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 Palestinians 7 Krauthammer and Religion 8 Mass Reformatting Edits 9 Fukuyama 10 From liberal to conserative 11 Krauthammer and the Irish Times 12 "American citizen BUT a zealous supporter of Israel"? 13 Protecting Brendan Nyhan 14 Place of Birth 15 The Accident 16 POV tag, February 2007 17 Copyright Issue 18 Anonymous Editor Log 18.1 Main Page Log 18.2 Comments 19 References

[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] 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 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)

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

I followed the link to the article from USA TODAY about "many" pro empire advocates were actually born abroad ^[1]. There it says Mr Krauthammer was born in Uruguay. Is this incorrect or is the current article?" [contributor not identified]

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)

I checked this page after a few months, and sure enough someone removed my edit about him being born in Uruguay, and reverted it to NYC without citing any reference whatsoever. Don't do this unless you have a source, people. Place of birth is about as unspinnable a fact as you can get. Aschoeff 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I also found a column he wrote where he states his parents were French citizens, and I just added that.

Why did you send me a stupid, insulting message to me about this? I have nothing to do with this place-of-birth controversy, and I certainly didn't revert your edit. — J M Rice 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one using epithets like "stupid." And unless someone else is using your account, yes you did make the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Krauthammer&oldid=95741673 Aschoeff 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"I'm the one?" Are you all right? The edit I made was over a month ago, and there have been plenty of edits since then. The edits I made have nothing to do with reverting Uruguay to NYC. I still have no idea of what you are talking about — J M Rice 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The subsequent edit that was not done by you did indeed change his place of birth from Uruguay to New York, but your immediately previous edit removed the REFERENCE. Without the reference, claiming Krauthammer was born in Uruguay is indeed specious, so it's totally understandable some unnamed person reverted it. So yes, indeed, Rice you did do this, whether it was just sloppy editing or no, you need to be more careful. And I need to not assume you had any motive behind this. I apologize for assuming you had an agenda. Aschoeff 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My last word on this subject is that I do not think you should be an editor for wikipedia. If you don't understand that any statement offered up as fact needs to be referenced, especially if that statement is a point of contention, then you lack the expertise to responsibly and fairly analyze and edit other people's work. Whether that statement is about a place of birth or not is utterly irrelevant. Good luck to you, and if you respond I'll give you the last word. Aschoeff 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just emailed Jeet directly and asked for some clarification about sources. Uruguay seems a tall claim if Jeet can't provide evidence. I guess we wait and see if I get a reply. Aschoeff 08:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the following initial response from Jeet:

"Hi -- My source for that was Peter Brimelow, who I interviewed for my article. I also think there was some print source as well that my editor at the Boston Globe found. But I just did a quick google search and can't find anything else. I'll check with Brimelow again. It could be that he conflated the fact that Krauthammer lived in Uruguay in the 1950s with the fact that their son was born there. I'll let you know if I come up with something. If not, I'll correct the article on my website. Best, Jeet" Aschoeff 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good News! I (finally!) found CK's biography page at the Washington Post Writers Group (WPWG), which says flat out "Krauthammer was born in New York City and raised in Montreal."
(I'm going to be lazy and wait to see if Jeet Heer and/or Peter Brimelow come up with anything before editing this into the article.) Cheers, CWC(talk)

Here is Jeet's subsequent response:

"I've tried to contact Brimelow to see if he can confirm the Uruguay story but he hasn't returned my e-mail and calls. Like I said, I'm pretty sure there was a second source beyond Brimelow and I'm doing a search for that -- but unless I come through with that or hear from Brimelow, then we have to go with Krauthammer's say-so. But I'll do more of a search and hound Brimelow a bit more. Best, Jeet "

I'd say this largely invalidates that whole entire article unless Jeet ever finds anything, so any other wiki using this article as a reference should be moved to a discussion page as it is here. The WPWG link CWC found isn't the best at all, as it's not an independent source in my opinion. Moreover, the wording of the paragraph regarding his birth has been eerily like the one in that link (check it out, look at previous revisions), so I'm wondering if the original text was taken from there, or vice-versa. As such, I think we can't use this link because it appears to be a circular reference. Where did the original information come from? I think we should continue to omit his place of birth, given the controversy, or else we need to include it in such a way as to make clear that it has been a point of contention, and that being born in NYC is based on CK's word entirely. Any way you do that is going to be clunky, so I still opine we should omit it entirely from the main page. That there is a high degree of ambivalence is relevant, but that's what the discussion page here is for. Aschoeff 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WPWG Bio: I just called the 800 number listed at the bottom of CK's bio page on the WPWG site, and talked to the woman who answered the phone. I didn't ask her name. She told me that Charles Krauthammer gave them that bio directly, and that they never checked it in any way. It should be clearly noted that therefore it is only CK's word, and has not undergone any kind of fact-checking or editing, unlike his editorials have for JWR that we are using to cite his parents as being French citizens. Moreover, CK didn't have to sign something saying his bio was accurate, like you have to as a journalist for any article you publish, which really makes this a poor citation. Based on this, I am of the opinion we should continue to omit his place of birth. I think it's interesting that we now know that CK's personally written bio bears some eerie resemblance to parts of the wiki here. I wonder how that evolved. Aschoeff 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A person's word about her place of birth is a sufficient source to establish verifiability. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, here again you are drawing conclusions with no citations of any kind. Biographies of Living Persons have their very own, very clear policies about verifiability. See specifically Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons and then apply all the tests therein to the known sources we have for CK's bio, and you will see that none meet the bar. See my talk page for more discussion of this, and I can go into detail about my reasoning if you need me to. Aschoeff 06:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Accident

I have not posted this material into the article because I cannot confirm it through refence sources I have available to me. I think the article might say more about K's "accident". As I recall (I lived in Boston at the time), K dived into the deep end of a swimming pool, I believe at the Holiday Inn on Blossom Street, near Mass. General Hospital. The builders had modified the pool design to permit an additional room to be built under the pool. As a result, the deep end was only about 6 feet deep. Apparently, they left in place a diving board intended for a 12 foot depth. It was reported that K was an experinced diver. When he jumped into the pool (apparently without looking, or at least not seeing) he hit his head on the bottom and broke his spine, resulting in severe paraplegia, though considerably short of Christopher Reeve's riding accident. ldmjr@comcast.net, 24 November 2006.

[edit] POV tag, February 2007

User 129.100.157.150 (talk • contribs) recently added a {{POV}} tag to the article, with the edit summary: As evidenced by the edit debate, some editors do not wish to reveal frequent criticisms or polarizing nature of CK I presume that this relates to an anon editor's desire to include the following text in the lede paragraph:

a story at CBS News ^[2] regarded him as "very possibly the worst journalist working in America today".

What do other editors think about this POV tag, and this attack on Dr Krauthammer? CWC(talk) 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that one can't compare a factual citation, like receiving an award from Financial Times magazine, with an editorial one, as in a single reporter/pundit using an obviously meaningless superlative like "worst journalist working today." The latter is a single-person editorial, and as such could go in a different section discussing what talking heads say, but definitely not where it was. More generally, because even basic facts about CK are in dispute, with people (myself included) crying ulterior motive or bias, I think that the POV tag is a given. Aschoeff 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Issue

I mentioned above that I found CK's bio at the Washington Post Writers Group: ^[3]. As user:Aschoeff has pointed out, our article has some similarities to that bio. At least one edit seems to have used text from that bio. So we may have a copyright violation. OTOH, maybe the way we've used the bio falls within fair use. I wouldn't know (IANAL), so I've asked for help at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.

BTW, I found another bio of CK here. It greatly resembles the WPWG bio ...

Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly a pertinent question that needs answering, but the answer will be trumped by the discussion of these sources passing the posted reliability standards, as is taking place above in the Place-of-Birth section, and also on my talk page. If these sources aren't reliable we can't use them as a basis let alone for anything specific. Aschoeff 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous Editor Log

[edit] Main Page Log

This list is given in Most-Recent-First order. Locations are taken from Geotool.

• 2007-02-15: 70.17.97.61 resolves to pool-70-17-97-61.res.east.verizon.net
  Location is Washington, DC.
• 2007-02-06: 129.100.157.150 resolves to dyn129-100-157-150.wireless.uwo.ca
  Location is London, Ontario, CANADA
• 2007-02-05: 74.112.160.12 resolves to CPE00132024599b-CM0011e67a4187.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com
  Location is CANADA
• 2007-02-05: 66.28.71.162 resolves to NONE.
  Location is Chicago, IL
• 2007-02-04: 151.200.23.188 resolves to pool-151-200-23-188.res.east.verizon.net
  Location is Washington, DC
• 2007-02-04: 70.49.160.165 resolves to bas1-toronto01-1177657509.dsl.bell.ca
  Location is Toronto, CANADA
• 2007-02-03: 68.0.255.177 resolves to ip68-0-255-177.ri.ri.cox.net
  Location is Cranston, RI
• 2007-01-29: 129.100.158.254 resolves to dyn129-100-158-254.wireless.uwo.ca
  Location is London, Ontario, CANADA

[edit] Comments

I started this log because of this anonymous edit to the main page, and this slightly older anonymous edit. The first anonymous editor at 70.17.97.61 added some good referenced information regarding CK's career as a psychiatrist, but at the same time deleted an embarrassing quote about the Iraq War for no reason which I restored. The second anonymous editor at 151.200.23.188 smeared me by anonymously calling me an antisemite over the birthplace dispute, which I am still pissed off and majorly offended about. Using Geotool I noticed that these users are on the same network (Verizon) in the same geographic location (Washington, DC). Looking at the log, the probability that these two are from the same or related entity is considerable.

As we go forward this log can help neutralize any unethical exploitations of anonymity. Aschoeff 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References