Talk:Kurt Eichenwald/Archive 1

Archive 1

... 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)

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)

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)

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)

Deleted material

Justin Berry

Main article: Justin Berry

Upon his return from his book tour, Eichenwald cast about for new story ideas, becoming interested in an international credit card fraud investigation that led to his becoming involved in the affairs of Justin Berry, a then-18-year-old who was selling pornographic images and videos of himself both as a minor and as an adult, creating and selling pornography involving other minors and adults, and engaging in prostitution. Eichenwald ultimately wrote several articles on the subject; the first appeared in The New York Times on December 19, 2005. Though the series won praise from some, it was later revealed that Eichenwald had made a series of payments to Berry before submitting the story for publication. The payments led to criticism that Eichenwald had violated journalistic ethics policies. Eichenwald had made the payment representing himself to be a songwriter and potential customer of Berry's in order to discover the identity of Berry so he could be contacted. Eichenwald has publicly stated that he, his wife, and his minister were working together to rescue what they feared was a child in danger, and that all of the actions they took in June, 2005 were not done in his role as a journalist. When Berry subsequently decided to become a source for a story, giving up his business and his home in the process, Eichenwald said he demanded and received the money used earlier to avoid a conflict issue.

In an October 19, 2007 interview with NPR's David Folkenflik, Eichenwald stated that, due to the severe backlash from the Justin Berry story, he felt compelled to disclose that his epilepsy had caused "severe memory disruptions" and that he had a "deeply unreliable memory for names, facts and events" which he compensated for by his "famed meticulous reporting methods." Folkenflik reports that "during the prosecutions of two of those men [Berry's business partners Greg Mitchel and Timothy Richards] on related child-pornography charges, revelations have surfaced that have raised questions about Eichenwald's own actions. Most notable was his failure to inform editors at the Times that he and his wife had made a series of payments worth at least $3,100 to Berry and his associates. In the broadcast version of the interview, Eichenwald also discloses that he gave Berry approximately $1,000 in additional payments that haven't been discovered by the defense in the criminal cases against Kenneth Gourlay, Greg Mitchel, and Timothy Richards arising from Eichenwald's reporting of Berry's story.

Discussion

An anon editor just deleted this material, saying he will revise it.[2] If a revision is not forthcoming promptly this should be restored. 16:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)

It's been nearly six months since the deletion of the above content, and even longer for this IP's previous deletions from this article, and no revised content has been restored, despite their pledge to do so. Because of that, I have restored the deleted content while trying to incorporate some of the IP's criticisms into my edit. As an aside, this IP is a RoadRunner residential user from the Dallas, Texas area, and its only edits have been to remove negative information about Eichenwald from this article. IIRC, another RoadRunner IP from Dallas tried the same thing earlier. It bears noting that Eichenwald makes his home in Dallas, though nothing but geography connects him with these edits, and that only tenuously. Either way, the IP's edits seem to be of a single purpose and may evidence a conflict of interest. The situation bears watching. --SSBohio 03:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Heritage

Eichenwald, translated from German, means oak forest. Who knows more about Eichenwald's German or maybe even German Jewish heritage? --Hyperboreer 00:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperboreer (talk • contribs)

Payne Award link

The link for his 2006 award was just going to the main page of their website, so it wasn't current. The best fixed link I could find was a list of past winners, on which he's there with a bunch of others. I changed it to this; am not sure we need the link there at all, as we note the award in the text of the article, but I didn't want to delete it w/o putting it to the community. (Maybe use that as an in-text citation, rather than an external link?) Uhhhhhno (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

It seems the page is getting some malicious edits from people who dislike Mr.Eichenwald, can we get a lock on the page? AngryZinogre (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I would never attempt to edit Wikipedia again because only liberals can do that. However, somebody should recognize that this fellow Eichenwald is not a "journalist" but an anti-Republican activist. That is just the simple honest truth of what he is doing. There's nothing wrong with opposing Trump for a living, and that's what this fellow is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia seizures

I never heard of this guy before today but I read a news report of someone trying to give him a seizure then the FBI searched his computer and found a saved screenshot of wikipedia vandalism, this article with a date of death of December 16. Looking at the history of this article shows some deleted entries, which confirms the news report is true. This should be in the article BUT to make it clear that the guy arrested is not the wikipedia vandal. Put it in about the wikipedia vandalism, covered in the news.SZwoman (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Many sources from USA, UK, India, even Belgium of the Wikipedia vandalism.

http://m.deredactie.be/#!/snippet/58ce88d4486a0f7110d131b9

SZwoman (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I can see why it might be seen as important to mention this in the article about Eichenwald. However, Wikipedia works differently to what you might expect. Unless the Wikipedia-editing or the Wikipedia screenshot are directly relevant to his career, then they will probably not be included in the article. I could be wrong, and it is rather borderline, but the Wikipedia article is about who he is and what he does, not about what unpleasant people may or may not have done to try to harm him. I personally am very pleased that someone was arrested. MPS1992 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about public people get vandalized all the time; there's no reason to mention it unless the vandalism itself somehow becomes notable. Trivialist (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

which has happened in this case. The wikipedia vandalism was mentioned in many countries. SZwoman (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

= NYT

NYT or The Times?

The first mention to the NYT in the article is listed simply as The Times and is continually referred to as either "the Times" or The Times until 2/3rds of the way through the article the New York Times is finally mentioned in full and linked.

Can somebody verify these should all be references to the NYT, and not the British publication The Times? He appears to be an American, covering American subjects, and people listed in the article as his coworkers worked at the NYT, but I can't say for sure he's never done anything with The Times.

Referring to the NYT as "the Times" is probably OK, but it should never be labelled The Times, and the first mention should give its name in full with a link to its article Mudkipz222 (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear the references are to the NYT, not the British Times. I changed all "the Times" occurrences to "The New York Times", taking my cue from the WP The New York Times article. Davemck (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Correct link for NYTimes story about kurt wedding is:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/16/style/kurt-eichenwald-is-wed-to-dr-pearse.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.242.130 (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Section on his undercover work to save children

The section was generally correct, but was a mess. Nothing was referenced (ie. there wasn't a single reference for any of the claims). It was just someone's opinion on events. To be fair, their opinion was correct........but you can't just do a sloppy edits like this - especially when it's arguably his most important article. Someone needs to do a good job on this - a sound, referenced, section. Until that happens, it just makes the page a mess. And people will accuse you of bias etc etc Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've partially restored the section, with references. The referenced mention of the $2000 payment to his source was then removed. I would argue that mention of the payment should stay- the payment is notable as an example of a controversial journalistic practice of paying a source, and failing to disclose this to the publisher - it has been covered by other articles (see NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15430924) and the NYTimes comment specifically says this payment was against their paper's rules.Dialectric (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've now added two sentences which provide a brief, neutrally worded, WP:NPOV bit about the aftermath of the stories. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Where are the sources?

Section 2 of this article, about the subject's career at the New York Times, contains one reference in the first sentence. This is followed by the remainder of that paragraph, and then six more paragraphs, without any sources for what is stated. In fact, most of this section reads like a résumé.

Are there any useful sources for what has been written? (The last paragraph of this section contains nine references.) Ambiguosity (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You are free to find and add citations yourself. It is already noted (by the banner) that the section does need additional citations for verification, and it says "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources". Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kurt Eichenwald. 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/20121223054906/http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/chap0003.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/chap0003.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

Most of sources listed about the subject are from the subject himself, including self accolades. Such accolades should be verified by other sources. His story of college in particular is suspect given that it is sourced from his own writings. Eib1979 (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It's not clear what you'd like changed or removed based on this complaint. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

i dont think so

the doxing thing was old news, and kurt isnt really that popular today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.227.56 (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Spat with Parkland Survivor

Kurt today has accused Kyle Kashuv of being an “unstable” and “in need of psychiatric help”. This has been commented on by The Hill , Daily Beast and Mediaite. This has caused Vanity Fair and MSNBC to distance themselves from him. Additionally, he may be in legal trouble due to exposing a psychological analysis without his consent and without proof, according to mediaite’s sister site, Law and Crime . Can a relevant section be added??? -73.176.236.117 (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I updated the section regarding his work with Newsweek and Vanity Fair based of a statement from Vanity Fair made to The Hill. There's a lot of information (based off facts) in that link regarding this spat with the Parkland survivor, I see no problem creating a new relevant section. The Impartial Truth (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see Kurt's page has been conveniently wiped clean of anything hinting at this controversy. How predictable that Wikipedians protect left-wing commentators from criticism while heaping scorn on right-wing commentators.

Doxing fiasco

In late March, Kirk publicly doxed a man from Oregon over an online depute via Twitter. The dox included his home address and social security number, several outlets reported on Kirk's tweet such as WWeek and it generated a moderate amount of controversy on social media. Would this event be notable enough to be referenced in the article? 93.107.150.14 (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere, not even as a side note in his personal life. I'd make note of it, but it would probably considered hearsay and removed. 78.152.253.113 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hentai controversy

Anyone want to add something about the hentai controversy? He posted a pic of his desktop on twitter and it had a couple hentai tabs. It's trending on twitter iirc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.51.117 (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to but it's "protected" Thoughts4Thots (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning at the end of Personal Life (and there's two solid Mediaite stories about it, so sources are easy). Not sure if that's really enough to be considered notable, though. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 03:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Be honest, if any prominent conservative reporter had tweeted this instead of Eichenwald, it would be on his wikipedia page immediately after and only partisan hacks would say it isn't relevant to his character. Not to mention Eichenwald's explanation smells extremely fishy to me. He claimed to be unable to locate an example of "tentacle porn" (which you can do by google image searching those words) to show his family so he instead went to a login-only hentai site to find an obscure comic about schoolgirls. This coming from a guy who previously was found to have a subscription to child pornography and prostitution websites which he also claimed were for research purposes. Seem like two relevant data points to me Ignatiuswrites (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Lucas Nolan from Breitbart did an article regarding this and its a conservative website, so I think this qualifies a citation www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/06/08/vanity-fair-editor-kurt-eichenwald-humiliated-after-accidentally-revealing-anime-porn-on-his-browser/

--Zgrillo2004 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart is not an acceptable reliable source for claims about living people; it has a longstanding and well-earned reputation for publishing false, fabricated, mistaken, defamatory, trumped-up, sensationalistic and generally ridiculous nonsense about people whom it perceives as its political enemies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve to add this information to the article? Trivialist (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I ran with it and made a tentative edit. I seldom edit on living persons bio, but to the best of my knowledge the sources should be ok. Let me know what you think. Ffaffff (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

But no one has answered my question: What purpose does it serve? Is there one besides embarrassing Eichenwald? Trivialist (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Trivialist, I do believe the incident is relevant, the incident not being "Man has porn tab open" (that would be unremarkable), but the convoluted explanation Eichenwald had for having that tab open (I'll summarize it: I don't enjoy cartoon porn, I was just researching tentacle porn with my kids to convince my wife this thing exist. I found couldn't find any tentacle porn but ended up with this).

The gist of the news lies in the second part and that's what made it news worthy. Journalists reporting on this ask why he didn't just type "tentacle porn" in a search engine, or on Wikipedia; how an award winning journalist searched the net for tentacle porn but (in his own words) "couldn't find any". So that is not shaming someone, but just journalists questioning his recollections (and through those, his character).

I agree that might be embarrassing for Mr. Eichenwald, but I fear as a journalist he must expect close scrutiny to the veracity of his statements, it comes with the professional badge. Does this make any sense to you? Ffaffff (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any actual reliable source question "the veracity of his statements" — no reliable source that I can find asserts that Eichenwald isn't telling the truth, and no, anonymous Twitter users don't count for Wikipedia purposes. Moreover, describing the situation as a "controversy" appears to be entirely unsupported, because a "controversy" requires, y'know, some actual debate about something, and there isn't any here. "Person forgets he has a weird tab title open" is not "controversial." I suggest that we wait to see if this disappears from the public eye like a million other flash-in-the-pan things someone on the Internet latched onto for a few minutes; if this actually somehow becomes a significant event in his life and career, we can add it at that future point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I will do the honors of adding the relevant information. Expect to see edit in the coming hours

--Zgrillo2004 (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Trivialist; this doesn't have any place in a brief biography for any number of reasons, notably undue weight; it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. If we were writing a comprehensive book-length biography, some mention might be possible to give due weight to; however, that's not what we're doing, and any mention of this trivial nonsense here is unnecessary. i would remind new editors that we are not sensationalistic tabloid purveyors and Wikipedia is not a platform for disseminating such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof - So you rather let this liar go un noticed? What the hell kind of wiki is this when you have hacks like you suppressing everything that maybe a threat to society. You are no help --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous spin I've heard... all week. A guy looking for drawn porn on his computer is a threat to society now? Well then put me on every sex offenders registry in every civilized nation, in that case. While I agree with Ffaffff's reasoning for including it (and again, there are sources better than Breitbart that have picked this thing up, at least I'd like to hope Mediaite is better), it is ultimately a rather trivial "controversy". No one even seems to be talking about it after like a day (outside of this discussion), Eichenwald didn't suffer any actual consequences for it, the world already seems to have forgotten about it (in no small part because it happened the same day as the Comey hearing). Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 02:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Schiffy, do you think you can come up with some reasonable edit? I agree controversy is not the right word at all: incident maybe? I am not sure since my language is not English. Ffaffff (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we should leave it be. "Man has porn tab open, tells convoluted story about it when caught" isn't exactly headline news either. In particular, the recent edit was cited to a News Corporation source; better than Breitbart, but given that Eichenwald was having a disagreement with a Fox host at the time, I suggest we wait and see if anyone who doesn't work for Murdoch cares.

(I think it's a bit surprising that Eichenwald doesn't know about private browsing modes, but that's besides the point). Pinkbeast (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The bias here is obvious. Eichenwald was caught with an open tab to a hardcore cartoon thematic members only(at the time?) pornsite. The site has, at the top of the main page, a hotlink to cartoon incest porn, and the porno in question is tagged "wincest" and contains incestuous intercourse, zombie-like sex slave wives, and intercourse with (though busty) minors which in many countries is illegal to even look at. It is not up to wikipedia to determine whether this is relevant. What makes it relevant is that it became a scandal related to Eichenwald, with hit pieces targeting esp. how this relates to Eichenwald's past work. Thus, the emphasis should be on the controversy rather than Eichenwald's peculiar porn habits but it is indeed VERY relevant. The excuse Eichenwald gave has been discredited by numerous credible sources since he literally tried to pull that he and his (adult) children were trying to show Eichenwald's wife tentacle pornography but were unable to find any (yes, a journalist unable to google the words "tentacle porn"). Apparently, the man who has spent years fighting child pornography and is a well travelled journalist did not know the word hentai, and in his confusion he somehow ended up on a website that has no tentacle porn, or even any confusing search tags that might mislead one who is on a quest to - with the help of ones children - show ones wife tentacle porn. Instead, in a strange twist of fate, the man ended up with an obscure and unrelated incest+slave wife+lewd schoolgirl cartoon set that he decided to keep open until he took a picture revealing only his hand and some stained flyers in a dark room. Not only is this media scandal blatantly omitted while comparative media spins on right wingers warrant walls of text, but also the ongoing case where several credible sources question whether Eichenwald faked an epilepsy attack to get a better case vs. a malicious troll is simply described more or less as the heroic severely epileptic Eichenwald nearly dying from a murderous .gif file, even though he is allowed to drive which is far more dangerous to a photosensitive epileptic. Now I'm not saying I personally believe Milo Yiannopoulos has the same journalistic integrity as Eichenwald. And I'm not saying the content of their controversy is comparable. But I'm saying in the eyes of Wikipedia, they should not be judged based on this. What matters is what third party sources say. Not what the editors feel for the individuals in question.85.194.2.57 (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Well, what do you expect from Wikipedia? Every left learning figure's controversies or scandals are ignored or glossed over, whereas every right leaning figure reads like a hit piece with every bad thing an a Wikipedia "acceptable" source said about them somehow relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.157.175 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It definitely speaks to his character, not the fact that he had a tab open to a hardcore lewd hentai website but the convoluted and irrational response of his leading to a scandal. It's a scandal he created himself which reflects upon his character and journalistic integrity. Completely RELEVANT and should be included in this article. In light of recent events surrounding Eichenwald an entire section for controversies should be added which should include this. The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed Clester07 added a Pornography Controversy section. It came off as more of a hit job than actual facts, there's a problem as to whether or not enough reliable sourcing and information on this exists to warrant a new section I do believe as I said before the way Eichenwald responded to this speaks to his character as a journalist (former journalist now?) and is entirely RELEVANT. It should be included somehow on this page but has to be professional, reliably sourced and based off facts. It can't read like a forum post making fun of Eichenwald. The Impartial Truth (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)