Talk:Jim Gilchrist

message: Many people are going to find the "Controversy" part of the article a little hard to believe due to the fact that someone would have to be a little short of brain dead to want to knowingly hire or allow "racists" into any organization and expect to do well. It would not only create extreme image problems but also legal ones too. So, if anyone has SOLID evidence please present it because if this man's intentions have nothing to do with "racism" then he should not be accused of "racism" or being a "racist". - MP
::Racism and racists are not permanent labels.  Attitudes about race can change by the individual or by a group of individuals (for better or worse) and people who hold racist views can change them; once changed, are they still racists?  Does someone who recants their own racist behavior (especially after serving a debt to the public if incarceration was involved) deserve to be treated as a racist forever?  
::Regardless, the motivation of someone's actions is not the discussion being held on Wikipedia's personal biography pages in any form, whether he is or is not a racist.  If anything, the view of the people who criticise his work as racist may get listed, but it never means he actually is...  While one should be cautious not to be swept away by the media-fueled frenzy of immigrant rights in forming their opinions (which pro or con, media outlets are stirring up both sides of the issue in their pursuit of ratings and advertising dollars as well as the stated intent of "promoting public dialogue"), both detractors and supporters of Jim Gilchrist on Wikipedia need to demonstrate care in placing statements on the page that are either not sourced or purely subjective in nature, namely his viewpoints on race.  It's one thing for a pundit or media source to call him "racist", but an entirely different matter if he admits it on Television.  Even then, if it's a single recorded interview, it still wouldn't pass muster here.  (We know people will edit it anyway to reflect their views, and if it's intended as vandalism, it's easy enough to extricate.) 209.180.155.12 (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Questionable

message: I beleive the main page should show confirmable information regarding his service in Vietnam. I do not wish to question him more then anyone else. Trust is becoming evermore precious in these rescent political controvercies; radical lies and accusations made by most if not all of America's elected officials. Because of this we the people will only be able to hold such people accountable if we do our own homework and trust those who prove that they will not lie for political gain. Wikipedia has shown a great devotion to only post in their articles what they can confirm. Please let us have short biographies of these political candidates to include such things as what he did in vietnam, his rank, and how he received his purple heart.   -The Youngidealist
— I agree. Can someone post any source for his Vietnam service and details about his Purple Heart that do not come directly from Jim Gilchrist's personal statements? -Skeptic  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.102.48 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnam

message: The article linked on the Gilchrist political views section includes his support for sodomy laws but shows that he has some hesitation.  He does not openly advocate mandatory prison time, so I removed that part of the article.Jcmiller 04:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sodomy

message: Gilchrist is quoted on politics1.com as saying he's going to run for prez 'if' John McCain is the GOP nominee.  That's not an absolute.Jcmiller 04:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 Campaign

message: I added the controversy part because from what I've read there has been a lot of controversy surrounding some of his supporters. Someone deleted it with the justification that the minutemen are not a hate group. This does not claim that they are a hate group only that hate group members were drawn to Gilchrist because of his positions on immigration. 
Also, why would they delete the part about the volunteers form the stromfront.org. Please do not delete my valid contribution because you have a soft spot for a certain group or person. 
There is a more controversy but I do not have the time to research so if someone wants to take on that task, that would be great.
:Shouldn't the section you proposed go in the Minutemen article, not Gilchrist's article?  --Tim4christ17 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the only citation is to a POV source, and I can't find an NPOV source making this point, this portion is being removed. Zz414 15:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: I made a few edits about the minuteman project at CSULB. The organizer, Jason Aula, is the president of the Conservative Student Union. The page also mentioned that Aula and Gilchrist formed the CSULB Minutemen. 
Now this is where is gets tricky so please discuss this before making an edit - Jason claimed through different emails that his intent was to confront African American students about illegal immigration. Aula addressed and referred to Latino organizations such as La Raza "the brown kkk and the clan with a tan", while inferring opposition to Latino Student organizations in these emails. I and many other students have copies of these emails, and would not mind posting them to a web page for citation. Aula's intention to create opposition between Latinos and African Americans is also evident with his claims to use Ted Hayes and Jim Gilcrist for a second debate at CSULB. Ted Hayes is well known for his appeal to African Americans for opposition to illegal immigration, while Aula has often focused Latino terrorist groups La Raza and Mecha. If needed, I can cite postings and profile of Aula on this discussion page to support this claim.
I stand by everything I mentioned here. Gilchrist and Hayes were intended to create a wedge between Blacks and Latinos at CSULB, through external funding.  There is quite a bit of evidence to support this claim, yet little evidence to show that an organic student organization exists on campus to join and support Gilchrist.
On another note - it may be worth adding that Gilchrist wore a bullet-proof vest over his clothes during the debate and will likely return to CSULB with Ted Hayes.  
After some discussion about the section - there seems to be no mention of the violent confrontation at Columbia University. Wouldn't this be more important than a speech that nobody listened to? All but a few students left the auditorium when Gilchrist showed up. It was more of a media event than a debate. The original wording of the CSULB section may be some form of propaganda with some hint of objectivity. Maybe it needs to be deleted. If not, the Columbia incident should be included by someone with more detailed information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicKuz (talk • contribs) 18:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CSULB

message: In the past month some IPs have added a large amount of unsourced material. Since the material concerns living people, I've removed. Please don't restore or add anything that isn't verifiable.    Will Beback  talk   06:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that all the postings (the alleged unsourced material) were correct.  The Orange County Superior Court of California ruled as expected on each and every issue.  But Wikipedia would rather persist in its rules than have insightful discussion of what is happening and why.  Continue to stick your head in the sand.  I couldn't care less.  It goes to show, your content is irrelevant 70.181.113.198 (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The material was actually unsourced, not just allegedly unsourced. Wikipedia has a strict rule about making unsourced contentious assertions about living people. It's a rule that protects Jim Gilchrist and Barbara Coe equally.   Will Beback  talk   06:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Libellous material should be deleted immediately. Please specify which material you think is libellous, and why. Court documents are considered "primary sources". See WP:PSTS. We avoid using primary sources except in very limited circumstances. Secondary sources, like newspapers and magazines, should be the main basis for writing articles, with primary sources just used for illustrative quotes or minor details. I've listed the relevent policies on your talk page, and I'll unlock the page as soon as you've said you've read and understand them.   Will Beback  talk   21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The minutes of meetings and court records are not suitable sources.   Will Beback  talk   08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Dictatorial? ;) I'm just trying to help this article adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All articles should be based mainly on secondary sources, namely books, magazines and newspapers. That's covered in WP:PSTS. This case appears to have been covered best by the OC Register. Now that it's over we should probably just summarize it in a section and skip the blow-by-blow courtroom details.   Will Beback  talk   21:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Will Beback, he's being objective about the changes.  You're missing the point: court proceedings are interpretations of law and facts, and only show the decisions made by the judge and jury.  Legal opinion is NOT necessarily truth; what a judge/jury believe to have happened by reason and evidence still may not reflect the truth of what actually happened, only what a "reasonable person" believes to have happened.  Beliving something happened doesn't mean it necessarily has.  It's in the link before the "Save Page" button: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.  There's only one version of a legal document, but many versions of magazine articles, TV reports, posts from reputable publishers, journals, academic essays, witness statements, etc.  When they all say the same thing each time, then you've got verifiable sources.  It's not the idea that the US Courts are less trustworthy than the media, but rather plurality is key: the more it's published by reputable sources, the more truth there is to the statement made.  There is no such thing as one source = absolute truth on here.  Ever.  209.180.155.12 (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting unsourced material

message: Many of the OC Register links are dead. They should be replaced with working links (perhaps to the Internet Archive) or deleted.   Will Beback  talk   08:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: *A partial injunction was issued by California Superior Court Judge Randell Wilkinson preventing the three board members from using Minuteman Project stationary preprinted with Jim Gilchrist's signature on it and spending any of the organizations funds, and also preventing Gilchrist from acting as the sole director. The judge said that there were "serious issues concerning the credibility of the claims of both Jim Gilchrist and the defendants."
**OC Register article, title= "Gilchrist Denied Control", |date= 22 March 2007 ">{{cite news |url= http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article-1628579.php |quote=
An editor added this citation last month, but perhaps didn't read the article or even look at its title, "Gilchrist Denied Control". Here's the first line of that article, and another sentence related to Gilchrist's control of the group: 
*A Superior Court judge on Thursday rejected Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist's request to be immediately returned sole control of the anti-illegal immigration group - a ruling that leaves the organization immobilized. [..] Wilkinson also called for an April 25 hearing, at which Gilchrist will have to convince the judge that the Minuteman Project should not be handed over to a third-party receivership until a trial is completed.
It'd be best to find a source which gives the outcome of the case. I was just following the provided source.   Will Beback  talk   07:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Control of Minuteman Project decided by California Court

message: I would like to help improve this page for a project in my U.S. Immigration Policy class. If anyone is actively watching this page and has any input as to what I could add please let me know. I will be adding summary and analysis of Mr. Gilchrist's book and will also be open to any suggestions that you have. I would like to remove the Campaign section, because the content is addressed in the 2005 section. Please let me know soon if you have any suggestions. -KB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristbarr (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a non-photoshopped image of him for starters?  This is an encyclopedic entry, not a puff-piece. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for Input

message: The first couple of sections are alright. The problems start with the section which discusses the book and to some extent with the "Criticism" section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov tag 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Gilchrist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513022141/http://www.minutemanproject.com/organization/about_us.asp to http://www.minutemanproject.com/organization/about_us.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011041501/http://jimgilchrist.com/blog/?page_id=3 to http://jimgilchrist.com/blog/?page_id=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Gilchrist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203002434/http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1078958.php to http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1078958.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified