Talk:Charles Krauthammer

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: A bunch of sentences in the article that have been tagged as unsourced. I have tagged the article accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I undid your edit about "removing inaccurate, blatantly POV nonsense about krauthammer having advocated for torture" and added a direct quote from an Op Ed Mr Krauthammer wrote.  2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged article--needs more citations 

message: Having previously pushed back against the use of the word "torture" to describe Krauthammer's views, I am correcting myself now that I have reviewed his 2009 article on the subject. Accordingly, I have added the following material, which provides a clear and balanced summary of his view on the subject:
:In 2009, Krauthammer argued that the use of torture against enemy combatants was impermissible except in two contexts: (a) when "[an] innocent's life is at stake," "[the] bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life, [and he] refuses to divulge"; and (b) wen torture may lead to "the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives".http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043003108.html"Charles Krauthammer." Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2014. Biography In Context.   Accessed 22 June 2018.
I have placed this sentence in the appropriate section, which is the section on 9-11 and the War on Terror. I also removed the reference to this issue from the lede. Unless I'm missing something, this issue wasn't even mentioned in the body of the article until I made my edit just now. If it's not in the body of the article anywhere, it obviously isn't lede-worthy. Furthermore, simply stating that Krauthammer supports torture and dropping a footnote is unacceptable. It doesn't summarize the source accurately, it is misleading, and it comes across as a POV potshot. SunCrow (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good with me, I had an issue with using a euphemism in the lede "enhanced interrogation techniques" when the topic is really "torture". I disagree that it is misleading or comes across as a POV potshot, since he said it in no uncertain terms, but the article is fine either way. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104. It is good that we agree on the content and the placement of the content. And I hear you about the euphemism. I still think it is misleading to simply say someone supports torture when he has said that he opposes torture in all but two rather extreme circumstances. I would respectfully invite you to consider being more specific next time. Thank you for adding the link to Krauthammer's article, which allowed me to understand his position more clearly. I erred earlier by not taking the time to look into the issue further before firing away and calling the torture information "inaccurate, blatantly POV nonsense." My bad. SunCrow (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No apology needed. We agree on both content and intent. Thank you for being a consensus builder. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torture issue 

message: I think there are several pictures of Krauthammer that better capture his aesthetic. The current primary photo is blurry and does not bring to mind Krauthammer as he looked prior to his passing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.101.123.90 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Photo