This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This just might be the most absurd sentence ever written in the English language. Can someone change or remove it because I'm too stoned and drunk to do so? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.134.204 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy
Someone needs to explain properly why they devoted a relatively large section of the Krulwich article to a very minor incident occurring quite recently in his long and prolific career in broadcast journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.113.203 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah especially given the fact that the reason he was “angry” in tone was because of Yang’s refusal to acknowledge that in retrospect it seems quite unlikely that the “Yellow Rain” was actually a chemical weapon, and that that question was really important given the geopolitical ramifications of the claim that chemical weapons were being used in armed conflict. This doesn’t justify “anger” at—-questions of chemical weaponry aside——a representative for a group of people who are without-question victims of a horrible genocide and crime against humanity, but I personally felt like the episode did a good job making sure that was understood and discussed thoroughly.
I don’t write this to relitigate the issue, I only put it there to make clear there is a valid counterpoint to this supposed “controversy” and I don’t know that anyone other than Dr Yeng himself felt Krulwich really did anything wrong. I think Krulwich apologized out an abundance of caution, given everything Yeng has been through, but the way the section is written doesn’t convey that at all. The fact is that Yeng made and is still making claims that one of the world’s two superpowers had begun deploying novel chemical weaponry, when all evidence now suggests it actually hadn’t, and that had serious real world consequences on the direction of weapons proliferation during the Cold War. That is all Krulwich said in the episode. 76.174.113.253 (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
