Talk:Fred Barnes (journalist)

Out of Place?

The paragraph that begins saying, "Barnes claimed 'Republican-hating media ... trashed," seems out of place. Perhaps it would belong better in a description of the subject's political views or controversies? Coleca 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

NeoCon

Fred Barnes is a neoconservative, not a conservative - --HowardJ87 13:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The external links have been modified to correspond to this fact. Ericster08 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservative, not a conservative? I don't think anyone knows (or cares) what the difference is, if there is one. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between a conservative and a neo-con, of course, but I don't think Barnes is either one having played pickup basketball with him years ago (if accuracy matters in these articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversial?

Would anyone deny "that Muslims all over Europe and all over the world are certainly enemies of Western civilization"? There are Muslims all over Europe and all over the world that have stated as such explicitly. The only controversy I can see in this part of this statement is that "Muslims" could be taken as a block of people rather than a description of a few people, which is a matter of interpretation. Even Media Matters picked up on a different part of the discussion for criticism, so I don't think it really belongs there unless the criticism matches that of Media Matters. Calbaer 22:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism from conservatives re Hillary book

I could find no reference to any conservatives other than John Podhoretz criticizing the book and have removed the reference to a "stark contrast" and "much of the criticism from conservatives".

Considered West Point?

Do we really care that he "considered West Point"? He may have considered every Ivy League school, or every school, for that matter. If he didn't apply and wasn't accepted, why is it relevant?

Vandalized Photograph

The photograph of Barnes has been photoshopped. It, needless to say, needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.136.192 (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

What is wrong with a photoshopped picture? Is no picture better than a photoshopped picture? Was his head put on Charo's body or something? --68.118.201.68 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial statements" section

I changed this section to "Political positions" and removed some fluff... "(Neo)conservative" is not synonymous with "controversial". Nualran 03:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed line from Climate Change section

I removed the line saying that he ended the interview by saying we don't know whether or not global warming is caused by humans and that he prefers warmer weather. The first part was redundant. That fact was already established. And when he said that he prefers warmer weather, he was obviously just making a joke. Everybody recognizes the theoretical damage that global warming could cause. Little side jokes don't belong in wikipedia.Kgj08 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do we really need four paragraphs on this, including two verbatim responses to Morton Kondracke? Doesn't it suffice to say that he is skeptical about climate change in the first place, and particularly about the thesis that it is human-caused? As it stands now, the section seems to have an NPOV problem.Woden325 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Global Warming Theory still remains a theory. For the record though, it has not warmed up any since the year 2000.--68.118.201.68 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's probably true, considering that when one's head is as far up one's ass as yours is, the climate must seem relatively consistent from day to day. In the meantime, save your Koch Brothers talking points for Conservapedia.Hommedepommes (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Journalist?

How is this guy a journalist? Putting "(editor)" would also be generous, but far more accurate. I challenge anyone to cite something from Fred Barnes in the recent past (lets say 5-10 years) that would meet any standards of journalism. --Intentionally unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.18.130 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A talking head is not a journalist? Who says? A talking head is a sort of journalist. Fred Barnes both is a talking head and with Bill Chrystal publishes a magazine. Sounds like a journalist to me bro. --68.118.201.68 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Religion

Just curious. What is this guy's religion? Anyone know? 203.131.210.84 (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. I think it would be good to include a mention of that in the article, since he serves on the board of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.--Bhuck (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Found an answer and will include that in the article.--Bhuck (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)