Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 4

Semiprotection review

→ see also: page log

• 21:01, 5 December 2007 Athaenara protected Aaron Klein ‎ (Nearly 30 unregistered anons with same POV persistently impeding WP:NPOV for 1.5 years. Ref Talk:Aaron Klein#Single purpose accounts. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

A couple of years ago this article was hit by SPAs believed to be Aaron Klein and possibly Joseph Farah, as a result of which it was placed in semiprotection. Perhaps this is still necessary, but it may be worth liftng protection at long last. As well as welcoming comments from regular editors, I have contacted he sysop involved in the decision. --TS 03:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As this may be a very sensitive article, I ask all sysops to please refrain from unprotecting until we've all considered the issues. --TS 03:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth please note from the above sections that there are many recent contributions from an IP editor showing evidence that some claim is strongly suggestive of it being another COI sock from WorldNetDaily. Is there any reason to believe that editor will not edit the main page if unprotected? That would put us back where we started in 2007. Wikidemon (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's just one IP then that isn't a good reason to semiprotect, especially if he's making good faith edits. The semiprotection before was due to the abuse of many IPs by one or two people which effectively drowned out all attempts at consensus editing. --TS 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is associated with WND as appears likely to some, then it's socking by an organization / individuals with a long term history of abuse, it will drown out attempts to improve the article, and it's not good faith editing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A bad faith actor can be blocked. Good faith editing cannot be drowned out by a single IP. If the dirty tricks start up again I agree that it would be appropriate to restore semiprotection. --TS 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this could spell trouble. If an editor from the same IP range as WND starts to edit the article are you ready to call that a COI and block, or are we going to have to go through AN/I reports, RfC, SPIs, and other drama? This issue has already triggered lots of edit wars, a meltdown of the Obama article, and an Arbcom case. That's real disruption. The notion that there are good faith IP editors who would edit the article but for the semi-protection is speculative. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, TS raises an interesting point. I originally agreed with Wikidemon, but with the TS caveats, I am now leaning toward TS. The way I see things here, the 79 IP range still edits here, but I do not see it as anything other than good faith edits. Indeed, TharsHammar with his likely BLP violations like calling Aaron Klein a "terrorist collaborator" seems to me to be the bad faith actor here, again and again. He's not blocked. Why should the 79 IP range get blocked for good faith edits including those responding to BLP violations? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that if there is disruptive editing from multiple IP editors we can reimpose semiprotection--and it can be done in a matter of minutes if necessary. If an editor from the World Net Daily IP range makes edits, those edits should be treated on their merits. It is not against Wikipedia policy to edit with a conflict of interest, but such conduct is blockable if it causes disruption. Continually adding or removing material against consensus is disruption.

Wikidemon writes: "The notion that there are good faith IP editors who would edit the article but for the semi-protection is speculative." So was the construction of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A Wikipedia article in its default state is editable by anybody. We don't semiprotect unless an article is being actively disrupted. --TS 02:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not an abstract hypothetical concern about Wikipedia's lofty goals, this is dealing with a specific known problem from these accounts. Arron Klein, the subject of the article, caused a huge mess by using the proxy account Jerusalem21 to disrupt the Obama article so he could write about it (he claims he was merely directing the account, which is also proxy editing), and as a result is indefinitely blocked. The old IPs that got the article semi-protected are meatpuppets at the least, and quite probably the same editor. For that editor to return here despite an indefinite block would be IP socking to circumvent a block. The IP editor that just resurfaced is from the same IP range and is repeating Klein's old claims about the Obama edit history. That is a problem not best dealt with by resetting everything and starting from scratch. This is not strictly an issue of the merits of the edits - socking is not a content question.Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have evidence that the IP is circumventing a ban, ask an admin to block him. The point is that at the moment we're not encountering any problems, and so I argue that it is time to see if semiprotection is still necessary. This would be a virtually costless decision because if we had more jiggery-pokery of the type that resulted in semiprotection we could reprotect in a matter of minutes. --TS 08:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've heard my point I hope. The evidence is already laid out. We can see what happens. If it is Klein or his associate editing, I hope they can work constructively despite the old block. He's a notable individual with considerable chutzpah, so he deserves that Wikipedia have a decent and fair article about him. It's really the process problem. I have no objection in principle if Klein or his colleagues wish to edit here, as long as it's above-board, each person uses one account, there's no subterfuge, etc. If something in the article is wrong or unfair, it would be a lot simpler to say "Hey, I'm Aaron Klein's workmate and I think you've got this wrong" than to get into edit wars over content. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon said:

"I have no objection in principle if Klein or his colleagues wish to edit here, as long as it's above-board, each person uses one account, there's no subterfuge, etc."

I agree completely. — Athaenara ✉ 03:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but you should not assume "subterfuge," else a large percentage of editors would suddenly be guilty of "subterfuge." So it would be nice to see them pick individual wiki names, but it should not be and is not a requirement. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no assumption here. Subterfuge is one of the problematic behaviors noted in the past which should not be repeated. — Athaenara ✉ 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note WP:NOSHARE. That's a fundamental TOS-type rule. One account per editor, no editing on behalf of organizations. Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the provisions of the March 2009 sockpuppet investigation (as I mentioned on Tharshammar's talk page last month [diff]), anonIP coi spas which engage in disruptive editing as before may be blocked. I suggest that we consider a trial unprotection of the page.

I'd rather not be the only admin who watches this article, so I hope more admins will add it to their watchlists and help with warnings/blocks as necessary in a timely manner. If coping with the anon/new accounts (or the tendentious editing and resistance to consensus which they may invite) becomes more burdensome than we can reasonably be expected to tolerate, re-protection is always an option.

I feel I should stress that this is my view, which is not weightier than anyone else's. I'm not opposing page protection, and I'm not disagreeing with anyone who thinks it should not be lifted. I'm just supporting a different provisional strategy. — Athaenara ✉ 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones resignation

Is it appropriate to add a section about Klein's involvement with the resignation of Van Jones, Obama's environmental adviser. Jones resigned in large part as result of reporting by Klein, which was picked up by Glenn Beck at Fox News. Jones blamed a "right wing smear campaign" for his resignation.

Some news sources crediting Klein and Beck:

Israel-based journalist brings down radical Obama adviser [1]

Glenn Beck's sources [2]

Far-right site gains influence in Obama era [3]

Hats off to WND [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.145.167 (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet reviewed the above, but it is sure nice to have another voice here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the above sources are reliable sources? If so, and if what is said is true, it may be encyclopedic. Yes, I know the main stream media has largely ignored this issue, with the New York Times saying reporters were on vacation, but this is Wikipedia, so we have to try to be accurate and encyclopedic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Van Jones story is the first situation where a high ranking political official was forced to resign without any pressure from major print newspapers or network TV coverage." If true, this is definitely encyclopedic, if Klein was indeed involved as the new editor suggests. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, that can't be true. People are forced to quit for all kinds of reasons - internal power struggles, indiscretions, loss of face, family emergencies... Plus, some problems are so blatant that people are forced to resign with or without any advocacy on the part of the press. Van Jones was forced to quit by public unease over three things mainly, his comments about having been a communist, the indiscretion about calling Republicans "assholes", and something else, I forget. Those things, which were not exactly secret beforehand but nor were they widely known (anyone with google could have found them quickly), were trumpeted by Beck for a while and I think they were beginning to get some mainstream coverage by the time Van Jones resigned. Coverage may be different than "pressure" but the appearance of the story in more widely read mainstream publications was probably contributing to the sense that it was untenable for Van Jones to continue. So I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that there was no pressure from mainstream sources, nor that others were forced out only with mainstream pressure. Is there a reliable source to say that Beck got the idea from Klein? If so that's arguably noteworthy enough to include. Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Allof the above articles and sources document Beck got the idea from Klein. In fact, Klein first reported Van Jones was a communist in April. His report was the first. Here: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=94771] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.145.167 (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source, the L.A Times, which reported here [5] that:

WorldNetDaily takes credit for being the first to raise questions about Van Jones, Obama's "green jobs" advisor who resigned after Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck and others hammered him for his self-described communist beliefs and support for the idea that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.252.236 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Any comments/input before I formulate a proposed Van Jones section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.128 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times mention clearly warrants mention in this article, especially combined with the other not-so mainstream sources linked at the top of this thread. Go ahead with the Van Jones content. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also a National Journal video and article "blamed" Klein as one of those responsible for Van Jones' resignation: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20091016_7283.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.77.16 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to this suggested text for a Van Jones section?

On September 5, 2009, Van Jones, President Obama's Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned his position following reports revealing that Jones had founded a communist organization in the 1990's and signed a statement for 911Truth.org in 2004 demanding an investigation into what the Bush Administration may have done that “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.” [6] [7]

Jones became the first senior Obama official to resign. He blamed "opponents of reform" for mounting a "vicious smear campaign against me."

Klein has been credited with first reporting that Jones in 1994 founded the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. [8] [9] [10] [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=94771]

Subsequent revelations from Klein included articles that Jones characterized the U.S. as an "apartheid regime;" [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=10879]; Jones signed a petition calling for nationwide "resistance" against police, accusing them of using the 9/11 attacks to carry out policies of torture; [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108900] and that just days before his White House appointment, Jones used a forum at a major youth convention to push for an agenda that included spreading the wealth and "changing the whole system." [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108441]

Some of Klein's reports were picked up by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck, who also released new information, hammering away at the story for weeks, finally leading to Jones' resignation. [11] [12]

On October 16, 2009, National Journal reported Klein was also investigating other Obama officials, including Cass Sunstein, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.145.27 (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection generally. However, I feel the above is, well, wordy. Can something be done to tighten it up? Please place the new suggested text below. Keep in mind what Jimmy Wales just said. "[H]ammering away at the story for weeks," for example, does not seem encyclopedic to me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems a little promotional in tone on behalf of Klein, too long, and a bit flowery. The sources for Klein's role in the affair are either minor and/or unreliable - American Thinker, WND, Israel National News, Washington Independent. We've already managed to source that Glenn Beck is responsible in large part for Van Jones' resignation. I think it remains to be proven by the sources that Klein is responsible for Beck's taking up the issue, or getting the scoop. But it's fair I think to mention that Klein was one of the first writers in the final round to criticize Van Jones. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Klein was not one of the first writers in the final round to criticize Van Jones. He was the first reporter - back in April - to expose Jones was the founder of a communist organization. The above sources includes the LA Times, which states:

WorldNetDaily takes credit for being the first to raise questions about Van Jones, Obama's "green jobs" advisor who resigned after Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck and others hammered him for his self-described communist beliefs and support for the idea that the U.S. government had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Additionally, here is video from Fox News - Glenn Beck's network - which credits Klein for first exposing Van Jones: [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.140.227 (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Also National Journal (above linked) credits Klein with being among the first to expose Jones. The Journal is considered mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.140.227 (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I find this to be encyclopedic at this point. Please suggest how this should appear in the article, including any possible headings or subheadings. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

Section title: Van Jones' resignation

text: Klein reported that Van Jones, President Obama's environmental adviser, founded a communist revolutionary organization in 1994. [15] [16] That report was picked up by Fox News host Glenn Beck, who for weeks focused on the story and other revelations, finally leading to Jones' resignation on September 5, 2009. [17] Jones became the first senior Obama official to resign. He blamed "opponents of reform" for mounting a "vicious smear campaign against me."

On October 16, 2009, National Journal reported Klein was also investigating other Obama officials, including Cass Sunstein, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.43.124 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking into sources, as suspected this is mostly self promotion. All the sources say is that he was one of the first to lobby against Van Jones, not that he broke the story and not that this lead to Glenn Beck's campaign. I've trimmed this stuff down accordingly to match the reliable sources. Incidentally, the Fox interview is not reliable at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Klein called Palestinian statehood first and correctly

Aaron Klein appeared on the John Bachelor show this evening and broke news about Palestinian statehood negotiators bypassing negotiations with Israel and going directly to the UN to request statehood along the 1967 lines, with Obama administration approval about 2 weeks previously for doing so generally. (Not in so many words--that's just my recollection of what I heard.) Later that evening ABC News had the same story Klein broke. Now this is just happening, so I do not expect it on the Klein page this minute, but I wanted to note I think it is very significant, Palestine getting statehood is very significant, and Aaron Klein broke that news on the John Batchelor show, which itself breaks news precisely because of the many contacts with whom Batchelor speaks, including Klein. Reliable sources are sure to follow, including WorldNetDaily. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116154 Obama Green-Lights Arab Land Grab; But Israel Threatens Retaliation if U.N. Approves Palestinian State], by Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily, 15 November 2009. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, looking at the 8 PM EST timestamp, it looks like WorldNetDaily broke the news, as that occurred hours before Klein's appearance on the John Batchelor Show. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll see if any reliable sources pick it up, and if it really happens. Otherwise, claims about what Klein has and has not initiated have not been terribly reliable. - Wikidemon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

AK is now WABC talk show host

AK is now a WABC talk show host. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Section removed to here for discussion

I removed a newly added section with the history comment, "rv - but may be good edit - problem is it just happened today and it is supported by MMfA, a source that not reliable for this purpose. Also, it is not terribly encyclopedic. Will post in Talk."

Here is the section:

Errors in Reporting

- Aaron Klein published an article for World Net Daily on March 15, 2010 regarding Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine. Klein wrote, "Sojourners' official "statement of faith" urges readers to "refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class."ref name="wnd"

- - On March 16th, 2010 Klein stated, "Sojourners' official "statement of faith" urges readers to "refuse to accept capitalist structures in the United States of America" while appearing on the G Gordon Liddy radio show. ref name="G Gordon Liddy"

- - The statement Klein was referring to was written by Sojourners Community Church members in Washington, D.C., in August 1991 and is not the "statement of faith" of Sojourners Magazine. ref name="Media Matters"

- - The unaltered text of the passage from the Sojourners Community Church members does not mention capitalist structures or the United States of America. It reads:

- - “We believe in binding up the divisions that the world often creates, especially those based on race, class, gender, or culture. We are called to combat racism in all its forms and to build a more just and pluralistic society where diversity is respected, freedom is secured, and power is shared. We refuse to accept structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class. We are committed to resisting sexism in all its forms and affirming the integrity and equality of women and men both in the church and in the world.”ref name="Media Matters"

Line 106: Line 95:

ref name="KleinWikipediaBlocks" cite news|url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91257 |title=Eligibility Issue Sparks 'Edit War'; Wikipedia Blocks Users From Posting Criticism of Obama |author= Aaron Klein |work= WorldNetDaily |date=2009-03-09 |accessdate=2009-03-11 - - ref name="wnd" cite news|url=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128053 |title=Not again! Meet Obama's new controversial pastor|author= Aaron Klein |work= WorldNetDaily |date=2009-16-09 |accessdate=2010-03-15}}

- - ref name="G Gordon Liddy"> cite news|url=http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/03/16/g-gordon-liddy-and-aaron-klein-on-jim-wallis/ |title=The G Gordon Liddy Show |author= Aaron Klein |work= G Gordon Liddy Show |date=2010-15-15 |accessdate=2010-03-16}}

- - ref name="Media Matters"> cite news|url=http://mediamatters.org/research/201003160048 |title=Right-wing witch hunt turns to Rev. Wallis |author= Media Matters Research|work= Media Matters |date=2010-15-15 |accessdate=2010-03-16}}

Let's discuss this section here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible relevance: WP:RS, Template:Recentism. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can some one explain to me why this section is getting deleted? By Radiolag

Yes. "problem is it just happened today and it is supported by MMfA, a source that not reliable for this purpose. Also, it is not terribly encyclopedic." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a "Controversial Reporting" section could be added. The section could include the George Galloway incident. Its hard to find cite for the original Sojourenrs quote because it was completely false. MMFA is currently the only place talking about the original quote. We'll see what comes of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiolag (talk • contribs) 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm pretty sure Klein has on occasion reported things erroneously, it's not up to us to prove that. One would need reliable sources rather than merely Klein's counterparts on the left to verify the issues, and perhaps more importantly, one would need significant neutral mainstream sourcing to show as a WP:WEIGHT matter that this is important enough to mention in a biographical article about him. Advocacy journalists get accused of things all the time, but a bio article really shouldn't be a scorecard for that. If we go that direction the article would become a litany of complaints. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Klein misquotes himself. He says on the 15th that a "Sojourners' official "statement of faith" urges readers to "refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class."

On March 16th, 2010 Klein stated, "Sojourners' official "statement of faith" urges readers to "refuse to accept capitalist structures in the United States of America".

You can compare the two different publications (created by Klein) to each other. You don't need a third source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiolag (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia would need a third party reliable source, as noted. We cannot perform that kind of analysis here for the reasons stated. As an encyclopedia we report what other people say. We don't perform our own research on things. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)