Talk:Jim Gilchrist

Controversy Questionable

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)

Vietnam

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)

I don't have any desire to edit the entry by "-The Youngidealist," because it would take too much of my time. I simply want to remind him/her that comments riddled with spelling and grammatical errors are not likely to be taken seriously. If you want your viewpoints to be considered, take more time and care with how you express them. 98.200.177.10 (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Links

What is up with those links at the end of the "See also" section? Anybody want to clean that up, or does anybody even know what the hell that's about? Looks pretty helter-skelter.

Sodomy

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)

2008 Campaign

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)

Controversy

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)

The section on the October 11 Columbia speech is clearly biased and at points untrue. The October 12 New York Times makes no mention of Gilchrist supporters "attacking" protesters, and uses videotape evidence to state that protesters hopped on to the stage and started shouting slogans at Gilchrist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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)

The current description in the article, which says that questionable people helped with Gilchrist's "Senate" run (Gilchrist ran for the House), does not match the source referenced, which alleges that these people helped with that Minuteman Project. This section needs revision. I'm not sure what's correct, just that this section as it stands is not. Qqqqqq 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

CSULB

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)

Deleting unsourced material

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)

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) RadisRadis

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)

Actually, I was entering the source materials (citations) when you grossly overstepped your authority and removed the content. Radis Radis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.85.68 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps willbeback should become informed. When the issue involves a lawsuit, for example, then the decision of the judge in that case is pertinent and does not consistute original research - it's follow up to the issue already in play. Willbeback should be more concerned about the libelous, incorrect material posted already and that he keeps restoring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadisRadis (talk • contribs) 08:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

{help me} Gilchrist and Simcox founded the minuteman movement. Simcox in Arizona focused more on the border watch element and Gilchrist in California focused on raising awareness and the possibility of influencing public policy. Simcox formed his Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and in May 2005 Gilchrist incorporated in Delaware the Minuteman Project, Inc. The documents filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware showed Gilchrist and his wife Sandy to be the original directors. In June, Gilchrist and his wife removed her as a director of the corporation and left Jim Gilchrist as the sole director. Both of these are readily verifiable with the Secretary of State Delaware.

When the three directors started making allegations against Gilchrist and other board members, the board had a series of meetings to sort out their differences. The meetings were held December 22, 2006, December 29, 2006, January 12, 2007 and January 19, 2007. These meetings are documented in the minutes of the Minuteman Project and those minutes have been filed in the cases before Judge Randell Wilkinson in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, Dept. C-25. In each of those meetings the form of governance of the MMP was discussed - after four weeks of questions and answers, discussion of the history of the organization, the filings on behalf of the organization and the actions each individual had taken with regard to Minuteman Project and their part of the organization, the board voted to make no changes to the organization. The majority of the board voted to keep Jim Gilchrist as the sole director and voted to have him occupy all four offices of the organization. This is verifiable through the minutes of the meetings and declarations made to the court. I don't think any of this itself is libelous - do you?

After the meeetings mentioned above, the three held a series of meetings (January 26, 2007, January 27, 2007 and January 29, 2007). Their final meeting was February 2, 2007. Again, they have either provided minutes or in minutes they provided they have recounted what business was conducted and at what meeting. There are meeting minutes, declarations, resolutions, termination documents and filings, all that have been provided to the courts (matter of public record) and again - how is any of this libelous?

It goes to explaining the controversy, the Minuteman Project, Inc. board met frequently at the end of the year 2006 and beginning of 2007. There were questions about all kinds of matters and those questions were answered. Following a complete airing of grievances, answering of questions and discussion, the majority of the board voted to keep things as they were. The three disgruntled members met privately and claim that they terminated Gilchrist, Eichler and Bueler - terminated from their board, terminated from their offices (if applicable) and terminated from any activity of the organization. Again court filings - termination documents signed by the three members. Is any of this libelous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.124.133 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

In the real world, the court records are the only thing that matter. Thank God! The court has issued a Statement of Decision that found that Gilchrist was never removed from his role as President and Director of Minuteman Project, Inc. In fact, the documents provided by the defendants Stewart and Courtney show that Gilchrist was never removed and remained in charge of MMP. Subsequently, Stewart and Courtney were fired from MMP and have no involvement with the organization since February 2, 2010.

The court didn't directly address whether Jim Gilchrist was a sole director as the records filed with the Secretary of State in Delaware state or whether there was a board of directors. Stewart and Courtney did not have a quorum, did not properly notice a special meeting, did not take a vote to remove Gilchrist and he was never terminated. The court did not rule on the nature of the board that Stewart and Courtney served on, instead finding that taking their testimony and evidence in the light most beneficial to them, they were fired from MMP on February 2, 2007 and have not served as officers, managers, spokespersons and/or directors since that time.

Much of the specific information of their claims (both sides) can now be removed and the dispute becomes a footnote in the history of Jim Gilchrist. He founded the MMP, Inc., he served as President. In 2006, he oversaw the growth of both the movement and his organization. In 2007, some of his former volunteers attempted to take control of the organization and oust Gilchrist. Gilchrist prevailed in court and maintained control of the organization.

Gilchrist in 2007, created a new organization Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project, Inc. (JGMMP) and that organization bought all of the assets of the Minuteman Project, Inc. JGMMP and MMP have been granted 501 (c) (4) non-profit status by the IRS and continue to promote the enforcement of our nations laws with respect to immigration and border issues.

I don't want to step a foul of Willbeback and his dictatorial style, so when appropriate he can re-edit 70.183.17.26 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC) RadisRadis

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)

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)

Plurality? The trouble is that for the most part the press wanted to fuel the fire and attack Gilchrist. Frank Mickadeit of the Orange County register partnered with Stewart and Courtney against Gilchrist because he doesn't like Gilchrist or the organization. Victories for Gilchrist were not reported as widely or as frequently as perceived victories for his opponents. What a judge/jury thinks after receiving the evidence is far more important that what a journalist thinks. You guys are nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.85.68 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

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)

Control of Minuteman Project decided by California Court

• 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)

Well Gilchrist has won two major victories in the last month. Jan 22 2010, Judge Randell Wilkinson granted summary judgment in favor of Gilchrist; Plaintiffs Stewart and Courtney provided no admissable evidence of any wrong-doing on Mr. Gilchrist's part and as a matter of law Gilchrist was removed as a defendant in the case. Ruled December 17, 2009, entered judgment on Jan 22, 2010 and Stewart's motion for reconsideration on 1/27/2010 was denied - see www.occourts.org on line case information. Today, February 5, 2010 Judge Wilkinson entered a Statement of Decision in favor of Jim Gilchrist in Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project vs. Stewart and Courtney. Gilchrist legally fired Stewart and Courtney Feb 2, 2007 and the two defendants haven't been board members since that time. Judge Wilkinson granted PERMANENT INJUNCTION against the two; they cannot claim to be officers, board members or spokespersons for Minuteman Project, the must take down their websites making such false claims and they must return all MMP property to plaintiff JGMMP. That's the facts jack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.143.131 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Call for Input

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)

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)

pov tag

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)

RfC

BAn 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)

External links modified

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.

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) 14:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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) 06:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)