Talk:James Kirchick

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Journalism Unassessed

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Homosexual

James Kirchick is homosexual and Jewish by his own admission. This hardly constitutes vandalism as I provided a reliable source(his own words: http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31319.html). Whoever reverted the edit, just thinks that somehow this is negative. Well, if you view being Jewish and homosexual as a bad thing then that is your own bigotry.

It may not be vandalism, but it's irrelevant. If that's not the case, why not list the religion and sexual preference of every person with a Wikipedia biography? Wespomeroy (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

It would be nice to have references in addition to the Yale newspaper. Please see if you can expand and add other credible references. Thanks! A little mollusk (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Opening Part

I changed it back to reflect his first coming to national attention after the academic free speech controversy. It was his first national appearance, and while not as flattering as the Ron Paul reportage, should be mentioned. The Ron Paul reportage has been moved to where the article discusses his criticism of contemporary Libertarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.17.250 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

readding cat

was moved with wrong summary, it was not a unsourced link.

The category was sourced at http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31319.html as mentioned before, he self-identifies as jewish.Mightyerick (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reverting to remove bias

I reverted back to the version that balances Kirchick's Ron Paul articles by citing others writers who challenge the voracity of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlong19 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used a source that is not reliable. As per Wikipedia's Policy on biographies of living persons, all claims must be sourced. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirchick Integrity

The article seems to pat James Kirchick on the back because he "exposed racist and conspiratorial newsletters published by Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a story that gained new prominence in the 2012 presidential election.

An investigative report by "Reality Check," which can be found here, calls into question Mr. Kirchick's journalistic integrity, specifically the validity of his "exposé." It appears that he intentionally left out the page containing the name of the freelance writer who, it seems, authored all of the racist and bigoted newsletters published under Ron Paul's name.

This new information should find its way into the article. Otherwise, that section of the article can always be deleted, and we could avoid the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermaner (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did random videos on YouTube become reliable sources? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just classify every video that don't like as "random." From Merriam-Webster: "lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern." No, definitely not random. This story is found on FOX19 (link). Reality check is an investigative report by Ben Swann of FOX19.

Besides, the language of the segment of the article that I deleted was clearly biased, even if one were to ignore this information. In the future, please do some research before removing other people's edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermaner (talk • contribs) 10:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The video was uploaded by someone named "matlarson10", who has no evidence that they are the copyright holder of the video. And in fact, their YouTube homepage shows their pro-Ron Paul bias. You are currently edit warring on this matter, you might want to go to dispute resolution. Note that I did not revert you, two other editors have done so. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul info

Writerkid, the thing with the Ron Paul info is that we're not going to just remove it. It was reported on in a number of publications and Kirchick was specifically discussed. What we will do is balance the information so that it neutrally reports on it. However, a primary source like a copy of the newsletter cannot turn over a secondary source like the news reports, not to mention that you can't use it to prove a negative. Silverseren^C 02:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every assertion in the last three sentences of the profile is either false or misleading. Fox19 never "revealed" that "Ron Paul was not involved with the newsletters." On the contrary, in 1987 and in 1995 Paul spoke openly about his involvement in the newsletters. There is also no evidence whatsoever that James B. Powell "authored all of the racist and bigoted newsletters published under Ron Paul's name." The most notorious newsletter, the 1992 "Special Report on Racial Terrorism," appeared in 1993 as a monograph entitled "Race Terrorism in America "http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/RTA.pdf). Nor did Kirchick ever "intentionally [leave] out the page containing the name of" James B. Powell; it was posted in 2008 here. Kirchick did respond to Fox19's queries. And it was never "later found that the author [of the "Special Report on Racial Terrorism"] was Jacob B. Powell," (clearly, a sloppy mistake on the part of the editor; the supposed "freelance writer" in question is a James B. Powell, not "Jacob"), nor that the newsletters "were published without Ron Paul's knowledge." Paul may claim that now, but he defended the newsletters in 1996, and repeatedly spoke about them on video. Writerkid08 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that info now, thanks for the links. See, all you had to do was discuss this. I'm not going to remove the Fox19 info, we don't do that, but I will add this other, contrasting info. Silverseren^C 21:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There, better? Silverseren^C 21:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, new to Wikipedia editing. The section still contains false information. Fox 19 never claimed that the "Special Edition on Racial Terrorism", had "a byline attached for one of the writers." The newsletter did not have a byline, though was written in the first person so as to give the impression that Paul was the author. And as I noted above, the "Special Edition on Racial Terrorism" was later released as a monograph with Paul's byline. It is also unclear what you mean by "during the 15 months that the 9 newsletters in question had been published," there is no context for this. Writerkid08 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the article says,

"I found, when researching this story that back in 1997 the original author of The New Republic article, James Kirchick, explained that most of the newsletters had no byline. Specifically, none of those racist newsletters had a byline, says Kirchick, except for one. One newsletter that contained the byline of someone else, not Congressman Paul. But Kirchick fails to disclose two very important things: who's name was in that byline, and which article they wrote. He only states that the mystery writer wrote "One special edition" of the Ron Paul Report. The only special edition I can find is the 1992 article, "A Special Report on Racial Terrorism." Why is that important? Because this edition of the newsletter that is most often quoted to prove racism. So does that mean the most racist evidence in these newsletters actually has someone else's name on it? I don't know, but I'd like to find out."

So, the writer does clearly claim that it has to be that Special Report that has the byline on it. Whether he's right or not, that's what he's claiming. Silverseren^C 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]