Talk:Erick Erickson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Middle name?[edit]

Does anyone know what Erick Erickson's middle name is? I think it might be Erick. Art Cancro (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Potential Vandalism/Non-Neutrality[edit]

So do we even want to bother flagging this page for obvious non-neutrality? (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC) stray

Amazingly enough, quoting the actual, notable statements made by the subject of a biographical article is not non-neutral. You're welcome to add other notable statements Erickson has made if you feel that any non-crazy-sounding public statements he's made would provide better POV balance, but deleting sourced, relevant and notable material with cited reliable sources is not acceptable. (Also, if you're going to revert, at least do it the right way.) You could also put an NPOV flag on it -- it's Wikipedia, be bold, so long as you're following policy otherwise -- but you should be aware that your actions seem more in violation of the NPOV policy than anyone else's recent edits for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
":Amazingly enough, quoting the actual, notable statements made by the subject of a biographical article is not non-neutral. You're welcome to add other notable statements Erickson has made if you feel that any non-crazy-sounding public statements he's made would provide better POV balance, but deleting sourced, relevant and notable material with cited reliable sources is not acceptable.
What happened to all these quotes? Shouldn't there be a warning about how biased the article is, given that there all the notable statments Erickson made and are sourced? Particularly since he is actually hired as an inflammatory speaker in the first place. I can see that the effort it takes to remove the inflammatory remarks of erikson is much easier than bringing them up with all the right and direct sources. Doesn't that make it harder for anyone to provide burden of proof by just dismissing it (no true scotsman fallacy) as wrong without even a technical reason why the the information is technically wrong. Anything can be considered "Vandalism" even if vandalism is the only reason to take down quotes erikson actually said in his Blog and Read back to him by CNN. The claim is not anymore the veracity of the quotes but what counts as vandalism, proof it is vandalism must be provided. Justinian1979 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Different day, same problem: Vandalism is vandalism[edit]

Okay, people: vandalism defaming this guy is not better than vandalism protecting him. It's still vandalism. If you want to find a less-than-flattering photo which can be used on Wikipedia (i.e. is in public domain, Wiki-compatible Creative Commons, your own work, or fair use) and add it to this stub, that would be fine. Beneficial, even. The Internet Celebrity infobox may even be the best choice of templates. But please don't add deliberately false information (e.g. a birthdate making him appear to still be in high school), or bigoted insulting "jokes" along the lines of that fatphobic P90X remark. I don't want to see any photos of dodo birds or steaming turds on this article, either. (Well, unless Erickson makes them directly relevant.) It's annoying enough having to revert vandalism by tunnel-visioned right-wing extremists; neither I nor anybody else should have to revert vandalism to this article by tunnel-visioned left-wing extremists, either. Either improve the article or leave it alone. Defend or defame him on your blog, or any of a thousand other fora on the internet; not here. -- (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Erickson is defined by his statements[edit]

I included several of Erickson's defining statements, and they were reverted. Here's my rebuttal as to why thy should be included:

Erickson is his words, his statements. He's a pundit - all he has are his words. He doesn't introduce legislation. He doesn't govern anything. He writes and speaks. So, his words are the single most important part of who he is. If you don't include his signature statements in the profile, then it is not a complete profile. I added those comments because they seem to be defining statements and were widely picked up in the media. I think we could drop some of them, but it's important to recognize that his statements define him and his place in political punditry. He's very similar to Rush Limbaugh, and we include Limbaugh's defining remarks, because without them, we don't have a very clear picture of who he is. At a bare minimum, I think we should include the repeated sexist remarks. If a regular contributor to CNN makes repeated sexist remarks, that seems like something that is relevant to who he is. I think the comments about Obama being a racist are also relevant. But it isn't just the sexist and racist comments that define him. It's his tone. There is no other CNN contributor who uses language such as "kowtowing to Barack Obama's worshippers, brownshirts, goons, and thugs." He's very different from his colleagues, and it's important to highlight that difference.Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response to this, I'll revert to the original comments in the article and take out the less important ones.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond before. Your argument unfortunately is not sound. All writers, pundits, playwrights, journalists, etc. are defined by their words. That does not mean that our articles on these people should just become a dumping ground of everything they've ever said. More importantly, we can't cherry-pick the ones that we think are interesting (since, in almost all cases, "interesting" hides POV-pushing). If something he said was widely discussed in independent, reliable sources, we can report on that (though even that needs to be handled with respect to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE). But the goal is not to get in everything that you think represents his tone. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Marital status?[edit]

The article doesn't mention a spouse ... is this an omission, or may we infer he's single? --Tbanderson (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Today, Erick Erickson substituted on the Rush Limbaugh Show and mention that his wife is a great cook and that they have a son and a daughter. So the answer is, "Yes married, and not single", with two young children.— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Place of birth?[edit]

Hi, I don't edit Wikipedia much and so don't know how to work the infoboxes, but I noticed that the body of the article says Erickson was born in Jackson, LA, but the infobox says he was born in Zachary, LA. Can someone with more savvy than me fix it? (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The first step is to authoritatively assess "where was Erick Erickson born?" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess we could send him an eMail note and ask him. :-) ;-) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would vote to leave the references as they are. If you look at the Wikipedia article for Jackson,_Louisiana and then for Zachary,_Louisiana the locating dots on the map are the same. With Google searches, the only thing I can find out is: (1) Wikipedia says where he was born; and (2) There is a phycologist with a similar name, born in Germany. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

More "Erick Erickson" information[edit]

In searching for the authoritative birth place, I found this great ref: [1] "The London Telegraph named Erickson the sixty-fifth most influential conservative in America in 2010. He is co-author of the book RedState Uprising. Each weekday morning, Erickson writes his “Morning Briefing” email, widely considered a must read among conservative pundits and activists. “The ability of [Erickson's Morning Briefing] to shape a message illustrates the power of the conservative network,” according to Washington Post. The Hollywood Reporter describes Erickson as “the most influential conservative blogger on the Internet.” Erick Erickson earned a Bachelor of Arts with honors at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, majoring in History and Political Science. He earned his juris doctorate at Mercer’s Walter F. George School of Law. Erickson and his family reside outside the beltway in Macon, Georgia where he is a former Macon city councilman. He can be followed on Twitter and Facebook at ewerickson." [There is more, FYI.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Time to Lock?[edit]

As it stands, with the absolute foot Erickson has placed upon his mouth, it may be time to lock the page to prevent angry hordes from pillaging this page until such a time Thursday or so, give or take a month, despite how well deserved said hordes may allegedly be in this edit's opinion. (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2015[edit]

Radiantgrace (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 I would like you to please remove the expletive "f" word from this article. There are children who read these sites or see what adults are reading and I believe that it should be family friendly. I also don't like reading these in articles either. We get the point across if the word expletive was put in its place or the symbols. The expletive word is found under the heading Controversy.
Thank you,

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:NOTCENSORED. Using the symbols in a quote might mislead readers into thinking that Erickson used the symbols, which he did not. Cannolis (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Order of the subsections[edit]

The order of the subsections doesn't seem right. Here's what they are:

1 Biography

2 CNN and Fox News contributor

3 Nikki Haley gubernatorial bid

4 George Allen 2012 Senate bid

5 Rescinding of an Invitation to Donald Trump to Attend a RedState Gathering

6 Radio show

7 Other works

8 Controversy

9 Notes

10 External links

I think it makes more sense to have them like this:

1 Biography

2 CNN and Fox News contributor

3 Other works

4 Nikki Haley gubernatorial bid

5 George Allen 2012 Senate bid

6 Radio show

7 Rescinding of an Invitation to Donald Trump to Attend a RedState Gathering

8 Controversy

9 Notes

10 External links

My reasoning is as follows:

  • Biography stays as the first item
  • 2-7 are in chronological order
  • 8, 9, 10 are in standard order

Thoughts? JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me.Television fan (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Trumps Remark's and "Red"[edit]

Came here looking for clarity and found none. As I understand it, Trump didn't like the "hostile" question from Megan Kelly, and said something about blood coming from "eyes" and "wherever" and from what I've read the anti-Trump consensus is that he meant to imply that she was menstruating (typical bitchy female on her period stereotype) and that is the reason Erickson's tighty-whiteys are in a knot. But I find no evidence that indicates that interpretation was what he meant, so to ban the leading Republican candidate for what some people THINK he meant seems rather odd. I understand that WP is "not news", but at the same time, these kinds of furors make getting simple information difficult. Is there something reliably known and factual that can at least create a context to put this controversy into, because as it stands right now the leader of the Republican Party is being excluded from debates and no one (not even Wikipedia) can explain why.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It got coverage by the news media, so its notable enough to put in his article. Donald Trump responded to him even. Was this a debate? What it a major gathering? Or just something minor, a party the guy was hosting which Trump probably wouldn't have bothered going to anyway? Dream Focus 15:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erick Erickson. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

New York Times essay[edit]

Here's a surprising essay he wrote in the NYT. After facing death, and facing his wife's death, and decide what kind of fnal message to leave his children, he had to reassess his life. He decided that the most important message of his life was that we have to reach out to those we disagree with -- and the best way to do it is to invite them to dinner. (It might take a bit of work to make this short enough to fit into the article.)
Erick Erickson: How to Find Common Ground
New York Times
SEPT. 30, 2017

Even as the internet provides us great advances, it also segments us....

The truth, though, is that our Facebook friends are probably not going to water our flowers while we are on vacation and our Twitter followers will not bring us a meal if we are sick. But the actual human being next door might do both if we meet him....

This is what I want my children to know if I should die before they wake. The kitchen table is the most important tool they have to reshape their community. Preparing a home-cooked meal and inviting people over, both those we know and those we want to know, forces us to find common ground.

Not everything should be political, and we can only make everything political when we decide the other side is evil just because they disagree with us. We can see the world only in this polarized way if we never take the time to know anyone on the other side, if we never find ways to build friendship despite our differences.

Every person has an interesting story to tell. I want my children to know my story. But I also want them to know that the stranger next door has one, too, and that even if they disagree on much, they can still be friends.

We may also never find that common ground with people whose politics or faith conflicts with ours. But we owe it to one another to disagree agreeably, without anger or intimidation, whether on a front porch or a Facebook page. A little more grace among us all would go a long way toward healing the nation.

--Nbauman (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Information about his health, and the harassment he faced for not supporting Trump, should be in the article. I just added a brief mention of his book. Its already out on Amazon. Dream Focus 18:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)