Talk:Frank Turek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ECPA Christian Book Award winner[edit]

this http://www.crossway.org/authors/frank-turek/ claims his book won the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Medallion_Book_Award best book in its category Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If true, that's important. However, he's missing from the offical list at http://www.christianbookexpo.com/christianbookawards/bookofyear.php and the goodreads list at http://www.goodreads.com/award/show/474-ecpa-christian-book-award Stuartyeates (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw it was missing from there, I also don't know the year of award. The claim is also here at http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/I_Don_t_Have_Enough_Faith_to_Be_an_Athei.html?id=PCGhbTrI9QoC&redir_esc=y about the author 2004 Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google wasn't finding it for me before, but http://christianbookexpo.com/christianbookawards/gm1999.php lists it. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Stuart Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable[edit]

Notable for his debate with Christopher Hitchins here Frank Turek http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/3286-turek-vs-hitchens-debate-does-god-exist Keep Lumos3 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not in depth coverage in independent third party sources, which is what makes people notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco[edit]

I removed this recent addition with the comment 'please discuss this prior to insertion, on the talkpage or Biography noticeboard' I think it is clearly controversial content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Turek&diff=596090165&oldid=595777210

here is also a link to the biography noticeboard discussion about the issue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Frank_Turek

My thoughts are that the claims that he was fired are excessive, he was only a contracted worker for limited periods employee and one contract seems to have been 24 hours reduced only and the contract was 'paid up' so to claim he was fired is very excessive imo, also , the other contract, the company said they were mistaken and would meet to discuss with Turek and there is then no follow up as regards to any outcome. The two articles are very very opinionated, one includes unconfirmed claims only from the subject of the article, my feeling is the the simple comment that is currently in the article is fine and the two links to the articles are there for users to investigate further if they want but adding controversial claims that he was fired from these two companies is an excessive opinionated one sided claim. Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample evidence that he lost his contract on the very day that one of his class members found out about his opinions. I can add extra articles, even from the other side of the aisle that support the notion that he had been fired for his views.167.181.12.167 (talk) 13
46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This whole topic needs to be removed, until reliable *independent* sources are provided. There's a townhall link, that's just an open later complaining about the alleged incident. Then, there is this from ChristianPost.com, which seems like an opinion piece suppportive of Turek, not independent news coverage. --Rob (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ChristianPost is a reliable news source. There is also coverage from National Review online [1] if you need that. They are independent, since Frank Turek does not control any of these sources. The criteria for independent media does not mean "free from political bias" as [Wikipedia:Independent_sources] states: "Independent sources are not necessarily 'neutral' in the sense of being even-handed. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea." Also "an interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic." the Christian Post does not have any such vested interest in Frank's work, nor does National Review. There is no financial conflict of interest. Ergo, this is verified by independent sources, at least by Wikipedia's standards. --TMDrew (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ChristianPost is a reliable news source; but the article in question in an interview-based article with all the factual content clearly attributed to the subject (mainly in the form of a direct quote), so it's not independent. The National Review online article is an interview with Turek's publisher, also non-independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Christian Post, the mention of his firing is not merely a direct quote from Turek or his publisher. The very first paragraph, where the article is not quoting anything states "Just months after being fired from Cisco Systems in California over an anti-gay marriage book, Christian consultant Dr. Frank Turek was also given the boot from Bank of America." Also, where does it say that Maggie Gallagher is Frank's publisher? I can see that her organization interviewed him, but that does not make it non-independent. --TMDrew (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you accept the sources, and inclusion in the article, you would still need to explicitly state in the body article who is making the claim, and not state it as an objective fact. This is a potentially defamatory claim against Cisco, and the article should make clear who is making the claim, and not have it appear Wikipedia is making the claim. --Rob (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea! Let me try to re-word it and let's talk about it. --TMDrew (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

Most of the "Views" section is based on "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist", like if no independent sources could be used instead. This is usually the case when articles don't meet WP:NBIO. If it does, there likely are other sources, or it could also be trimmed down. Wikipedia articles should not proselytize using advocacy material. —PaleoNeonate – 05:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, after reading earlier talk page posts: Is Turek mainly known for debating Christopher Hitchins? If so, WP:1E may apply. —PaleoNeonate – 05:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Categories[edit]

Should Category:Anti-same-sex-marriage activists and Category:Anti-LGBT sentiment be included? I would suggest yes, because one of his books is called Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone and he underlines this point of view in many of his YT-Videos. You can’t deny that he works against homosexuality very actively and argues with the Christian faith. The mentioned categories also include some Catholic clergy for example. I mean, what is the definition of an Anti-LGBT-activist? It can range from mentioning it once in public to running around streets with signs to being physically or psychologically (which Turek definitely is) violent against homosexuals. Opinions? —Koelnfan (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the former, no to the latter - which shouldn't really be included in people categories. StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the latter is used in many person-related articles at the moment. It is not obvious that it should only be used for organisations/movements etc. This should be defined within the header of the category. Any more opinions?—Koelnfan (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Turek&oldid=1207971286"