Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

See also

• Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 1#Single purpose accounts 1
• Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 1#Single purpose accounts 2

Klein, Obama, and Wikipedia

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Obama article picked up by Drudge Report.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-09/In the news. — Athaenara ✉ 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wired Magazine reports evidence that suggests the banned user was Klein himself. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikigate-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.230.1 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• See "WorldNetDaily reporter ordered Obama edits" in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-16/In the news. — Athaenara ✉ 05:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New Sections

I have added a lot of information about Mr. Klein and his career, if you feel any information is unsourced or does not belong please discuss here. Note some text was copied from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Aaron_Klein which releases its text under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3. Also please be on the lookout for Klein or his socks to go after the article ASAP.

Also should discussion of his fringe article about Obama and wikipedia be included, because he is referencing his own account without mentioning that it is his own account in this [[http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114|</nowiki> amusing article]] which is hilarious in its bias and hackery. TharsHammar (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no notability to the Klein article or the random nonsense it seems to be stirring up on Wikipedia. At this point, that would all be WP:OR because as far as I can tell no reliable source has covered Klein's article. If it does we should consider a brief mention somewhere, but we have to keep WP:WEIGHT and WP:NAVEL in mind. Coverage of Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related events tends to get overblown on Wikipedia, and should be included only if it's of enough importance and relevance to the article. Wikidemon (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that is what I thought. I did not mention it in the article. I came across his column on Drudge and did some research to add info to this article. TharsHammar (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Well, don't erase that research. There's a chance it could become a bona fide mainstream news story this coming week, at which point it is coverable. Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed info sourced to WND, added fact tags, added NPOV words to POV statements removed material sourced to TMZ and tabloid Daily Star. TharsHammar (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the edits[1] but I do think we can trust a newspaper to state who is the head of which bureau. That's the kind of uncontroversial information that, unless challenged or contradicted, should be just fine.Wikidemon (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With WND you never know. Based on how this guy has made up information before about the FoxNews Hostages, etc, it is probable that he is not even based in Jerusalem and WND does not even have a Jerusalem bureau. TharsHammar (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A section about this should be entitled "Scum-bagery" since it best describes what Aaron Klein is trying to pull. I heard he's made several new usernames and is trying to keep this off his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.151.167 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Updates on Wikigate

UPDATE Wired Magazine reports on the WND Obama controversy and Kleins involvement, you can see that here a well read, but non RS blog has also picked up on this [2]. TharsHammar (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And now Huffington Post has picked up on it [3] I will check again tomorrow, I am pretty sure more MSM sources will be picking up on the fraud of Aaron Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE 2 The Wired article posted above has posted an update with further information about the wikipedia obama klein bruhaha, stating "This morning the WorldNetDaily story, which is headlined "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility," was scrubbed clean of the name Jerusalem21, who's now referred to only as "one Wikipedia user." Fortunately, Google cache never forgets." Since I have been accused of bias below I will not be adding this information to the article, I am pointing it out if any other interested editor feels it is worthwhile information on Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Web Magazie Gawker has also picked up on this story, and the information contained in their article should be used as balance for the Wikipedia Controversies section [4]. TharsHammar (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Gawker is absolutely not a reliable source for purposes of a BLP. THF (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Via google I found this [5] discussion which one of them involves gawker. Because someone has suggested a bias with this article I will not be editing it further. THF I think you added the FoxNews link, that seems like a coatrack add to this article because it does not refer to Klein by name or WND or the article that Klein created, or anything else about Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch -- it came up in my Google News search, but it only mentions "critics", and thus would arguably be SYN here. It's gone. THF (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its back [6]. TharsHammar (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wired blog is a reliable source, and is rather necessary to correct the inaccuracies in the Fox and other pieces. I would question Gawker and the others. Actually I question the whole thing. Why not take a look at WP:NAVEL and WP:RECENT and think about this whole thing in a few more days after the scandal has died down and the article is no longer up for deletion? It is too early yet to know whether this is a notable event or not. Wikidemon (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conspiracy_theorists should be added to his article, the category state that "For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. " and Category: Conspiracy Theories includes Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories TharsHammar (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't defend the conspiracy theory to my knowledge, he just notes that the George W Bush article contains conspiracy theories, while the Obama article does not. If you have a cite where he definitively states the conspiracy theory is true, I'd agree with you. THF (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In that article no, unless he is Jerusalem21. But in this article [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72656] he says "An investigation into Indonesian citizenship law and a review of Obama's biography and travels suggest the Illinois senator at one point may have been a citizen of Indonesia." which goes along with the Indonesian part of the Obama citizenship theories. TharsHammar (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think speculation (and the article is just listing possibilities) in August before the Obama campaign definitively refuted these claims is distinguishable from claiming that the refutation is part of a cover-up or otherwise wrong, as the conspiracy theories hold. He's not "defending" the conspiracy theory there. THF (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The wired article has been updated, scroll to 720 pm update to read [7] where an email reportedly from from Klein states "I am not "Jerusalem21," but I do know the Wikipedia user (he works with me and does research for me), and I worked with him on this story, which focused on investigating allegations I had received from others of Wikipedia scrubbing Obama's page. I wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted." TharsHammar (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And the full email is here [8] TharsHammar (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source news organization has now picked up on the story, [9] in addition to the reports by Wired Magazines senior editor here [10] since I have been threatened below I am still not willing to edit this article, but this information would add context to the wikipedia criticism section. TharsHammar (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

The picture does not mention who Aaron Klein is, and is of insufficient quality precision. I suggest it be deleted from the page until a suitable replacement is found. TharsHammar (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

'TharsHammar' is a biased editor who should not be allowed to determine policy of this page. TharsHammar's statement that "based on how this guy has made up information before about the FoxNews Hostages, etc, it is probable that he is not even based in Jerusalem and WND does not even have a Jerusalem bureau" is totally unsupported by fact, has never even been implied before by any source and demonstrates the extreme bias of the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.145.58 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My point was that we need a RS to support this information, we cannot rely on WND because it is an unreliable fringe publication and is prone to fabricating information, like other tabloids. My point about Aaron fabricating information was made to demonstrate that WND and Aaron cannot be trusted as RS for any information and we must rely on outside RS to verify information. I am not saying the information is false, only that we cannot rely on WND or Aaron as a source. If you have a RS that says Aaron is the head of the WND Jerusalem agency then add it, like another editor already did. TharsHammar (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly who are you to determine WND 'cannot be trusted' and also exactly when did Klein 'fabricate information?' Your reference to Fox News is inaccurate. The article was defended, not retracted. You are clearly a biased editor and should not determine policy on this page unless you provide legitimate criticism and not fabricated claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.145.58 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

'TharsHammar' must be monitored on this page closely. His reference to WND as a 'fringe publication prone to fabrictating information' is unsupported in fact and would be disputed widely. His statements make clear he is here with an agenda. His changes will be monitored. Jackinthebox25 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not determine policy on wikipedia, that is done by consensus. Please see [11] for the determination that WND is unreliable. For a funny story about just how unreliable WND is read here. They lifted a story from the onion and reported it as fact. Thanks for your concerns, and remember to remain civil. TharsHammar (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WND is a partisan attack publication and is clearly not a reliable source for anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the picture, the licensing seems muddled. It looks like the uploader simply applied every template possible. If the article survives AfD it may deserve further investigation. There's also the verifiability issue of whether the people in the picture are actually who they are purported to be.   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What about his picture that appears here: http://conservativepublisher.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html It has a name label and the FoxNews logo. What do you do here, contact FoxNews for permission to use the picture? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he was on the O'Reilly show. Should O'Reilly be contacted? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.   Will Beback  talk  17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh. I had to open my mouth!! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted O'Reilly and await a response. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No response yet. Hmmm. What shall I do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Declare as "discredited"

I propose the first line of the article refer to Klein as ". . . a discredited Jewish-American author and reporter . . ." as there are now multiple instances of Klein fabricating situations to suit conclusions he has preconceived and attempted to implement. It is not fair to put him on the same level as credible journalists who cover events with a fair and open mind. If not this, then some other reference to his bias and unethical nature should be added to the first, summary paragraph or this article can easily been seen as misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.151.167 (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to use that sort of wording, remember this is a biography of a living person, so libel and respect for human decency issues must come into play. The only RS articles presented that reflect negatively on Klein are The Smear Machine Grinds On, Obama Wiki fiddler caught red-handed, and Fox Claims Wikipedia Whitewashes Obama's Past. I suggest disambiguating his job and updating the article to include more controversies, not going to the level that 99.172. suggests. TharsHammar (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if we had a source that directly called the subject "discredited", at most we would include that as an attributed opinion. We certainly wouldn't make that make that conclusion on our own.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that what he was doing is exactly what journalists do to gather evidence needed to report accurately. It is clear in all those Obama page edits that the thing of which he was complaining occurs on a regular basis. Perhaps he was just ensuring the truth of those who claimed the page was whitewashed. He would be irresponsible if he did not first make such a determination, would he not? He only confirmed, it seems, what is obvious to anyone who takes the time to look. Contrast that with the reporter who rigged the Pinto with the Firestone 500 tires to explode on the cameras. That was bad. What Klein has done may just have been standard journalistic practice blown out of proportion for political reasons.

This is Wikipedia. Let's be truthful. Battles with Klein should happen somewhere else, not Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If we were being truthful, it would be there. Being neutral is a different matter, and more applicable here. Grsz¹¹ 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CHAT, gentlemen. Let's stick to the content of the article. The anon's comment has been addressed, there is consensus on the point, and we can drop the WP:STICK. THF (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent, ec) For BLP and encyclopedic reasons I would set a high bar, and require massive, uncontroverted sourcing before declaring anybody "discredited". Plus I don't think it is technically true. Being discredited is a matter of public acknowledgment, and in this case the journalistic lapse is just a few news articles here and there. I also don't think it is relevant that the Sydney paper "criticized" Klein (nor do we have a basis for that statement - reporting a negative incident is not cirticism), and it is neither here nor there that they called him a "right wing pundit". However, we should be faithful to the source and to the facts. The paper describes his subsequent disclosure of the truth as an admission, and it is very relevant, as the paper says, that he "engineered" the incident he wrote about by having a colleague (he says) do the things he wrote about as if it were a third party. I've made an edit accordingly. Wikidemon (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon. Which citation has "he asked a colleague" to edit? Maybe I missed it. TIA Tom 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the Sydney morning herald Klein "manufactured" the controversy, "admitted he had a hand in engineering the facts"; per Wired Klein "admits that he's responsible for the Jerusalem21 edits"; per letter from Klein to Wired (reprinted in Wired): "I wanted to personally oversee...". The two salient pieces are that the Jerusalem21 edits were at Klein's behest, and that this was an admission (not an acknwoledgement or something he said - admission carries a very specific connotation, which is in both of the reliable sources).Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bali and yes, I missed that article, I was looking at another because I am on a crap computer that doesn't show the reference numbers, don't ask :) Anyways, it was me as usuall, carry on, Tom 19:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bush

I'm not too sure how to word it, but I think it's important to note that the Bush article covers mainstream issues like the substance abuse and Katrina, while Klein was writing about fringe theories in Obama. I believe that various sources have discussed it this way. Grsz¹¹ 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The substance abuse and insider trading allegations are fringe. You may disagree with that, but that's what Klein was arguing, and we don't get to mischaracterize the argument just because editors disagree with it. If there is a source that criticizes the comparison, we can address the WEIGHT issues of getting into that amount of detail. THF (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the details of what Klein identifies as negative coverage in the Bush article starts to get too specific for this level of coverage. On the other hand, if we're going to do a long detailed story about this controversy I have no objection. But in the past, editors have seemed to suggest that we avoid recentism and hyping this type of story too much in which case I think that level of detail gives undue weight to something that isn't especially notable. His argument was that negative aspects were covered in one article and not in the other. Since the story is about particular edits being omitted I think those are worth mentioning, but I suppose an argument could be made for leaving them out too. I think it's enough to say what he was trying to add and let people judge for themselves. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Klein's whole premise was bunk; yes, i agree with you that criticism of the handling of Katrina (and i'm sure there will be a section in the obama bio centered around criticism of the handling of the economic collapse, and various other efforts of his still new administration -- Iraq and afghanistan will be big cockups, there will be lots of criticism, and when that happens it will get covered here) is far, far different than whacko claims from fringe sources that he was secretly born somewhere other than hawaii. As for Bush's drug/alcohol use, that part of his life was a big part of his coming to jesus and the changes that eventually molded the man that became president. These formative things in his history -- just as the formative bits of Obama's history -- need to be in his bio. But more to the point, wikipedia is filled with critical claims about obama -- Obama-Ayers controversy Jeremiah Wright controversy Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories The Case Against Barack Obama The Obama Nation etc... it's just that his main bio page is, well, biographical, and in any encyclopedia this fringe stuff just wouldn't fit there. Klein's "journalism" over this whole matter has been deceptive and short of basic editorial standards (he of course isn't a journalist as it's been traditionally understood -- he's a partisan attack dog), and he made no effort to explore why editorial decisions are made at wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CHAT, please, or I will be forced to respond that it's ludicrous that the minor fringe allegations of substance abuse and insider trading are in the Bush article, while the Ayers stuff is entirely absent from the Obama article, with not even a WP:SEEALSO. THF (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

THF, I hear what you are saying, but PLEASE leave the See also section out of it, that "area" is one of my pet pieves for how it is misused and overpopulated. FAs try to avoid that section as it should be. Cheers! Tom 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a faulty premise. Wikipedia does not operate by comparing the article about one thing to the article of its supposed rival. In theory we should be above politics, and consider each article on its own merits. Off Wiki sources are free to speculate that Wikipedia may exhibit a political bias, and we can cover that speculation, but we should not report on politics from an in-universe perspective. That's their deal, not ours. Wikidemon (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post Material

The Huffington Post has very few staff reporters, like Sam Stein, the rest are guest bloggers. What Ashley Rindsberg wrote [12] was his personal opinion, and it in no way reflects upon the opinions of the Huffington Post as a whole. The material is basically a blog posting that is hosted on the Huffington Post website. The material reflects only Ashley's opinions, and those opinions, like Terry Krepels [13], are quite frankly not notable and not worthy of inclusion in this article. From WP:CON and WP:BURDEN it is up to Legit to show the material belongs and I am deleting the material added. Please discuss on the talk page until consensus is reached. TharsHammar (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A user is insisting on adding in a quote by a man named Ashley Rindsberg who blogged about this via the Huffington Post. The post is by a man named Ashley Rindberg, who is described as an independent writer and researcher. As it stands, I don't think he qualifies as enough of an expert to be considered a reliable source. In addition, the quote as written here is attributed to the Huffington Post rather than to the writer. If this remains, clearly the quote needs to be specifically attributed to Rindberg, but I'm not sure he's even qualified to be used a source here. Thoughts? AniMate^talk 04:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

All other issues left aside by me for now, you can't attribute any of that to anything/one other than "Ashley Rindsberg" whoever he is (there may be arguments that his arguments shouldn't be included at all). But IF the opinion is included it should be included to the one who has the opinion (this isn't the same as a "New York Times editorial" for instance, which is accepted as reflecting the view of that papers editorial board. I don't know what vetting/editing process such posts go through (or do not go through). A brief google search convinces me that he's relatively unknown.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and it is supposed to be accurate. What we have on this page amounts to a smear campaign, literally using those words, against Aaron Klein based on his supposedly getting caught lying or gaming the system.

The quote I added goes directly to the heart of that with a source saying "his journalistic methodology is scrupulously sound," and, "As is standard journalistic practice, Klein 'tested' the story by having his own researcher attempt to make changes to the page. The changes (I'm not exactly sure what they said), were deleted within minutes, and the Wikipedia user account eliminated."

Whatever one thinks of the Huffington Post, the question remains whether or not what Klein has been accused of doing is in reality standard journalistic practice. Are any of you Wikipedians in a position to say so? Even if you did, it's OR (original research).

This article is tagged at the top that it needs help and needs to be built. I am building it. I have found a direct quote that directly contradicts the biased way this article is written. Removals of that direct quote go against the interests of building the page as requested.

Further, my additions were removed in minutes. When I reverted with the reasonable observation that they should be discussed in Talk before removal, they were instead removed again. I do not consider that to be compliant with Wiki policies or Wiki community. It only strengthens my concerns that there is a fundamental unfairness going on here on this page. I was asked a while back why I even cared in the first place. Because what I see happening here is unjust, and the constant removals within seconds and despite reasonable pleas to leave material in until Talk decides otherwise only go to prove the very matters claimed by Klein for which he is now being attacked on Wikipedia.

I'll have you note Aaron Klein is not the only one to suffer from the likes of editors who persist in defying Wiki policy, and I have taken on such editors on other pages and have prevailed almost all the time. I can guarantee I will not be run off this page by Wikipedians who persist in defying Wiki policy so that the page stays in a biased, non-Wiki compliant manner.

Aaron Klein was wrong to assume Wikipedia itself is responsible for what is happening to him here on his page, but the effect of a significant number of editors constantly acting within minutes to remove anything that even looks the slightest bit favorable to him could be wrongly interpreted by anyone that Wikipedia itself is responsible. It is not. Indeed it has policies designed to prevent the very abuses that are happening on this page. But if a group of people refuse to follow those policies, there is very little that can be done easily and the smear is left up for the world to see and the web archives to archive and spread.

Well that's unjust, I happened to have noticed it, and I happened to have decided to take a stand against it.

Now I'm not going to revert the improper reverts, but I will do what I can to see that Wiki policy is applied on this wiki page. This page is biased in making a certain claim that the source I added directly refutes. The source must be added for that reason and for the reason that a determination of the accuracy of the source is easily had. In other words, is it true or is it not about "standard journalistic practice." Leaving that out makes Klein out to be a phoney.

Frankly, if it's true about "standard journalistic practice" and that Klein was following standard practice, then the false claims otherwise should be considered for removal. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. Let me be clear - who the hell is ashley rindsberg? If we can establish he might be a reliable, or reputable, or notable, or expert, or some other kind of source that we might generally use for one reason or another, that would help in assesing this specific material (specifically the relevance of his opinions about Klein.) At the moment he appears to be a nobody. I could be wrong - I know nothing about him. Who is he? Can you demonstrate that he's a somebody?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately, you haven't discussed why your addition was actually reverted. Is Ashley Rindsberg enough of an expert to be considered a reliable source? I'm assuming you know something about him we don't, because otherwise this is just an opinion posted on a blog hosted by the Huffington Post. If you want to argue that the Huffington Post is always reliable... you've just made editing here a lot easier for the progressives who agree with them. AniMate^talk 04:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, "Whatever one thinks of the Huffington Post, the question remains whether or not what Klein has been accused of doing is in reality standard journalistic practice." That should be easy to prove, no? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source stating that what Klein did is standard journalistic practice? If you consider Rindsberg reliable, could you share the credentials that qualify him with the rest of us? AniMate^talk 05:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Huffpost. They host blogs by nobodys, and they also sometimes have stuff by somebodys or otherwise (occasionally) usable because they're part of some controversy or other. In this case, this is just a non-notable blog they host. Rindsberg (HE, not Huffpost, needs to be assessed in this case) has 3000 ghits, all to blog posts, none to reputable publications, or academic work that would establish credentials that would make his opinions relevant etc... I'm now convinced you don't have anything that would convince us otherwise. He doesn't past muster as a source for anything on wikipedia at the moment, irrespective of klein, or where his blog posts are hosted. Not going to happen (unless a good argument that made that Rindsberg is somehow notable, and i've missed it). Bali ultimate (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As others have said - and to be blunt - Who is Ashley Rindsberg to comment on what standard journalistic practices are? From a bio of him I found "Ashley Rindsberg is a writer and freelance book editor who has contributed to a number of recent books and to online newspapers and magazines such as Livestrong, Ynet, and Israel Insider." That does not sound too impressive, and considering Klein has also contributed to Ynet, Ashley might be backing up one of his own. Wired senior editor, Kevin Poulsen who has credibility when it comes to matters of investigative journalism has said of the Klein wikipedia situation "What's missing from this treatise on investigative journalism is the reporter's obligation to disclose when he's engineered events on which he's reporting." [14]. Again HuffPo hosts pretty much anybody, see the 1000s of people here [15].TharsHammar (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on online investigative journalism and common practices, but see the correction posted at the end of this column [16] for what the Wall Street Journal thinks should be common practice. For backstory on that situation, see here [17]. TharsHammar (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the way I read it. It's different. The reporter started the thing in the first place. Klein did not do that. Thousands of similar instant deletions already existed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

A question is raised, legitimate and even compelling in my opinion, that if it is true that "standard journalistic practices" is the reason for Klein's actions, then this wiki page leaving that out and saying otherwise must violate Wikipedia policies. Else, the policies are worthless, which is certainly not true.

The alacrity with which the quotes about such journalistic practices are removed and tossed aside casts a grave shadow on the veracity of this page. If the Huffington Post article is not reliable, then certainly "standard journalistic practices" must be explained somewhere in a manner that allows this Wiki article to be written in accordance with Wiki policies and practices.

Look at this. Klein himself says the same thing:

"I wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted. I was investigating scores of claims e-mailed to me that Obama's Wikipedia page was being scrubbed of criticism. For your information, often investigative journalists engage in exactly this kind of testing – like seeing if they can bypass mandatory disclosures while donating to a candidate (several newspapers did this prior to the November election), or if they can register a dog to vote in Illinois. Thus, even if I had personally edited Obama's page as a test to investigate allegations of scrubbing, this is entirely legitimate journalistic practice." Wikepedia [sic] in the Tank for Obama, March 11, 2009.

This report is relevant as well: "The Obama Smear Machine Goes After Aaron Klein," March 11, 2009. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Answer it is not standard journalistic practice to be deceptive, to have hidden identitys, to have them perform actions and then seek to conceal their connection to the jounalist. In classic american journalistic practice this is a big no-no. Phew. Glad that's settled. Think I'm wrong? Prove it with reliable sources. Give us the links. Otherwise, put the stick down (and no, the WND folks, via the jawa report, are not reliable for very much).Bali ultimate (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

When Chris Hansen confronts the child predators he says "I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC" and he shows the viewers the step by step of how they caught the pervs, including how peverted justice goes about setting up fake online identities. He does not craft his reports to deceive viewers into thinking that real underage children were talking to the pervs and Chris was an uninvolved bystander, just filming and showing up at the opportune time. No, Hansen uses standard journalistic practices, which Klein did not in his original article. TharsHammar (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise can be reached here. We can use a quote by Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily. In an [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=91373 editorial] he wrote:

To verify allegations that Wikipedia quickly censors anti-Obama edits, Klein had his researcher do test postings – and sure enough, he confirmed the allegations. This is what investigative reporters do all the time. As I said, big scandal, right?

Truth be told, I don't think WND is anywhere near a reliable source, but I think a quote from his employer describing the scandal is more relevant than a random HuffPo blog post. AniMate^talk 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(ecX4) No, in most cases Huffington Post is not reliable, and it is not here. As for standard journalistic practice, no, of course it is not normal. A journalist engineered a fake scandal to write about, wrote about it in a deceptive way, then got caught red handed. He managed to dupe two mainstream-ish outlets, Fox and the Telegraph, into repeating his claims relatively uncritically. The article was clearly wrong as to Wikipedia practices and the events depicted, as anyone can figure out by looking at the edits in question. That's exactly what the bloggers did, and the mainstream journalists next. A real journalistic source would presumably have fired such a writer on the spot. Instead the head of the paper wrote the "Obama Smear machine" editorial to defend him, in a way that is misleading to the extreme. The cover story about supposedly being a legitimate undercover investigation is transparently disingenuous. First, that is not what the account was doing. The now indefinitely blocked account was set up a few years ago along with some sockpuppets to create and add blatant advertising / promotional material to an article about Aaron Klein. This is all well sourced to the Wired blog and the Australian syndicate's story. We don't need to descend into the "so-and-so said" school here because what people are saying on the subject is unreliable speculation and advocacy, not notable enough to report. The employer's self-serving denial has to be treated with care, and we should not republish obviously untrue stuff; we can reasonably say that the journalist and the employer claimed they were doing an undercover investigation to attempt to prove Wikipedia bias though. As much as we know the World Net Daily behavior is outrageous and not real journalism here, we can only say what the reliable sources say. Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that compromise is missing the point and is relying on Farah's spin and creating straw man arguments. The whole controversy was that Klien did not disclose Jerusalem21 was working on his behalf, and crafted the article to tell of the horrors of some random wikipedia user who was just going about his business trying to improve the encyclopedia. But as we know now, that is not what happened, and all the prior warnings of Jerusalem21's talk page about puffery on this article probably played a roll in the block. As wired says "If he'd disclosed all that, it might have been a different article. "Man Fails to Get Crazy Conspiracy Theory Into Obama's Wikipedia Entry" is a story not even Fox would pick up." [18]. TharsHammar (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with wikidemon. The WND piece was self-serving, deceptive, comes from a party with a conflict of interest, and is demonstrably out of step with journalistic best practice in its claims (Farah's statement is a classic, uhm, untruth). No need for a compromise here -- there isn't anything of substance to compromise on. Unfortunately, reliable sources don't write about klein one way or the other, which is why this article is at AfD.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was self-serving. All I'm advocating is something along the lines of:

In an editorial column, Klein's employer Joseph Farah stated that "This is what investigative journalists do all the time."

It gives their rebuttal while making sure a casual reader knows that it comes from WND. As much as I loathe them, their views on this scandal are relevant. AniMate^talk 05:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeating a falsehood without pointing out it is false is dicey. Why would anything the boss said in an editorial be notable at all? We can achieve the same thing by saying that Klein and his employer defended the incident, claiming it was an investigation - something the article already does. That's the gist of it. Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing against Klein revolves around this "falsehood," as you put it. Using some general language that only gives the "gist" of the response is patently unfair where colorful language is used for the other point of view, and I'll bet it violates some Wiki policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately their response is notable. We don't get to throw everything their critics say out there and then leave their response out. We've given ample space to the controversy. I don't think a sentence or two about the response from the people who published the article is crossing any lines. AniMate^talk 06:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We should stick to the reliable sources for a description of what happened. I do not see the notability of a self-serving denial by Joseph Farah. Is there a reliable source to suggest that his response was a notable part of the event? There is no reason to add editorials and unreliable material from either supporters or critics. The Wired and Australian press coverage is adequate for a brief description of the main points of the event. Descending into "the right wing bloggers said X" / "the left wing bloggers said Y" is not encyclopedic treatment.Wikidemon (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that other than Klein's article what WND does in response to this isn't notable? AniMate^talk 06:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Farrah's editorial, "The Obama Smear Machine Goes After Aaron Klein", is not notable. It is also so full of misstatements that it would be very dificult to cover it without undue weight or POV problems. The claim that what Klein did is standard journalistic practice, for instance, does not pass the straight face test. Wikidemon (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As a person, I agree with you on so many levels. As an editor of Wikipedia, I can't agree with you. I despise WND and what they stand for, but your assertion that the publication that printed this piece shouldn't be allowed a response in this article is a violation of NPOV. Furthermore, if his editorial isn't notable, neither is Klein's article. AniMate^talk 07:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any real criticism of Klein here that they need to respond to...? The allegation isn't made that he violated journalistic practices at all. As an aside, have any non-partisan sourced covered this event in greater detail? Is there any criticism of this event noted outside of the initial "J21 might be Klein" wired, etc. articles? thanks, --guyzero | talk 07:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The allegation is not made directly, but the Wired and Sydney Morning Herald pieces strongly imply unethical journalism. Klein's article itself is not notable - a piece of junk, basically. What made it notable was that it got picked up the blogs and mainstream press, repeated by the Drudge Report, then duping Fox News and the Telegraph, then getting debunked by Wired and the Sydney Morning Herald. That can be demonstrated by the fact that the article, and to some extent the events it claims to portray, were the subject of four reliable sources. The Farah article was not widely reposted, and there are no reliable sources that would suggest notability. Having said that, this edit by Animate[19] does a wonderful job of capturing the gist of it without including any statement that's problematic. So I'm fine with that.Wikidemon (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My POV is that don't think Farah's response is necessary, and as you say it isn't notable (unlike possibly the original Klein article that started the weekend of extra heavy vandalism due to wikiprocess cluelessness, heh.) Farah's words look lopsided in the article as the only criticism actually made is inside of the sources, and not in the article itself. I appreciate the AniMate's edit was in the spirit of compromise, which is cool, but I do think it would be good to include a non-partisan analysis of this event if any exists...? That presumably will give Farah's words a 'purpose' in this article. regards and good evening, --guyzero | talk 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is painful. Currently, we have two unnamed spokesmen from Wikipedia commenting, but we're objecting to the named editor-in-chief from WorldNetDaily? Really? The piece appeared in WND. We have to show their side. AniMate^talk 08:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says we do not and should not. TharsHammar (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If WND is fringe, then Klein's article is fringe and shouldn't be mentioned. AniMate^talk 11:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WND is fringe, and their articles and comments should not be relied on directly, only what reliable main stream sources have to say in relation to them. [20]. Before Legit came in yesterday all mention of the WND article was from reliable 3rd party sources, like FoxNews, Wired, and the Sydney Morning Herald. TharsHammar (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so I understand what you're saying... if WND makes any more comments on Klein's article, they shouldn't be included. Correct? AniMate^talk 11:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if they are picked up by the Main Stream Media, or other reliable sources. I do not think any comments that come straight from WND should be included. Lets only go there when a RS publication covers and describes them. TharsHammar (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Farrah appears to be responding to Krepel [21] and associated postings made (by Krepel and others) to HuffPo and other blogs. He links to what he is responding to in the source. We don't include Krepel's criticism of WND in this matter, possibly due to WP:RS. Nowhere in this article is the allegation made that Klein engaged in unethical journalism. In fact, no criticisms of WND or Klein are offered at all. The comments made by Wikipedia spokespeople merely state that we are trying to be neutral - not a criticism but a refutation. I'm unclear of the current purpose of Farrah's quote in the article -- he is not responding to wikipedia, he is responding to Krepel and others. I believe the section to be unbalanced to include Farrah's response and not what he is responding to. I'm unsure whether it is more WP:RS and WP:N policy complaint to include the criticisms and Farrah's response, or none of it. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 17:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we can let that one line farah quote stand as is for now. Readers will have to assess the credibility of that comment for themselves. As for all the other bloggy back and forth, pro and con, i'm in complete agreement with Guy. None of it has any place here. It's the additional information and false claims from other unreliable/deceptive sources in addition to Farah (and additional comments from him, of very undue weight) that i object to.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire Wikipedia section is either mistakenly wrong or a deliberate smear made to look as if Klein's entire article in question was based on the changes made to Obama's Wikipedia page by one user, Jerusalem21, who turned out to be Klein's researcher. But this is not the case. Klein's article noted that WND monitored Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and observed as criticism on all kinds of issues (Ayers, Wright, etc) was scrubbed. Further, WND published a follow-up the next day noting many users were still being blocked from attempting to add key issues to Obama's Wikipedia page and other pages, quoting some users. See: [40]. Right now the entire section paints an entirely misleading and false picture; it claims Klein "Manufactured" controversy"; it paints a picture that his piece was reliant simply upon "Jerusalem21" being barred from entering information on Wikipedia that is critical of Obama, suggesting the controversy was both "invented" and based on that one account. This needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.145.58 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NB 79.182.145.58 is suspected of being a sock of Jerusalem21's. Also when you write about wikipedia "denying" material from being added there will instantly be masses of WP:FRINGE people who read WND then try to tamper with wikipedia by adding similar material to wikipedia. The original piece was based on the manufactured experience of Jerusalem21, and the circumstances of the people trying to add the material after reading the article was also manufactured. Thus the meaning of "manufacturing a controversy". If the writer of the piece were a good journalist he would have looked through the history of the Obama page, seen other instances where people were banned or blocked, then tried to contact those people and reported those stories. That is not what happened though and the origional piece was totally reliant of Jerusalem21 until the manufactured controversy reached others and they began to repeat Jerusalem21's mistakes. Any real journalist would have disclosed Jerusalem21 was working on behalf of the journalist when writing the article. Klein didn't, and real journalists called him on it. To quote wired "What's missing from this treatise on investigative journalism is the reporter's obligation to disclose when he's engineered events on which he's reporting." [22]. The text of the article as it stands now is actually too bias towards Klein, and under normal circumstances quoting the WP:FRINGE Joseph Farah would not be acceptable in a wikipedia article. TharsHammar (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say TharsHammar's persistent hammering on his original research view about a "manufactured controversy" is never ending. The facts as reported by Klein are truthful as can be seen by an honest look at the Obama history page and even the Klein history page.

The only "manufactured controversy" is the success of those who convinced some major media (like in Australia) to claim Klein failed to follow standard journalistic practice. Those people then use those stories they helped create to further hammer away at Klein.

A big lie told often enough becomes the truth. That explains why people hammer away on the "manufactured controversy" claim, while scoffing at any source that says otherwise.

Look, just for raising this issue, I have been threatened on my Talk page. Nevermind that the discussion I raised led to consensus on article improvements, and the ultimate improvement in the article, exactly along the lines I raised. Nevermind the truth is the opposite of the false claims made me against me by two different editors. So far as I can see, more false claims will be made, then the argument will be made that where there's smoke there's fire, and yet another manufactured controversy will result in the censorship of yet another person they so obviously oppose.

This Klein page is full of POV. Something will be done about it. There are good and honest people standing up for Wiki policy. AniMate has been outstanding, for one. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus developed, and to suggest there was a consensus developed is deceptive and dishonest. I have reverted the additions because of WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. TharsHammar (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do something about TharsHammar? He clearly has an agenda and nothing stops him from implementing it. He reverts edits of multiple editors unilaterally, and his actions are obsessive. Please, will some administrators please review TharsHammar's comments and edits for Wiki violations. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I, along with multiple other editors, have reverted only you edits. I cannot edit further today as I am up against the 3RR, which you chose to ignore. I take affront to the allegations that I have an agenda. Please reach consensus on the talk page before including material in the article that multiple other editors have rejected and reverted. So far only animate has agreed with you, Other editors have voiced their rejection of animates proposed compromise. TharsHammar (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not ignored the 3RR, and most of your other statements are false or misleading as well. Your response to my seeking help with your out of control behaviour was to file a claim against me, only strengthening my claim that your actions are obsessive, among other things. Look, you might be a good editor eventually, but you have to calm down, and you have to be accurate. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(out)Let us get back to the issue here. Should we include the followup statement from Farah? He is considered WP:FRINGE and it is my contention that we should not include his statement. Bali states above, and I agree, "The WND piece was self-serving, deceptive, comes from a party with a conflict of interest, and is demonstrably out of step with journalistic best practice in its claims (Farah's statement is a classic, uhm, untruth). No need for a compromise here -- there isn't anything of substance to compromise on." and wikidemon who says "The employer's self-serving denial has to be treated with care, and we should not republish obviously untrue stuff" TharsHammar (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Did it occur to either of you that some fresh eyes would help this situation? File an WP:RfC. Thars, if you think the source isn't reliable why not go to WP:RSN to discuss it. Legit if you feel this is a blp violation, why not go to WP:BLPN? AniMate^talk 04:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To frame this as a disagreement between just me and Legit is disingenuous. There are multiple other editors involved and Legit continues to revert against their consensus. TharsHammar (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AniMate, you're an admin. What can be done when someone continues to make false claims here, on my Talk page, and even on the 3RR page, etc.? I'm almost feeling persecuted by this person. Just look, for example, at the reaction to your reasonable comments even here in this new section. Do you appreciate being labeled as "disingenuous"? Well I don't appreciate the persistent false claims made against me, all for trying to improve this page, and, as you know, this page has indeed been improved, by you as it turns out, based on issues of simple wiki compliance I initially raised. Your own addition with consensus has been reverted by TharsHammar, for example.

Disingenuous was stated because the comment by animate was framed to indicate that this is a disagreement only between myself and Legit when multiple other editors have weighed in. Legit your continued statement that consensus has been reached is also disingenuous as anyone perusing this can see. You + Ani vs 5 or 6 other editors is not consensus for your position, in fact it is the opposite. TharsHammar (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You continue to mislead people. Even some of those who formerly opposed me, even those making false complaints on my Talk page, have eventually come to agree, even if grudgingly, that AniMate's compromise was acceptable. When the one side switches and joins with the other, that's called consensus. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, Wikidemon agrees with AniMate's edit that resulted from my raising the issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And here Bali ultimate agrees with AniMate. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that his/her 300+ edits have not yet provided a sufficient basis for learning how to get along with the wiki community. I'm not saying I was perfect by the 300th edit, but people educated me, and, in my opinion, TharsHammar needs that education now. You have provided such an education/example, such as by saying you totally oppose WND but you have to be fair to Wiki policies. Really, that's outstanding, but that lesson has not yet been absorbed by TharsHammar. So while I don't know what to do other than bear the brunt of his/her actions, I am willing to help in any way you direct that's complaint with Wiki policy, etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has been brought to the attention Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism to bring even more sets of eyes beyond the 5 or 6 so far disagreeing with Legit. TharsHammar (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Legit, please remove yourself from the cross and begin to edit productively. Alleging that editors such as Thars, Wikidemon, and everyone else here have entered into some sort of conspiracy to manufacture soviet era "Big Lies" is only a testament to the prejudices you cannot seem to leave at the door. Also, any support for WND pretty much automatically makes your position rather tenuous... 75.66.180.72 (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then how do you propose stopping repeated false claims about my actions and repeated claims of the "fringe" nature of WND, Klein, etc., repeatedly over and over again. Certainly I'm not the only one who has noticed the obsessive nature of repeatedly hammering at the same point over and over again. How do you propose handling that? Telling me to stop observing that obsessive behavior is not the answer.

Further, don't tell me to "edit productively". We are here precisely because I raised this issue in the first place and got the consensus needed to include what was ultimately included, until Tharshammar cut it out yet again.

Regarding WND, as AniMate said, you may not agree with it, but it's appropriate to quote here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They are a WP:FRINGE publication, and it is necessary to state that so we have a criteria on what to include and not to include. When was the last time a non-fringe publication had a [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327 6 part expose on soy making kids gay], or covered people drilling a 15,000 foot hole because the [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46428 bible tells them where Oil is]. TharsHammar (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a starting point, Klein perpetrated some kind of journalistic fraud by sock/meatpuppeting for years, then engineering a fake controversy, then writing about it as if it happened to someone else, and when caught, making up an implausible denial. Any experienced Wikipedian who cannot see that is, frankly, either not very aware of what is going on or has some other editing problem. Next, what we can or cannot say about this unfortunate incident depends on the reliable sources, and the reliable sources say that the journalist engineered a scandal so he could write about it. For various reasons we have to be careful and calm about how we write about this, but it is a blatent online hoax. Wikidemon (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't see how you can be so sure on that claim. You are saying the guy's whole career is a joke due to an "online blatant hoax" and you better be absolutely right if you are going to say that. If first got involved here when I read Klein's article and recognized right away that what he reported is exactly what happened to me when I too tried to edit the Obama page for a few days until I saw it was hopeless. I see what Klein has said is true, and a fair review of the Obama history proves that as well. You say it's a "blatant hoax," then that OR gets promoted constantly as if it were true. I'm just not convinced. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to debate the veracity of Klein's arguments. We're here to write an article about him. We definitely need to be more careful about how we characterize and criticize Klein on this page, because a lot of the statements I've seen here are violations of WP:BLP. I'd also add that rather than complaining about each other or portraying over the top victimhood, a more productive way of dealing with these issues are the appropriate noticeboards. Talk pages of political articles are notorious for their gridlock, and we have mechanisms in place, such as noticeboards and RfCs, to help us work together more productively. Finally, let's remember we're here to edit from a neutral point of view, because being a POV warrior can quickly destroy any joy you might feel from editing here. AniMate^talk 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be silly to include material on the article page that is simply untrue as a matter of Wikipedia edit history. When the subject of the article has been meatpuppeting the article and making false claims about circumstances here, and when that becomes a notable event, the issues are mixed. As far as BLP, he did it to himself. The situation is unique to Klein. There are a number of instances of abuse of Wikipedia by notable individuals becoming notable events in their own right, and to discuss how to treat them it's necessary to discuss what happened.Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter how much we disapprove of Klein and his actions, we still have to treat and discuss him with care, if not respect. Is there egg on his face? Certainly. Is characterizing him as someone who "perpetrated some kind of journalistic fraud by sock/meatpuppeting for years" fair? Probably not, but I'm fairly certain it is a violation of BLP. The AfD was littered with borderline attacks on the man, and though I deplore his politics, I don't intend on letting that happen here too. Just be careful, and remember that Klein is a person too. AniMate^talk 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things. First, respect is earned, not given. Secondly, it is my understand that talk pages were not under the same strict guidelines as the actually biographies. We are trying to work out issues to improve the article, we shouldn't devolve into smears and uncivil criticisms, but in the course of establishing what is a WP:RS and what is WP:FRINGE we must speak the truth and say some unkind things. Those things do not belong in the actual biographies, but they are necessary when trying to shape the biography. TharsHammar (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space. We have to be careful, and here respect is given, not earned. We aren't allowed to talk throw defamatory statements around just because we disagree with someone's politics and actions. We must come at every single biography from a place of respect, and if you're not able to do that, perhaps you should find other articles to edit. We can debate the usefulness of quotes from WND, but we're not going to debate whether or not Klein should be treated with respect. AniMate^talk 01:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing new material to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Treating the biography with respect is different from respecting the person. Respect for the person entails feeling or showing deferential regard for; esteem. That is something a person earns, it is not automatically given. Respecting wikipedia is another matter, and that is why I am trying to help out here, I respect the article I am editing. In regards to the subject of articles, there is a vast area between respect and disdain, and neutrality necessitates being in that middle area. TharsHammar (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, for the record, what fringe theory is being pushed here as a fact? AniMate^talk 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant to link to Extremist and fringe sources] because WND is a fringe organization, and the material added is unduly self-serving also this fringe soure is being used to obscure the mainstream view. I was mistaken by linking to WP:FRINGE because that redirects to fringe theories, but that can also be applicable because interpretation of journalistic practices that Farah shows in that quote is definitely on the fringe of mainstream understanding. TharsHammar (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But we're not presenting it as fact. We've put the facts out there, put what critics have said out there, and are giving their response. I find it troubling that you feel they aren't allowed any response to charges leveled against them, especially when their response is presented here in such a neutral way. Do you think you POV might be clouding your judgement a bit here? AniMate^talk 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We are NOT putting in what their critics have said in the article, so there is no need to include the statement. If we had actually included the criticism then I think your point would be valid, but we have not included the criticism, only the valid reports of who the editor was working for. We do not include what that the RS publications say about this not being common journalistic practices, we do not include any critical quotes or statements from critics at all. Do you think Legits crys of BIAS have clouded your judgment? TharsHammar (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How's this for bias: "You did the right thing Terry, keep up the good work exposing these frauds!" TharsHammar said that in a comment to a Media Matters source used here. It appears TharsHammar is using Wikipedia as another soapbox. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That Media Matters source actually added his own "reliable sources," himself, to this wiki page!!! Maybe Klein should cover how Media Matters is doing this! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Break 1.5 - Media matters too?

Good spot, L.A.E.C., I've deleted that. It looks like groups on both sides may be doing some self-interested editing on Wikipedia. Someone should also give a COI caution on their talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not me. I don't know how to do that, or even what COI means. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, looking at Terry Krepel's edits, it appears he has been promoting himself for years on the Aaron Klein and the WND page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI - "conflict of interest" editing. There are differing opinions as to whether an editor with a personal, financial, professional, etc., interest should edit an article on a subject, and whether they ought to disclose. However, when they start using it to promote themselves or remove negative material about themselves that's a no-no. An author posting cites to their own work is a classic case, and something generally frowned on. It's somewhere between trying to manufacture reality, and just plain spamming. So you can put the template {{tl:uw-coi}} on their talk page as a friendly caution. However, this Media Matters editor has been doing it or two years and there's some discussion already on their talk page, so they may be deliberately skirting the rules. Wikidemon (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add the template but then I saw that edit was in April, 2008 so it's a stale issue. It might be worth spot-checking their more recent contributions to see if they're engaging in any more COI or heavy POV... see, I get upset with liberals too. Wikidemon (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you and AniMate are tough but fair. This is just another example.

Oops I just added the tag then I saw your latest comment. Well, he could use to know it anyway. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at this! Here's Krepel using WorldNetDaily as a reliable source!!! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And here is the very next edit, where that is reverted because WND fails RS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

For those interested in addressing the issues, this was posted as a reply to AniMate earlier, he said "We've put the facts out there, put what critics have said out there, and are giving their response. I find it troubling that you feel they aren't allowed any response to charges leveled against them" to which I replied We are NOT putting in what their critics have said in the article, so there is no need to include the statement. If we had actually included the criticism then I think your point would be valid, but we have not included the criticism, only the valid reports of who the editor was working for. We do not include what that the RS publications say about this not being common journalistic practices, we do not include any critical quotes or statements from critics at all. Do you think Legits crys of BIAS have clouded your judgment? Since AniMates justification for including the self-serving response from Farah is based on the false premise that we are reporting what critics have said I would suggest we remove the Farah quote. An alternative would be to include the criticisms, but I think that would be unnecessarily harsh. Lets just report the facts, and not the criticism or spin. TharsHammar (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article from the Sydney Morning Herald titled Obama Wiki fiddler caught red-handed is extremely critical, and they have a right to respond to it. I'm not worried about the article being too biased towards progressives, because I've been here long enough to know that anything that isn't written with a conservative bias is considered biased by conservatives. It's an extremely mild quote, and both you and Legit need to check your political hats at the door when you're editing here. AniMate^talk 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not wearing a political hat. I am only here because the same thing happened to me as Klein reported, so I found it untrue to claim he manufactured a controversy, especially in light of the obvious fact that the Obama page has been whitewashed exactly as reported. My political support for Obama is irrelevant. Further, I'm not seeking to whitewash in Klein's favor (a political hat), only to apply Wiki policy.

I am concerned when statements are made like that (political hat) that the repeated false claims about my edits by TharsHammar are actually being believed. This is why I object to his/her repeated false claims about my editing and my statement that a lie repeated enough becomes the truth. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes the Sydney Morning Herald Article is extremely critical, but we do not include any quotes or information from the Sydney Morning Herald article! Sure WND has a right to respond to it, but why should that response be included here when the criticial material is not? That is what I am saying and you have completely ignored that point. Please do not answer my question with personal criticism, and not address the issue I raised. TharsHammar (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If we were to include the defensive response we should include what it is they are actually being apologists for, which is that Klein manufactured a fake news story for an extremist publication and in so doing (say his critics) was not acting in the role of a real journalist. Nevertheless, I think it is best to leave off the commentary from both sides and stick to the sources. If the sourced information happens to come out sounding negative to one of the participants, perhaps it is because what he did is a negative thing. Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"If the sourced information happens to come out sounding negative to one of the participants, perhaps it is because what he did is a negative thing." It could also be biased reporting. An effort should be made to look at all sources. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And you have been asked repeatedly to find Reliable Source material that could be used and have come up with only spin published by Farah and an obscure blog posting. If all the actual reporting goes in one direction maybe that is a hint at where the truth of the situation lies. We have not included any of their criticisms, so there is no need to include Farah's spin. TharsHammar (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree wikidemon, that is why I want the quote from Farah chopped off the end, so we leave off the commentary from both sides and just have the facts speak for themselves. Legit and Animate want the spin from Farah at the end of the facts. TharsHammar (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree, the quote is inoffensive and it pleases those who do not agree, so I'm okay with it in the spirit of compromise and consensus. Also, it does serve the reader by giving more background and a link to Farah's editorial on the matter, which is something that should probably be read (more so than any uninvolved critics of Klein) by anyone wishing to understand the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon you need to retract your statement that Klein isn't a real journalist. That's a flat out violation of BLP. I'd also like to say that if it is a forgone conclusion that Klein manufactured this story and is unethical, why haven't FOXNews and the Telegraph retracted their stories? AniMate^talk 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my statement. Klein admitted to manufacturing the study, and it's as plain as day from the article history, which reliable sources have picked up (save for the sockpuppetry and earlier abuse). I know you ask the question rhetorically, but to take it literally, why Fox and the Telegraph have chosen not to retract their own shoddy journalism is beyond me. It may have something to do with why they ran inaccurate stories in the first place. Others speculated offwiki that they were duped ("punk'd", one calls it) by Klein, or that they have their own agendas. It is also possible they were just being sloppy. The story got very little mainstream attention, and had a short shelf life, so part of the answer may be that the matter just isn't interesting to people, and mainstream journalists do not like to write about fringe media. You can pick some of this up from the Australian news, which treats World Net Daily as more of a curiosity than a news outlet worth covering.Wikidemon (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Well it looks like we have a consensus here, which means nobody's very happy. As this debate has gone on far too long here, I suggest if there are any more objections they be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, since I can't really see anyone here drastically changing their position. AniMate^talk 23:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if that's the way it is, that is the way it is. If anyone is reading this in the future and wants to modify the passage to remove the Farah statement contact me and you will have my full support. TharsHammar (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed, this is absurd. WND is not a reliable source; their editorials are not sources at all, and of course the head of WND is going to attack anyone else they can rather than admit Klein was unethical. This is a non-subject for inclusion. In other news, the queen thinks she is royalty. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks KC. If we include the specific criticism that they are responding to, WND's response to it may be relevant (IMO, they can be an RS for their own statements.) Since all of that criticism seems to fail RS (huffpo, mediamaters, conwatchblog) and probably won't make it into the article, then there is no need to document their response. Providing the response without context is unbalanced. --guyzero | talk 20:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)