Talk:J. Christian Adams

Rapidly developing story
Someone needs to update this page - the story is developing rapidly, and the page is very light on info... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquamari (talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 July 2010


 * Current material may be mined at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/jchristianadams/. J. Christian Adams also blogs at Election Law Center. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the first sentence is ambiguous. It sounds like the voters that were intimidated were the black panthers. Perhaps we could reword that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.167.243 (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This topic deserves more coverage.
I’m glad Wikipedia is covering this topic now, since I think it’s notable enough to be covered here, but I agree with Aquamari’s comment that it deserves more coverage. In particular, I think we ought to be specifically covering the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, and the Department of Justice’s controversial dropping of these charges. Perhaps the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case ought to even have its own article.

I’m currently involved in an arbitration case about an unrelated article, so I might not have time to contribute much to this article in a timely manner, but I’ll provide some sources that will hopefully be useful to anyone else who wants to.


 * This article in The New York Times.
 * This article in The Los Angeles Times.
 * From the Washington Post: this article and this one.
 * From the Wall Street Journal: this article, this article, this article, and this article (the last one is just about the voter intimidation case in general, not Adams specifically).


 * This article from The Guardian. This is also just about the case in general, but it’s interesting to see that England’s newspapers are covering it also.


 * This case has also received a huge amount of coverage in the Washington Times, including an article written by J. Christian Adams himself. (Which is here.) There are more articles about this there than I can link to, both about Mr. Adams and about the case itself.  A few of them are linked from this page; to find the rest of them I’d recommend doing a search on the terms “black panther voter intimidation” there.

I hope these sources are useful, and that this article can be expanded (or that a new article about the voter intimidation case can be created) using them. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What "critics" accuse Adams of being a partisan? And is it the policy of wikipedia that biographies of living persons contain, as their second line, criticism of the person? I'm removing that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.218.90 (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly obvious that he's partisan, having worked on the Bush campaign and having been outed for actively basing his employment decisions in the DOJ based on partisan politics. This isn't difficult to understand. Further, he's a guy who's notability lies almost entirely in his recent bout of unsubstantiated criticism, so you can write his praiseful second line after he's actually proven any of his allegations.128.2.51.144 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure I'd call his criticism "unsubstantiated". There have been a number of his former colleagues coming forward to back his version of events - Hans A. von Spakovsky and Karl Bowers to name two. I think I saw somewhere that they had sworn out affidavits or something. Ronnotel (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP1E?
This article may fall under WP:BLP1E - biographies of living people who are only significant for one event. In such cases, where the event is notable but the person in question isn't, the article should be rewritten to focus on the event rather than the person. I'm not sure what the event here would be - New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, perhaps? - but that might be the more appropriate approach to take. Robofish (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To my surprise, it seems there previously was an article with that title, which was merged into New Black Panther Party. Perhaps we should consider recreating it. Robofish (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Recreating the article about the voter intimidation case sounds like a good idea to me. The case itself certainly is notable, per the coverage it’s received in the sources I listed above.


 * I don’t have much of an opinion either way about whether Adams is notable independently of the voter intimidation case. There are very few articles about him which don’t mention the case, but the articles also talk about him criticizing Obama’s Department of Justice in ways that don’t directly relate to this case, such as accusing them of failing to enforce the law that dead people, felons, and other illegal voters be removed from voter rolls. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the 1 event that Mr. Adams is notable for? I think that you're stuffing multiple events into 1 bag to net a violation but maybe I'm wrong. Name the event and lets see if JCA is notable for other things.  TMLutas (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New article about voter intimidation case
As was suggested by several editors here and here, I’ve just recreated the article about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. This case has been in the news a lot lately, and I think it’s definitely notable enough to deserve its own article by this point. Any of you can look at the list of sources I’ve assembled about this case to get an idea of its notability—the coverage it’s received includes five articles in the Washington Post, five from the Associated Press, four from CNN, three from CBS, and more than 50 from the Washington Times.

When this article previously existed a few months ago, it was subsequently merged into the New Black Panther Party article because it contained less information than what was already in that article, but I don’t think that’s a problem with my new version of the article.

In case this isn’t obvious, I’ve put a lot of work into developing this article in my userspace over the past month, and it’s my hope that there’s very little that needs to be changed about it at this point. Any improvements or suggestions from other editors are still welcome, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing by IP number associated with Adams
An IP number has removed reliably sourced content, and introduced WP:OR, WP:WEASEL and WP:FRINGE to depict the subject of the article in the most positive way. The IP number has also edited Adams-related text on Hempfield Area High School, which suggests that this account is Adams himself or closely associated with Adams. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why these edits remained for over a year, but this concern is still valid. It also strikes me as somewhat suspicious that the IP editor refers to "an organization" Adams is affiliated with without ever naming that organization (the dubiously-named "Public Interest Legal Foundation," for the record).  Similarly, the IP's edits exclusively cite statements and articles written by Adams for factual support of his own exceptional claims, which fails WP:SELFPUB.  In light of the apparent WP:COI, low quality of the sourcing, self-serving nature of the material, and weasely language, I'm reverting to the earlier version.  Dyrnych (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)