Talk:Kurt Eichenwald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

I don't think there is evidence that he is writing it himself. While there are all sorts of accusations being directed at him, no one has said he's a bad writer, and the submissions were fairly mediocre. Even if they stem from Dallas, it seems more likely that someone who knows him is trying to be protective towards someone who's now in trouble.

Contents

[edit] ... who's writing this?

This entry is getting some serious editing recently. What's going on, and ... why is a former reporter of the NYtimes suddenly have a magnum opus entry? I'm all about complete and accurate entries... but sometimes we gotta realize that not everything deserves an extensive entry... my opinion though 198.45.19.38 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears he may be writing this himself. http://gawker.com/news/internet-mysteries/is-kurt-eichenwald-writing-his-own-wikipedia-page-275394.php

Whoever's writing it has certainly written too much. Anyone want to go ahead and cut it down by, I don't know, about 80%? (ouijum)

This is hilarious. The article has been completely rewritten into The Glorious Life of The Magnificant Hero Kurt Eichenwald, and all negative information has been removed. This was likely done by Eichenwald himself, given the amount of unsourced information stated as fact which only Eichenwald would be in a position to know one way or another.

This is particularly embarrassing for Wikipedia, given that it was just disclosed that Eichenwald gave Justin Berry a lot more than $2,000, using a Paypal account under an assumed name to conceal the source of the financial transactions.

Eichenwald will be lucky to avoid prison at this point, and it's inappropriate to permit him to use Wikipedia for grandiose self-promotion. I'd recommend reverting this piece of self-promoting advertising to its state a few months ago, and starting from there. Hermitian 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP issues

I have removed a lot of the material in this article. There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, it was badly sourced. Second of all, it was disproportionate, and was using the article as a WP:COATRACK for a recitation of the Justin Berry story, which was already scrubbed out of Justin Berry for BLP issues. Third of all, the article was excessively based on intensively close criticism of the subject, which, given that it was mostly poorly sourecd or unsourced, was unacceptable. I have replaced the sections with a stub on the Justin Berry story. I encourage people to expand it carefully, using sources, and with deference to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Phil Sandifer 19:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not all that familiar with the application of BLP here. Is there any reason I can't source articles like this one [1] to include some information on Berry's alleged journalistic misconduct, etc? I think that's relevant to the article. S. Ugarte 05:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that looks like an excellent, appropriately-lengthed summary of the issue, sourced to a reliable source. Phil Sandifer 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion on this article is but one of many, Phil. I look at it and marvel at its ability to avoid actual, factual issues about Eichenwald's personal and journalistic ethics. A dozen sources could be consulted and incorporated. However, what we have is a bare-bones telling of the story without context or depth; In all, it's a disservice to the reader. Also, it's at least disingenuous for you to cite the BLP removal at Justin Berry in support of your actions here without disclosing that you were the one who made the removal there or that your removal of sourced content from that article is so controversial as to already have been reverted once by another administrator. It's fine that you believe in your actions, but don't leave out half the truth about what transpired there in order to bolster your case here. --Ssbohio 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newly Unsealed Court Documents Show Eichenwald was Administrator on Berry's Porn Site

Court Documents unsealed September 13th in Nashville reveal a number of interesting new facets about this story. Some of the more interesting: Eichenwald was an administrator on Berry's porn site, under the nickname Roy Rogers. Eichenwald paid Berry $1,184 for photographs, complained about the lighting, and asked about the "really good ones." Eichenwald has now retained a criminal defense attorney.

The story was just reported at Counterpunch and will no doubt be picked up by other media in the days to come. Hermitian 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

His screen name was Roy Rogers? Does Dale know? Okay, that's lame, but somebody had to ask it. --Christofurio 21:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Turns out, nope - no other major media picked this up. Oh well. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And what of it? A source is a source (of course, of course). The facts, as reliably reported, belong in this article as much as any other relevant facts about Kurt Eichenwald. --Ssbohio 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
And those sources are not sufficiently reliable for an accusation that amounts to "Eichenwald is a pedophile." Phil Sandifer 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that buying photos from an 18-year-old pornographer constitutes pedophilia. Further, the allegation is only that he made the purchases, not what his purpose for making them would be. It could all be research for his story. And what's unrelaible about the article? The author is reputable and the publication is notable & well-regarded. Your "OMG! They're political!" argument at Talk:Justin Berry doesn't bear on the question of a source's reliability. --Ssbohio 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy New Piece on Kurt's Problems

Quite a bit of information and lots of direct quotes that could be mined for our article.

Kurt Article in New York Magazine

Enrico Dirac 05:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)