Talk:Aaron Klein

Single purpose accounts

Nearly thirty single-purpose accounts, four registered, the rest not. Some very obviously used by Aaron Klein and (very likely) by his boss Joseph Farah and others at WND (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) to edit the Aaron Klein article:

1. 192.118.11.112 (talk · contribs) Most active (100+ edits) March 2006 to September 2007 (blocked one week, September 2007)
2. 192.118.11.120 (talk · contribs) January - September 2007 (blocked one week, September 2007)
3. 89.138.145.173 (talk · contribs) March 2008
4. 89.139.71.40 (talk · contribs) December 2007
5. 85.250.52.28 (talk · contribs) December 2007
6. 217.132.208.208 (talk · contribs) November 2007
7. 85.250.34.238 (talk · contribs) - October 2007
8. 69.200.87.76 (talk · contribs) - October 2007
9. 89.138.148.164 (talk · contribs) - August 2007
10. 85.250.13.52 (talk · contribs) (?) - August 2007
11. 217.132.254.31 (talk · contribs) - July 2007
12. 217.132.10.198 (talk · contribs) - June 2007
13. 217.132.141.207 (talk · contribs) - June 2007
14. 89.138.231.164 (talk · contribs) - June 2007
15. 89.139.195.205 (talk · contribs) - June 2007
16. 89.139.242.38 (talk · contribs) - May 2007
17. 217.132.141.231 (talk · contribs) - May 2007
18. 89.138.215.232 (talk · contribs) - April 2007
19. 89.138.116.157 (talk · contribs) - April 2007
20. 217.132.234.44 (talk · contribs) - March 2007
21. 89.138.166.212 (talk · contribs) - March 2007
22. 85.250.173.2 (talk · contribs) - March 2007
23. 89.0.159.106 (talk · contribs) - February 2007
24. 89.1.146.35 (talk · contribs) - February 2007
25. SandyBMW (talk · contribs) - January 2007
26. 89.1.187.177 (talk · contribs) November 2006 - January 2007 (~ 13 edits)
27. MikeJason (talk · contribs) November-December 2006 (~ 14 edits)
28. Joshua1988 (talk · contribs) - September 2006 (~ 37 edits)
29. 68.236.30.36 (talk · contribs) - September 2006 (Philadelphia)
30. 89.1.187.215 (talk · contribs) August - November 2006 (~ 12 edits)
31. Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs) - March 2006 (~ 14 edits) (Wrote first version of article.)

→ (Earlier report in Archive 1.) — Athaenara ✉ 19:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Related controversy at Talk:WorldNetDaily

See Talk:WorldNetDaily and its Talk:WorldNetDaily/Archive_1 for more furor involving Aaron Klein. The WorldNetDaily article does have a lot of citations of Terry Krepel's work, but I have questions about using blogs in a reference list. The credibility of both WorldNetDaily and ConWebWatch as sources might have to be checked out using WP:RS. EdJohnston 19:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

removed tag

I removed tag claiming 'factual accuracy' of the article is in dispute. There is not a single sentence that can be proven factually inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.1.146.35 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

This article is still awaiting printed references. Blogs and activist websites are not reliable sources per WP:RS. Until such time as good references are provided, the whole article must be considered unconfirmed, and the accuracy banner is fair. See Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute:

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

• it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
• it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
• in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
• it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

There are not even any printed sources for basic biographical details on Aaron Klein's life. It's not up to us to prove things accurate. If you want something kept in the article, document it. (This is from WP:V). EdJohnston 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Added sources/removed tag

Added third party sources to verify "constoversy" section. The links may be reprints of WorldNetDaily articles but they are published in Ynetnews, which is the website for Yediot Aharonot, Israel's largest circulation print daily. Also the original WorldNetDaily articles themselves are acceptable as third-party sources anyway as WorldNetDaily is not a blog but a news werbsite accredited by both the White House and the Israeli Government Press Office. WorldNetDaily articles would suffice here as 3rd party since this article is not about WorldNetDaily but Aaron Klein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.118.11.112 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello 192.118.11.112. Since you've now been here a number of times, would you consider logging in with a regular account? The many apparently-furtive changes using different IP addresses give the impression you would like to make changes without being detected. (It's hardly likely that there are 23 different anonymous editors that all have the same point of view, and collectively edit only one article). It seems likely you are affiliated with Aaron Klein, or at least know him personally. It would make sense for you to take a higher profile on Wikipedia and step up to the plate as a real editor, with a name. You might then be in a position to make deals with the regular editors about the future of the article. It's hard for us to make deals with someone who logs in with a different account every week. EdJohnston 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

He returned as MikeJason (talk | contribs) to re-enact the same WP:COI edit, including removal of the {{Primarysources}} and the addition of a YNet reprint of a WND article, with the edit summary "signed in with an account name, now which deals do you want to make; this text is fine"—what do you suppose he's really after? — Athænara ✉ 13:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

• " (diff) (hist) . . Aaron Klein‎; 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)  (+1,618) . . 192.118.11.120 (Talk) (added controvercies [sic]; dont give me that crap it's not verified, it was covered by Fox News and others, do a Google search and stop erasing) "

There are several things wrong with this edit and edit summary.

• It added material which had been removed on the encyclopedic grounds that it had been in the article for many months without reliable sourcing.
• It included three additional links to the subject's website, which site is already in the external links section.
• It was accompanied by an uncivil edit summary which inappropriately attempted to require other editors to support the subject's conflict of interest edits.
• It was in violation of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

Wikipedia:Attribution

Wikipedia:Civility

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Wikipedia:External links

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing     … — Athænara ✉ 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• " (diff) (hist) . . Aaron Klein‎; 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)  . . (+1,618) . . 192.118.11.112 (Talk) (added stop erasing) "

"Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." — Wikipedia:Attribution Policy (emphasis added) — Æ. ✉ 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• " (diff) (hist) . . Aaron Klein‎; 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)  . . (+1,618) . . 85.250.173.2 (Talk) (added, will add supporting links shortly and remove wnd links) "

Obtain Wikipedia:Attribution before adding. — Æ. ✉ 01:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Third party references were added from Investors Daily, National Review online and Yediot Aharonot. As already noted, even WorldNetDaily.com articles would suffice as a 3rd party sources since this Wiki article is not about WorldNetDaily, but one of its writers, who also writes for other publications and is heard on the radio. A browsing, for example, of Wiki articles for Fox News personalities finds many souces for material from Fox News' own reporting. A look at personalities from CNN finds CNN news online articles listed as 3rd party sources. This is legitimate since the articles in question are not about Fox News or CNN. Ragardless, third party sources were added to KLein's entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.166.212 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

New paragraphs from User:Tkrepel seem to lack reliable sources

I suggest that User:Tkrepel's new material lacks the support of reliable sources, since it has to appeal to Conwebwatch and Worldnetdaily as references. Was the alleged bad behavior of Aaron Klein covered in any major media? Also, I don't see the interest to our readership of an extensive byplay between two political web sites with opposing views. We ought to be offering the basic biographical facts about Aaron Klein, and I think we've done that. Readers who are eager for more details can go to the respective web sites, that we list in the references. I'm not even sure that the section about 'Klein excluded from Syria' has enough interest to be included in Wikipedia, but I would consider recommending that we restore the version that incorporates that. The Pelosi story appears more substantive. And, from that we may surely conclude that Klein is no longer excluded from Syria. EdJohnston 06:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to throw myself in here. As the editor of ConWebWatch, I think that I offer legitimate commentary on Aaron Klein. (As ConWebWatch is narrowly focused on conservative news websites, I am probably the only person writing about Klein on a regular basis, so commentary about him by sources other than myself and WorldNetDaily is difficult to come by.) I think that my articles speaks for themselves; my claims about him are fully documented and supported, and they come from a journalistic perspective rather than an ideological one. The fact is that Klein is a biased reporter, and I would like to see that reflected in a way that balances out the current puffery of the article and, also, meet Wiki standards as well as attempts by Klein's sock puppets to delete any negative information about him. I would be happy to do what I can to help achieve a fully rounded bio of Klein. Tkrepel 04:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

At present ConWebWatch does not appear to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. See WP:RS. Our guidelines tend to regard most web sites as 'self published' and lacking the control of a neutral editorial staff. Since you follow the work of Aaron Klein, you may be aware of mainstream press coverage of his doings, and any quotes from the mainstream press that you find would serve as reliable sources. If the regular press doesn't cover Aaron Klein very much, then that is a vote on which items are notable enough to cover, and we should accept it. EdJohnston 15:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem of finding sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications to improve this article, I searched Google News today with "Aaron Klein" as the search string.

Only two of the thirty four results were not direct links to the WND website.

Of the two exceptions, one did not duplicate WND content. The other said Klein broke a story "in the Yediot newspaper," which is Yedioth Ahronoth.

As veterans of this article know, Yedioth Ahronoth operates Ynetnews which (as in this case) reprints many WND stories. And so it goes. — Athaenara ✉ 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

added book section

Klein's books is his most high profile venture and absolutely deserves a section; it's been widely covered by the media, including newspapers, CNN, Fox News and celebrity gossip columns and television shows. As well, there is no debate as to the book title and subtitle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.87.76 (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has a book these days. Its not enough to merit a wiki entry. Furthermore, Klein's most high profile venture is, by far, the story he manufactured (and later retracted) about a conspiracy theory entry on Obama's wikipedia page that keeps getting removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.160.138 (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate

Last year, the information "born August 29, 1979" was added (15:35, 17 March 2006 UTC) and removed (00:19, 21 March 2006 UTC) by someone who was using the anon IP 195.93.60.34. I don't know how important it is. Any views on what should be done with it? — Athaenara ✉ 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway

The Galloway story was reported widely on Fox News, including on 3 Fox News shows. It is not in dispute regardless of the reliability of WorldNetDaily -- the entire episode was recorded on audio played on Fox News and readily available on the Internet. The fiasco will be re-written to reflect a more Wiki-style but it would be unfair editorial practice to delete. You can instead suggest alternate phraseology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.71.40 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the content discussed above:

Booted from British Parliament building

During an argument over whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, Klein was reportedly abruptly dismissed from the British lawmaker George Galloway’s London office and handed over to Parliament police. Galloway claimed Klein was a "Zionist operative" who had breached security by falsely presenting himself as a reporter. [1] [2]

The entire incident, which occurred in June 25, 2007, was recorded on audio tape. The fifteen minute sound file was released on the Internet and played on Fox News Channel. [3]

Klein interviewed Galloway along with national radio host Rusty Humphries. After Klein repeatedly referred to Hamas as a terror group during his interview with Galloway, the Scottish politician accused Klein of conducting a "political broadcast on behalf of the Zionist movement," stating "Hamas is a legitimate liberation movement." Galloway argued Hamas' suicide bombings against Israeli soldiers and settlers is morally justified.

The politician handed Klein and Humphries to the parliamentary police, who briefly detained the two until they could verify Klein and Humphries were reporters and not operatives that infiltrated parliament security.

The issue here is what is encyclopedic. Two of the three inline external links are to WorldNetDaily, the other is to The Jewish Press, for which Klein also writes, with almost exactly the same text. I searched for the Fox News Channel coverage which was claimed and could not find any except on the sites linked above and on blogs. — Athaenara ✉ 06:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Klein on Hannity's America

KLein's booting from British parliament was a major event covered extensively by Fox News Channel and dozen's of top U.S. radio shows with audiences in the millions. It absolutely deserves mention. Please re-load it. Regarding coverage, this blog detail's Klein's Fox interview: [4]

As well: 1) How can you unilaterally decide WorldNetDaily, a news website, is not reliable? 2) The event is not in question. The entire episode was recorded on audio tape. The audio is available within this article: [5] 3) The Jewish Press is a respectable U.S. Jewish newspaper and also reported on the issue. 4) You are using unfair criterea in ruling out WorldNetDaily on Klein's page. A brief review of other reporters pages finds multiple instances in which the only source is the very newspaper/website that employs the reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelafriat (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 5) Even if you view WorldNetDaily as an "extremist" website, which it is not, Wiki rules specifically state such a source IS allowed if the article is about/related to the source: "Extremist sources Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelafriat (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Forwarded message

89.138.145.173 posted the following message (diff) on my user talk page:

message to Athaenara

Dear Athaenara:

Since you seem to be regulating the page Aaron KLein, may I ask that you please add the below text to the section titled 'controversy' as I think it is a significant and bio-worthy update.

Obama

In February, 2008, Klein first reported Senator Barack Obama, a frontrunner for the Democrat presidential nomination sat on the board of a nonprofit organization, the Woods Fund alongside William Ayres, who was a Weathermen leader and has written about his involvement with the group's bombings of the New York City Police headquarters in 1970, the Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Klein also reported while Obama served on the board the Woods Fund granted funding to an Arab group Klein said mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens. [12]

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Klein detailed what he said was a relationship between Obama and Khalidi, whom Klein labeled as a harsh critic of Israel who has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

Klein's piece gained U.S. media attention, including in the Jewish media, and was also widely criticized by the liberal media as "the first major swift-boating" of Obama, referring to conservative-led attacks against Presidential candidate John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. [13] [14] [15]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.145.173 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is the central location for discussing improvements to the Aaron Klein article, so I forwarded it here. — Athaenara ✉ 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Seven minutes later, Special:Contributions/Jerusalem21 added the identical text (diff), removing the {{pp-semi-protected}} page protection template (note, however, that removing the template has no effect on the actual protection status of the page). Three minutes after that, Jerusalem21 added an additional paragraph (diff) with the edit summary "(punctuation changes)". — Athaenara ✉ 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This article in its current state is absolute garbage. It reads as a total puff piece and was obviously heavily influenced by Klein himself and cronies/sockpuppets at WND. Doubtless if Klein were more important or a better journalist prominent Wikipedians would be all over this article for its blatant NPOV violations. Are we SERIOUSLY allowed to use the phrase "the liberal media" now? However, this is not Conservapedia and people (like myself) are going to actually come to Wikipedia expecting objective information about this guy. I don't want to start an edit war or a giant flame war but this article needs some degree of compromise, because in its current state it is basically acting as nothing more than a conduit for Klein's questionably notable "journalism." It is in pretty clear violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV (as well as the policy on autobiography/subject-added content), and unless anyone who is NOT Aaron Klein or one of his sockpuppets has any objections, I am going to be bold and make some changes in a day or two. Iamblessed (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to go ahead and propose any improvements to this article. If you use the Talk page to give us a general idea of the changes, that will put you in a good position should later controversies arise. (We may be able to point to a Talk page consensus, if such a consensus can be worked out). Since the article is semi-protected, it may be easier to defend it against promotional editing than before. (Last year a set of IPs was adding material that was promotional of Klein, hardly ever the same IP twice. See #Single purpose accounts above). If you do make some revisions and then it turns out that, once again, people affiliated with the subject come forward to slant the article content, a posting at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard remains possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in serious need of editing for neutral point of view policy compliance. A comparison of Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 1 posts and the article history also shows that, while there once were several neutral editors helping out here, the number seemed to drop to a mere two in the past year. Another - more! - needed and welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 06:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Still garbage. I've seriously condensed the section on Klein's attacks on Obama to remove irrelevant asides that attempt to prove Klein's point of view, and that focus on Obama rather than Klein. That's considered a WP:COATRACK. There was a lot of unsourced stuff, and unencyclopedic tone as well as some paraphrasing running close to plagiarism. I note there's a lot of use of primary sources (i.e. referring to Klein's pieces, while summarizing what they say as evidence of Klein's opinions) which, given the low quality of prose, is not trustworthy. The citations are not in proper format either. It would take a while to go through each to clean them up, remove the unreliable sources, verify that each stands for what it's claimed to stand for, etc. If someone were watching at the time, this kind of stuff should be rejected in the first place when someone tries to add it without proper sourcing. Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The effect of the coi spa army has been to give the article a marked "why the world thinks Aaron Klein is very, very, very important" tilt which is quite out of proportion to his actual notability.

More cleanup, please! — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I would support semi-permanent full page protection, which would require the coi spas to request edits with the {{editprotected}} template. — Athaenara ✉ 08:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism / Accusations of Plagiarism

Fellow Zionist Debbie Schlussel has accused Klein of plagiarism, among other things:

Aaron Klein Watch: WND's Plagiarist Rips Off Schlussel Again, Book Plagiarized Schlussel, Israeli Newspapers, Fabricated the Rest

--Kitrus (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That piece also links WorldNetDebbie: Website, Its "Reporter" Aaron Klein Copy Schlussel Column Almost Word for Word in "Exclusive," Plus False Info From Sleazy Source. Given that Klein (Jerusalem21 and dozens of socks) typically uses WND and his own articles as sources, it might be appropriate to treat these as equally reliable sources. — Athaenara ✉ 12:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(My sarcasm ("reliable" [not]) above may have been too subtle.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My point: Klein considers himself a reliable source for his notability. Schlussel probably is a reliable source about the plagiarism. — Athaenara ✉ 03:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a sentence or two about this could be included in the article, if we could find a newspaper comment on Schlussel's allegations. One would think that, if this story is legit, some of the Israeli newspapers would have taken note of it. A Google search for 'Klein Schlussel plagiarism' gets 1440 hits, at least one of which offers some rebuttal. This offers a way to spend a relaxing afternoon slogging through neutral, pleasant, well-written blogs </sarcasm off> :-) EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Schlussel has little credibility. She has an easily verifiable history of accusing just about everyone who breathes of plagiarism. Her idea of plagiarism is if someone else writes about the same general topic as her. A brief browsing of her claim of plagiarism regarding Klein's article on the Nation of Islam and Obama already discredits her claim; nothing is copied word-for-word or even very similar except the quotes they both obtained from the same source, which would obviously be similar. Klein even credited Schlussel in his article and then linked to her original piece! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerusalem21 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A good rebuttal of Schlussel's unfounded claims can be found here. [16]. The site also links at the bottom so other Schlussel claims of plagiarism, including Schlussel's own admission to stalking radio host Sean Hannity after she accused him, groundlessly, of plagiarism. The site also links to a Congressman who was stalked by Schlussel after she falsely claimed he plagiarized her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.158.182 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Schlussel's claims were entirely discredited and proven false - see [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.112.254 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

Mr. Klein is probably notable. If so the article should be about him. The fact that he has criticised President Obama could be mentioned. But a whole section, sourced by primary sources, should not be used to merely repeat the criticisms. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Entire coatrack removed (diff) and {{fact}} tag added for the unsupported claim that "In 2008, Klein gained additional attention for penning numerous investigative pieces critical of presidential candidate Barack Obama." (Underline added for emphasis.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Klein promotional editing

"Klein's Hamas interview became a dominant theme of the 2008 presidential elections". This is one of the new claims in the dramatically expanded article, now 30% longer thanks to the November 20 edits of Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We might surmise that the subject is once again editing his own article. I suggest that most of these November 20 edits may need to be rolled back, unless better sources for the new emphasis and claims can be provided. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. The citation for the sentence about dominant theme is this Boston Globe article, which does not mention Aaron Klein. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, the subject, his editor/employer, or someone else with a vested interest. After more than two years of this, is it time for this article to have full protection until the COI SPAs understand that they can't puff this thing up without running into the NPOV policy? — Athaenara ✉ 06:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the new Hamas interview section? It's not promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.158.182 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What was the role of Aaron Klein in the 2008 American presidential election? References in American media that discuss the election campaign don't seem to mention Klein. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1) The media does mention him. Here is one article from The Nation, which was also reprinted on CBS.com http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/berman

2) The question with regard the Hamas interview is not Klein's role in the presidential debate, but the role of Hamas during the elections. The purported Hamas endorsement became a central theme of the president debate. Do a simply Google search under 'Hamas, Obama' or 'Ahmed Yousef, Obama'. And since Ahmed Yousef's infamous 'endorsement' of Obama came during an exclusive interview with Aaron Klein, Klein's role in the Hamas affair was important. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/04/020315.php; http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=61631; Therefore, a simple mention of the Hamas affair and Klein's role is relevant to the Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerusalem21 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed in Student Career section

I added a citation needed tag to the claim about the high school newspaper. This is likely to be unverifiable, as, without original research, are the facts that Klein attended Torah Academy or Penn. (For what it's worth, I happen to have attended the same high school, two years behind Klein, and I don't remember a monthly newspaper, but maybe it existed before my time.) Even if this information could be sourced, it's hard to see how any of it is notable, until we get to the newspaper confiscations at YU. MOE37x3 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

response -- the info about Klein's student career and attendance at Penn was taken from the NY Times - see [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.45.32 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the Penn part is sourced, but the Torah Academy part isn't. I'll delete the latter. MOE37x3 (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 [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[19] 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 [20]. TharsHammar (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And now Huffington Post has picked up on it [21] 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 [22]. 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 [23] 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 [24]. 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 [25] 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 [26] 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 [27] TharsHammar (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source news organization has now picked up on the story, [28] in addition to the reports by Wired Magazines senior editor here [29] 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 [30] 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)

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 [31] 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 [32], 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." [33]. Again HuffPo hosts pretty much anybody, see the 1000s of people here [34].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 [35] for what the Wall Street Journal thinks should be common practice. For backstory on that situation, see here [36]. 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 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." [37]. 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[38] 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. [39]. 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 [40] 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)