time_column.2C_Swampland_quotes]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Joe Klein. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080113145536/http://books.guardian.co.uk:80/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,2239268,00.html to http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,2239268,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is not much about his later career in this section and a lot about controversies. How about more NPOV information on what he has been doing (such as who he has been working for, books he has published, etc.) and a separate section for controversies? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later career section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Klein. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119045506/http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609190548/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/books/news/12/06/foster.anonymous/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/books/news/12/06/foster.anonymous/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joe Klein. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804002455/http://www.adl.org/media_watch/internet/Joe_Klein_Response.htm to http://www.adl.org/media_watch/internet/Joe_Klein_Response.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified