Talk:Ronald Kessler

message: I am adding the autobiography tag since the subject appears to have edited the article extensively. TheslB (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also added the unreferenced tag since no sources are provided for the article. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, particularly due to the problem of conflict of interest, and I am tempted to put this one up for deletion. TheslB (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a prod from it--we do not delete notable people because of COI--rather, we edit the article and make sure there are adequate sources. DGG (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the article lacks sources, notability is not established. In response to what you left on my talk page, we do not tell other editors to look for sources in order to remove material that is not properly referenced. This article has the makings of a press release, a vanity page, and the primary author of it has deleted similar concerns from this talk page already. Being that the article owes its existence to the author asking for it to be created from the content at his personal website, it really should not be here on Wikipedia.  We discourage editors who have a conflict of interest from editing for a good reason. It looks bad--really bad, even when unconfirmed.  Encouraging the retention of articles created and maintained with a COI undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. TheslB (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The following guidelines may be helpful to you Ronald: WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Good luck, 150.203.23.148 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message on user KesslerRonald's talk page to read those guidelines (also included a formal warning that he not remove any more comments from this talk page).  TheslB (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autobiography 

message: This article makes the news:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.69.2 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think two of the sections under Controversies should probably go anyway.  The critical opinions of two commentators on minor websites don't really merit the weight they've been given, or at least not until they are suitably balanced with opinion from the other side. They certainly don't deserve equal weighting with the Obama section.  I only reverted them because they, at least, were cited (which is more than can be said for the rest of the article) and their removal was not summarised with a valid reason.   --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It's notable that he made up a falsehood, which made it into a national news report and circulated as a fact, was debunked, leading to corrections being issued, and then he personally tried to erase the incident from his own entry at wikipedia?  This isn't opinion, it's just the facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: We should really solve this "controversies" dispute here in order to avoid an edit war. Joshdboz (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "The day the Kristol column ran, Kessler deleted the Wikipedia entries detailing his part in the controversy. [1] [2]"...shouldn't those be references and not simply links? Kingturtle (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Scrubbing

message: I believe that devoting a third of the article to a minor recent episode in  career of a journalist who has won 2 polk awards, written 15 books etc is both undue and a symptom of recentism. But rather than deleting the cited content about the controversy I think the solution is to flesh out the rest of his biography/career so thata broader picture merges. Does anyone object if I add details of his journalism, writings, awards etc ? Of course, any help in the effort will be appreciated.
FYI, I have absolutely no COI in the matter; in fact I will have to look up sources before I can add any information on Kessler. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both valid concerns. I support this and will try to help. As this article is getting some attention because of the controversy, it would be nice if strangers came to Wikipedia and found an accurate, comprehensive, well-sourced and neutral article. I also have no COI, just heard of him for the first time myself. Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I've argued strongly for the reliability of the TPM reference on 'scrubbing'. However, the incident itself should not be included here. The relevant guideline is to Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references unless Wikipedia is notable in the overall context of the article, which is not the case here. The general 'controversy' section definitely stays though. That was a weak-ass 'clarification' given that the 'reporter' did not even log basic facts like time/date. 59.167.36.94 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I was unconvinced at first, but would now suggest that the Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references policy allows for this.  The discussed event was done by the article subject, and relates to an article in Wikipedia about the subject.  There was perhaps a couple of issues with the tone and self-reference of "this article", but I hope my edit addresses these.  The only issue I can see outstanding is the notability of the event and that of the reference, which I'll leave to others to judge.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UNDUE| Undue]] and [[WP:Recentism|recentism]] issues and a proposed solution 

message: From a post-election perspective, the Controversy section seems to detailed as to the context of the campaign, especially about Kristol and the sequence of events, and seems like a textbook case of recentism. I propose cutting it down to the following:
:==Controversy==
:In an article for Newsmax, on March 16, 2008, Kessler incorrectly reported, based on a previous Newsmax story by a freelance writer, that Senator Barack Obama attended a service at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ on July 22, 2007, during which Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave a sermon that blamed world suffering on "white arrogance." The Obama campaign denied that Obama had attended the church on the day that sermon was delivered and other reporters discovered that Obama was in fact in transit to Miami, Florida on that day. Newsmax posted a "clarification" while standing by the story, suggesting that perhaps the sermon occurred on a different day in July. Shortly after the controversy broke, Kessler attempted to remove information documenting it from his Wikipedia biography.
I'm also conflicted about the inclusion of Kessler's Wikipedia editing. Yes, it's verified and I agree TPM is a reliable source, but is it necessarily important in a bio of this length? I'm sure there's a policy answer to this, but it's not coming to me (perhaps also WP:RECENT?). I also think the section should have a more descriptive name, but I can't think of one either just now. If nobody objects, I will abbreviate this section to the copy as above later in the week. WWB (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited to include the above section as noted. Left the Wikipedia editing in and have no plans to remove it, but as previously stated, it seems a rather recent-ish and Wikipedia-centric thing to include. Would be interested to hear others' thoughts. WWB (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Reads like his publicist wrote the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.169.92 (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraordinarily non-critical 

message: Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so I believe the tag can be removed. I appreciate your help and understanding. Ronald Kessler[KesslerRonald]--KesslerRonald (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  I am going to decline to remove the tags at the top. Looking at the article's history you have contributed lots of edits to this article. Furthermore, the article still relies too much on primary sources such as biographies on the Newsmax website (which employed Kessler) and his own editorials. These need to be removed more significantly reduced before I would consider removing the tags. You are welcome to propose such edits below using Template:Request edit. If you have any questions, please post on the help desk. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and removed the tags per the edits pointed out in this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done  PK650 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi it seems pk650 has already done this. I closed the edit request tag, If you have anything else please feel free to open a new one by clicking "New Section at the top of the page and starting the body text with .  Already done  Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: In response to the recent additions, I have never written a piece promoting a conspiracy theory, a claim that comes from Media Matters for America as a source. Quite the opposite, I wrote the Newsmax story below headlined, "Obama Was Born in the United States," rebutting the conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in the U.S.
https://www.newsmax.com/ronaldkessler/obama-birth/2008/12/08/id/326987/
In fact, Lloyd Grove, a highly respected journalist who is known as a liberal, said on The Daily Beast, which is left-leaning, "Ron Kessler...has enjoyed a reputation for solid reporting over the past four decades," a quote which was previously deleted from my Wikipedia article. https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-makes-ronald-kessler-donald-trumps-no-1-cheerleader
In addition, Michael Isikoff, another highly respected journalist who is known as a liberal, said, "[Kessler has] done groundbreaking work over the years, [resulting in] major scoops."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/from-washington-post-reporter-to-trump-cheerleader
Since when is Media Matters for America a credible source on journalism? Per below from Wikipedia, Wikipedia identifies Media Matters as a "left-wing organization." From Wikipedia: on using Media Matters as a source: "Extremely partisan sources, such as the progressive Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and the conservative Media Research Center, Newsmax, World Net Daily and Newsbusters, are of limited utility at Wikipedia. These should never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace, due to their poor history of fact-checking and their practice of editing out of context, spin-doctoring, selective presentation of the facts, and general partisan mendacity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Hyperpartisan_Sources_1
Any additions citing Media Matters as a source should therefore be deleted.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
As for Trump, after the Jan. 6 insurrection, I parted ways with the former president, saying on Fox News that the Russians "very possibly" penetrated Mar-a-Lago to obtain Trump's top secret documents and explaining how damaging it was to our national security for Trump to have squirreled them away at Mar-a-Lago.
Per below, I said on Fox News, "So, we're talking about incredibly valuable secrets that the Russians, of course, would have been after. The Russians would have been trying to penetrate Mar-a-Lago day and night and very possibly did recruit spies to obtain these documents."
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-guest-russians-very-possibly-did-recruit-spies-to-infiltrate-mar-a-lago-to-find-classified-documents/
The reference to Trump under Personal Life should be deleted since that is no longer true and I have denounced him on Fox News.KesslerRonald (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections to recent edits 

message: Personal life--Kessler is married and has two children.[2][53] He met Donald Trump while writing his book about Palm Beach and has since said he considers him a personal friend, leading other to call him Trumps "No. 1 Cheerleader".[54] ''ADDITION: However, Kessler subsequently denounced Trump on Fox News over his stash of top secret documents at Mar-a-Lago.' https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-host-quickly-comes-100945491.htmlKesslerRonald (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition out of fairness