Talk:Ronald Kessler

Photo
NOTE: In response to the request for a photo, please see my photo uploaded to Wikipedia: Kessler_author_2005_med_res.jpg (file) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs)

Autobiography
I am adding the autobiography tag since the subject appears to have edited the article extensively. TheslB (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also added the unreferenced tag since no sources are provided for the article. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, particularly due to the problem of conflict of interest, and I am tempted to put this one up for deletion. TheslB (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed a prod from it--we do not delete notable people because of COI--rather, we edit the article and make sure there are adequate sources. DGG (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the article lacks sources, notability is not established. In response to what you left on my talk page, we do not tell other editors to look for sources in order to remove material that is not properly referenced. This article has the makings of a press release, a vanity page, and the primary author of it has deleted similar concerns from this talk page already. Being that the article owes its existence to the author asking for it to be created from the content at his personal website, it really should not be here on Wikipedia. We discourage editors who have a conflict of interest from editing for a good reason. It looks bad--really bad, even when unconfirmed.  Encouraging the retention of articles created and maintained with a COI undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. TheslB (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not originate the article but added to it by providing the material from my website. That material has been deleted, so now the article has only bare-bones biographial material. I have tried to be helpful by adding publicly avilable material such as the dates when my books were published and a link to my recent appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The biographical data appears in Who's Who's in America or can be easily checked with online sources such as Amazon or the Library of Congress. If you have any specific questions, please ask me.--Ronald Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.160.170 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The following guidelines may be helpful to you Ronald: WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Good luck, 150.203.23.148 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a message on user KesslerRonald's talk page to read those guidelines (also included a formal warning that he not remove any more comments from this talk page). TheslB (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Scrubbing
This article makes the news:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.69.2 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think two of the sections under Controversies should probably go anyway. The critical opinions of two commentators on minor websites don't really merit the weight they've been given, or at least not until they are suitably balanced with opinion from the other side. They certainly don't deserve equal weighting with the Obama section.  I only reverted them because they, at least, were cited (which is more than can be said for the rest of the article) and their removal was not summarised with a valid reason.   -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's notable that he made up a falsehood, which made it into a national news report and circulated as a fact, was debunked, leading to corrections being issued, and then he personally tried to erase the incident from his own entry at wikipedia? This isn't opinion, it's just the facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.197.62 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag of 'liberal' from Talking Points Memo because it's not true. However, I tend to agree with Escape_Orbit--reviews of a book from people who are almost certainly going to disagree with the author's premise don't really count as "controversy." The Obama thing should stay though because of the Bill Kristol blowup. - OSheaman


 * We should really solve this "controversies" dispute here in order to avoid an edit war. Joshdboz (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty well solved. The portion noting that he made up information and passed it as truth should remain, not least because he attempted to edit it himself. It's the source of a false accusation on a major presidential candidate in the United States--so you could argue it is notable. And TPM isn't really a 'bad' source as far as things go. 24.160.240.212 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As a continuation on that thought, the "controversy" section should be renamed "recent controversy"24.160.240.212 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The day the Kristol column ran, Kessler deleted the Wikipedia entries detailing his part in the controversy. [1] [2]"...shouldn't those be references and not simply links? Kingturtle (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it time for Ronald Kessler (wikipedia article)?! My bold attempts to create Elephant (wikipedia article) last year were unsuccessful, but perhaps now we can finally create a wikipedia article about a wikipedia article. Anyone with me? john k (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Talking points memo
It was alledged that talking points memo was not an acceptable source. I wonder why this allegation was made. TPM won a Polk Award, which is widely believed to be the second most prestigous award in Journalism - it is, in fact, the same award won by Mr. Kessler. Atriosity (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A reliable, third-party source confirms the award, given last month:


 * TheslB (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, still a blog source, and so not acceptable per the current version of our policies on living person's biographies. Relata refero (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is a news article, not a blog. TheslB (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Google indexes Talking Points Memo as a news source, but on wikipedia it, together with Little Green Footballs, Hot Air, and DailyKos, are blog sources. Relata refero (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be so in the general case. However, the article that is used as a source here is a news article. TheslB (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if so, it is still a news article on a blog. If picked up or independently reported by a regular news source, then we can include it according to our rules. Relata refero (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't treat the blogs or opinion columns on WashingtonPost as reliable sources either, but that doesn't mean we automatically dismiss all their news reporting. Can you direct us to a Wikipedia guideline that everything published by TPM Media, which does employ a small staff of paid journalists and editors and has won a journalism award (as noted above), is to be dismissed as a blog here on Wikipedia.  Or is that simply your personal view?  59.167.36.94 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that this wasn't published at TalkingPointsMemo exactly, but at TPM Election Central. Election Central is considerably less blog-y and more news-y than TPM proper. Is there really any bright line difference between an online-only magazine like Slate or Salon and TPM Election Central? The piece in question was written by a paid professional journalist and Election Central is described as a "website" in his bio rather than as a "blog." eaolson (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, some very good points have been made about this, so I'm calling in extra advice. Relata refero (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At WP:RS/N for wider community input. Relata refero (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the journalistic parts of Talking Points Memo (Election Central, Muckraker) ought to be a reliable source. john k (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading this recent New York Times article about Talking Points Memo. Among the highlights: Sounds like a pretty clear case for reliability to me. (More reliable in this case than the Bill Kristol column that started the whole thing.) I cross-posted this response at WP:RS/N. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * TPM won the Polk Award, one of journalism's highest honors, for "tenacious investigative reporting."
 * the NYT refers to the website as a "news operation"
 * the NYT describes "a style of online reporting that greatly expands the definition of blogging"
 * the NYT describes "a newsroom in Manhattan and seven reporters ... including two in Washington" (paid journalists)
 * the NYT describes Marshall's activites as "full-time online journalism"
 * the NYT makes a distinction between Marshall's liberal "personal blogging" and the nonpartisan "reporting" that happens on the site (much of it at TPM Election Central)

A separate but related issue is how notable this is considering TPM is the only source to report it. If it was one of many sources talking about this, I could understand its inclusion. As is, it just doesn't pass the test. - Maximusveritas (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is the criterion for inclusion of a topic for, but not the content of, an article. TheslB (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. From Notability: Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles... article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections. That shouldn't cut off discussion on whether this is an important fact for the article to note, but I would argue that it is, on the grounds that TPM is a reliable journalistic source and that the TPM report was picked up and discussed by several prominent blogs as an element of the larger controversy surrounding the Newsmax article on Obama. (see, for example, AmericaBlog). We don't need to establish the reliability of the other blogs to establish the noteworthiness of the incident. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue and recentism issues and a proposed solution
I believe that devoting a third of the article to a minor recent episode in career of a journalist who has won 2 polk awards, written 15 books etc is both undue and a symptom of recentism. But rather than deleting the cited content about the controversy I think the solution is to flesh out the rest of his biography/career so thata broader picture merges. Does anyone object if I add details of his journalism, writings, awards etc ? Of course, any help in the effort will be appreciated. FYI, I have absolutely no COI in the matter; in fact I will have to look up sources before I can add any information on Kessler. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Both valid concerns. I support this and will try to help. As this article is getting some attention because of the controversy, it would be nice if strangers came to Wikipedia and found an accurate, comprehensive, well-sourced and neutral article. I also have no COI, just heard of him for the first time myself. Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these thoughts. May I suggest beginning with the bio and reviews on my web site, all of which can be substantiated? Also, when I deleted the reference to the recent controversy, it was part of a larger assault that included an offensive comment that someone had added and that I do not want to repeat. I have since left everything in, but I hope that this explanation will lead you to delete the reference to my scrubbing the article.--Ronald Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've argued strongly for the reliability of the TPM reference on 'scrubbing'. However, the incident itself should not be included here. The relevant guideline is to Avoid_self-references unless Wikipedia is notable in the overall context of the article, which is not the case here. The general 'controversy' section definitely stays though. That was a weak-ass 'clarification' given that the 'reporter' did not even log basic facts like time/date. 59.167.36.94 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unconvinced at first, but would now suggest that the Avoid_self-references policy allows for this. The discussed event was done by the article subject, and relates to an article in Wikipedia about the subject.  There was perhaps a couple of issues with the tone and self-reference of "this article", but I hope my edit addresses these.  The only issue I can see outstanding is the notability of the event and that of the reference, which I'll leave to others to judge.-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As I proposed above, I have begun a gradual expansion of the (pre-controversy) content of the article. Currently I have worked mainly on the journalism section; will soon add content and references to the author section too. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Internship
User:Northwesterner1, I wish you had asked me for clarification before deleting sourced  information for a second time in this edit. The reason the name of the internship is relevant is because it was an award and is listed as such in the cited Who's who profile. As you may have noticed I prefer presenting award information in context rather than as a list and therefore included the information parenthetically in the Early career section. I'll wait for your response before readding the information. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to cause offense. The reason I didn't ask for clarification was that I thought I understood your position. (In fact, I did understand your position, as your clarification here confirms what I assumed: you believe this award is relevant because it's listed in Who's Who.) You rolled back several of my changes in your second edit, and I rolled back only one of your changes in my second edit; I included an edit summary and thought perhaps you would allow that one rollback & no further discussion would be needed. Guess not. So here's my rationale...


 * Who's Who has editorial standards that are different than Wikipedia's, just as its reason for existence is different than Wikipedia's. Not every award listed in Who's Who is encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. When writing biographical articles, editors make decisions about which awards are noteworthy and which are not, and how they should be presented. Editor A might feel a particular award should be summarized, i.e. "an award from the Associated Press (1967)," while Editor B might feel more information should be given about it, i.e. "an award from the Associated Press (Sevellon Brown Memorial award, 1967)." In this case, I felt that the award "Dow Jones Inc. Newspaper Fund intern" could be omitted from the article and replaced by "intern." We disagree about what's relevant... great! Wikipedia is made stronger by the disagreements of its editors. But the fact that it is listed in Who's Who doesn't automatically make you right and me wrong.


 * I wholeheartedly support your efforts to expand the article (and in fact have helped myself, by researching which books were NYT bestsellers and adding that information). But I am concerned about "legitimizing" Mr. Kessler's press release version of his biography by adding sources to the information he has provided and calling that a NPOV biography. That's not a biography; that's just a press release with footnotes. It's a problematic way of going about expanding the article (bearing in mind WP:BLP and WP:COI). In some respects, Who's Who can be considered a vanity press. They do some of their own research, but they also rely on information provided by the subjects. Now, they may have done their own research and discovered this internship award themselves, but I'd say it's highly likely that Mr. Kessler provided it to them on their standard questionnaire. Under WP:RS policies, that would be considered a self-published source. Who's Who accepts this kind of material; Wikipedia generally does not. I think we as Wikipedia editors get to decide what's noteworthy here and what's not. In my opinion, several things currently in this article are not noteworthy -- chief among them, this internship "award."


 * I would recommend reading this Forbes article about Who's Who research methods for more context. Also see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9 for discussion. The general feeling there was that Who's Who is a reliable source but not sufficient to establish notability of the article subject, or, as in this case, the relevance of particular facts.


 * In my opinion, we should be looking for newspaper articles about Mr. Kessler and reviews of his books, rather than relying heavily on his Who's Who entry as a starting point for expanding the article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A further point: I just did a google search for "Dow Jones Newspaper Fund intern." It gets 120 matches, nearly all of them young journalists reporting this accomplishment as part of their early career achievements (in the last five years). I didn't find any mention of DJNF intern awards going back forty years. I just don't think it merits notice in an article about the career of a senior journalist who has much more noteworthy awards to his name. The search gets zero hits when limited by site:wikipedia.org, meaning that among all the other journalists who have received this award, none of their WP biographies mentions it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say, so I'll only the points where we may differ:
 * I agree with the consensus on WP:RSN that Who's Who (WW) should not be used to establish notability by itself, but this is not a matter of notability, which deals with only article creation/deletion, but a ''content issue for which notability guidelines are irrelevant.
 * It is possible that WW did not do its job in researching whether Kessler was indeed the "Dow Jones Inc intern" or not; but such speculation is completely irrelevant. As an experienced editor you know we go by verifiability and don't aim to intuit the truth.
 * That said, I agree that not every award listed on WW needs to be listed in this article; not because of verifiability issues (which are non-existent), but because some may be undue relative to other facts about the person's life. That is the reason, I did not include everything from the following list:
 * (of course some of the above may be worth adding yet)
 * So the only point to consider is whether the detail you deleted is indeed undue. My opinion is that in an article which spends more words on the last two years of Kessler's career, than on his 15+ years at much more notable publications, removing verifiable details about his earlier career citing WP:UNDUE is a bit silly. But since this is such a minor issue I am not going to edit war with you over it; if you happen to rethink your position I would welcome you self-reverting. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So the only point to consider is whether the detail you deleted is indeed undue. My opinion is that in an article which spends more words on the last two years of Kessler's career, than on his 15+ years at much more notable publications, removing verifiable details about his earlier career citing WP:UNDUE is a bit silly. But since this is such a minor issue I am not going to edit war with you over it; if you happen to rethink your position I would welcome you self-reverting. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for hearing me out. I wasn't trying to suggest that Kessler was not the Dow Jones intern; I believe it's true as well as verifiable. I'm only suggesting that the fact that WW lists him as such is not evidence of the relevance of the award, given that what's relevant in WW is mostly self-reported. And I'm not really arguing on the basis of WP:UNDUE. My concern is more about WP:NPOV. I want to move us away from Who's Who as a source for what's interesting/noteworthy/relevant about Ronald Kessler because I want to move us toward a better Wikipedia article. As you know, early versions of this article were generated from Kessler's press-release bio and edited by Kessler himself. I think some of that content and structure remains in the article, and I'm trying to avoid its vestigial presence where possible. Silliness is inherent in Wikipedia -- witness the fact that we've just spent more words discussing this internship than the article itself contains -- and frankly I thought reinserting a minor but, yes, verifiable detail that was deemed by another editor to be insignificant was a little silly also. I think the edits you've made have largely improved the article, and I think the edit I made in removing the title of the internship improved the article further. I'm going to let it stand until someone else comes along and decides otherwise. The edit is here if anyone cares to revert it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
From a post-election perspective, the Controversy section seems to detailed as to the context of the campaign, especially about Kristol and the sequence of events, and seems like a textbook case of recentism. I propose cutting it down to the following:


 * ==Controversy==
 * In an article for Newsmax, on March 16, 2008, Kessler incorrectly reported, based on a previous Newsmax story by a freelance writer, that Senator Barack Obama attended a service at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ on July 22, 2007, during which Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave a sermon that blamed world suffering on "white arrogance." The Obama campaign denied that Obama had attended the church on the day that sermon was delivered and other reporters discovered that Obama was in fact in transit to Miami, Florida on that day. Newsmax posted a "clarification" while standing by the story, suggesting that perhaps the sermon occurred on a different day in July. Shortly after the controversy broke, Kessler attempted to remove information documenting it from his Wikipedia biography.

I'm also conflicted about the inclusion of Kessler's Wikipedia editing. Yes, it's verified and I agree TPM is a reliable source, but is it necessarily important in a bio of this length? I'm sure there's a policy answer to this, but it's not coming to me (perhaps also WP:RECENT?). I also think the section should have a more descriptive name, but I can't think of one either just now. If nobody objects, I will abbreviate this section to the copy as above later in the week. WWB (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Edited to include the above section as noted. Left the Wikipedia editing in and have no plans to remove it, but as previously stated, it seems a rather recent-ish and Wikipedia-centric thing to include. Would be interested to hear others' thoughts. WWB (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinarily non-critical
Reads like his publicist wrote the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.169.92 (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so I believe the tag can be removed. I appreciate your help and understanding. Ronald Kessler[KesslerRonald]--KesslerRonald (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I am going to decline to remove the tags at the top. Looking at the article's history you have contributed lots of edits to this article. Furthermore, the article still relies too much on primary sources such as biographies on the Newsmax website (which employed Kessler) and his own editorials. These need to be removed more significantly reduced before I would consider removing the tags. You are welcome to propose such edits below using Template:Request edit. If you have any questions, please post on the help desk. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Following up on the criticism in the template at the top of my article, on April 7 David Gerard deleted 7,652 bytes to remove a deprecated source and to correct excessive self-citing, including many of my contributions. Therefore, is it time to remove the template?KesslerRonald (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Ronald Kessler

Following up on the criticism in the template at the top of my article, on April 7 David Gerard deleted 7,652 bytes to remove a deprecated source and to correct excessive self-citing, including many of my contributions, in accordance with the instruction on Feb. 5 on the talk page on what is needed to remove the template. Therefore, given these changes, is it time to remove the template? Thank you for all your help! Ronald KesslerKesslerRonald (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)KesslerRonald
 * I've gone ahead and removed the tags per the edits pointed out in this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done PK650 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi it seems pk650 has already done this. I closed the edit request tag, If you have anything else please feel free to open a new one by clicking "New Section at the top of the page and starting the body text with . Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Corrections to recent edits
In response to the recent additions, I have never written a piece promoting a conspiracy theory, a claim that comes from Media Matters for America as a source. Quite the opposite, I wrote the Newsmax story below headlined, "Obama Was Born in the United States," rebutting the conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in the U.S. https://www.newsmax.com/ronaldkessler/obama-birth/2008/12/08/id/326987/ In fact, Lloyd Grove, a highly respected journalist who is known as a liberal, said on The Daily Beast, which is left-leaning, "Ron Kessler...has enjoyed a reputation for solid reporting over the past four decades," a quote which was previously deleted from my Wikipedia article. https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-makes-ronald-kessler-donald-trumps-no-1-cheerleader In addition, Michael Isikoff, another highly respected journalist who is known as a liberal, said, "[Kessler has] done groundbreaking work over the years, [resulting in] major scoops." https://www.thedailybeast.com/from-washington-post-reporter-to-trump-cheerleader Since when is Media Matters for America a credible source on journalism? Per below from Wikipedia, Wikipedia identifies Media Matters as a "left-wing organization." From Wikipedia: on using Media Matters as a source: "Extremely partisan sources, such as the progressive Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and the conservative Media Research Center, Newsmax, World Net Daily and Newsbusters, are of limited utility at Wikipedia. These should never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace, due to their poor history of fact-checking and their practice of editing out of context, spin-doctoring, selective presentation of the facts, and general partisan mendacity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Hyperpartisan_Sources_1 Any additions citing Media Matters as a source should therefore be deleted. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America As for Trump, after the Jan. 6 insurrection, I parted ways with the former president, saying on Fox News that the Russians "very possibly" penetrated Mar-a-Lago to obtain Trump's top secret documents and explaining how damaging it was to our national security for Trump to have squirreled them away at Mar-a-Lago. Per below, I said on Fox News, "So, we're talking about incredibly valuable secrets that the Russians, of course, would have been after. The Russians would have been trying to penetrate Mar-a-Lago day and night and very possibly did recruit spies to obtain these documents." https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-guest-russians-very-possibly-did-recruit-spies-to-infiltrate-mar-a-lago-to-find-classified-documents/ The reference to Trump under Personal Life should be deleted since that is no longer true and I have denounced him on Fox News.KesslerRonald (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Ronald Kessler

Proposed addition out of fairness
Personal life--Kessler is married and has two children.[2][53] He met Donald Trump while writing his book about Palm Beach and has since said he considers him a personal friend, leading other to call him Trumps "No. 1 Cheerleader".[54] ''ADDITION: However, Kessler subsequently denounced Trump on Fox News over his stash of top secret documents at Mar-a-Lago. https://www.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-host-quickly-comes-100945491.htmlKesslerRonald (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Ronald Kessler