Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opening paragraph

Is it really necessary to state, "In 2009, Klein's article criticizing Wikipedia for its approach to its article about Barack Obama received international attention." There's a whole section on it. Klein has written over 5,000 articles, many others received international media attention. This Wikipedia story is just one of them. It doesn't need to be blown out of proportion. I elect to delete it from the opening defining paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.145.58 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This article barely survived Afd and a primary reason, if not the primary reason, was the coverage this little bit of news manufacturing has gotten. General opinion was, well, you might not have been notable before, but you've become notable now. Yes, its staying in the lead. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Peculiarly weighted article needs work

This article really is weighted peculiarly. The Student Career is 3 sentences with 2 footnotes, his Interviews is 8 with 6 footnotes, then his Article Criticizing Wikipedia is 8 sentences with 7 footnotes, and that's after cutting out material unilaterally on which consensus had just been reached by everyone with a significant role. So the guy writes, what, over 5000 articles, according to the above comment, and a single Wikipedia-critical article is almost half of the Wiki page? Is there anyone out there who can defend this? Is it not evident that someone with a soapbox is using Wikipedia to besmirch something with whom they disagree?

Look, we have to make this article encyclopedic. I don't care who's left or right, who supports Barack or not, or even who supports terrorists or not. We have to be true to Wikipedia principles. This article needs a lot of work. And I think a bunch of the material removed in the past ought to be reconsidered in light of what I just said.

• The guy interviewed an Al-Qaeda affiliate. Why is that no longer here? It was published in the Jerusalem Post. That's a Wikipedia reliable source, is it not?
• The interview that resulted in Hamas endorsing Obama became a campaign issue for both McCain and Obama, if I recall correctly. Why is that not here? David Axelrod even got directly involved. And what about a half a billion going from US taxpayers to that region according to Secretary Clinton; certainly Hamas's support for Obama is relevant, and it's Klein (and Batchelor) who brought that to light.
• When working with ABCNews, something left out of the article, he was denied entry to Syria. Why? Reliable sources say because he was (is?) Jewish. Why is ABCNews left out from his list of companies with with he has been affiliated? Why is his being denied access to Syria due to his religion left out? Why is the Wikipedia incident more encyclopedic? Lebanon's leader then criticized Syria for doing this. That's very encyclopedic, but not here. Why?
• Why is Klein's documenting terrorist threats against Madonna not significant? Madonna thought it was--she got more security.

Really. Klein has scored some significant journalistic achievements but they are totally absent here while the Wikipedia incident gets the lion's share of this article. Let alone obvious soapbox/bias, that's just plain poor writing.

That information removed in the past ought to be restored then improved. We have to produce work to make Wikipedia proud, not MoveOn.org or ConWatchBlog. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't start off by accusing other editors of things. No doubt Klein has had an interesting life and career that is worth reading about. Unfortunately, the only thing that's easy to find in the reliable sources is his escapade with Wikipedia. There was other stuff, but it was promotional in nature and inserted by the same "assistant" account that was used in the Obama editing incident. It was also sourced to Klein himself and World Net Daily, not reliable sources even with respect to third parties. Journalists / editorialists / advocates are very hard to find sources for sometimes because they're known mostly through their writings and their own personal history is not the focus. Thus, anything he writes in first person about his own experiences, whatever paper it is in, has reliability / sourcing difficulties. A writer is notable for his works, not just how many but how well they are respected, the critical reception, what publication they are in, who reads and is influenced by them. The only way to get that is from third party sourcing (or, if appropriate, best seller lists, book reviews, etc). But if someone has written about it, good. Wikidemon (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Actually, I used the 5000 number cited by some IP addy and only later did I notice the IP addy I referenced is from Tel Aviv. However, if the chaff can be cut out from the Jerusalem21-type edits, there is some wheat there. Further, I added comments about the results of what he reported having affected the world generally. Like Madonna getting more security because of Klein's reports. Like Lebanon criticizing Syria over Klein. Like Obama's campaign manager responding to Klein's interviews. That stuff is interesting and encyclopedic. Further, I'll bet there are good reliable sources for it. Still further, this article really does need work, and the material I am suggesting is part of what the doctor ordered. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Syria Incident

The material in question is added here [1]. There are 3 sources provided. The first source is a World Net Daily article, [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47924]. Since WND is considered WP:FRINGE that cannot be used as a reliable source. The second source is an editorial [2] by the same WND author for a now defunct outfit, and since editorial's do not meet the criteria for WP:RS this cannot be used as a reliable source. The third source is a reprint of a World Net Daily article [3], and as previously stated since WND is considered WP:FRINGE that cannot be used as a reliable source. If the material is indeed a "newsworthy international incident" then surly there must be news accounts of the incident. What do others think, do you agree that we must use reliable sources? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 05:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. This is not reliably sourced. Sometimes even an editorial or fringe source is reliable with respect to certain facts (it rained in Chicago on Monday, Joe Blow was born in Miami, etc.) but in this case the paper has a demonstrated proclivity vis-a-vis the Wikipedia case for printing things that are simply not true. Hence, we cannot trust as truth the assertion that Klein was denied a visa from Syria, and if so because he is Jewish. Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As added by user LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (diff + diff), it was nearly identical to the paragraph in Jerusalem21's original promo bio (March 2006 diff) to which the citations of non-independent sources had later been added by other editors (e.g. as in this September 2008 version). [Athaenara ✉ 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)]

Coatrack revisited

Wikipedia:Notability (people) (significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject [emphasis added]) is different from notability as presumed by WND/Klein/etc. LAEC's other edits yesterday re-introduced material which seems to me to be borderline or worse. Was Klein really in the 2008 US presidential pre-election headlines to a notable extent? — Athaenara ✉ 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like the Obama material is used as WP:COATRACK. Athaenara, I fully agree with your previous comments and previous edits. I support your suggestion of removal of the material added yesterday by LAEC. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's that paragraph section as it appeared after LAEC's 02:18 - 03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC) edits:

"In April 2008, Klein appeared on the John Batchelor radio show where both interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. During that interview, Yousef revealed that Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for president. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said he was "flattered" by the Hamas comparison of Obama to President John F. Kennedy. Yousef's comments garnered media attention and were used as a campaign fundraising tool by Obama's opponent, Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The interview was also noted by Pennsylvania media just before a presidential primary in that state between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton in which Clinton was victorious. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review wrote an editorial titled, "Hamas & Obama: Terrorist Flatter" questioning Axelrod's response to Hamas' endorsement. Ultimately, McCain and Obama themselves addressed Yousef's comments; McCain quoted Yousef's comments dozens of times during media interviews.
"Klein's methods of "getting terrorists to say nice things about Democrats" were criticized by Ari Berman in The Nation as "questionable sourcing" and part of a "smear campaign.""
      References:

I blockquoted it above so it can be thoroughly evaluated here. Wikinews probably has different standards and may (I don't know) find this sort of thing suitable. — Athaenara ✉ 02:36 - 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction - let's remove "In 2009, Klein's article criticizing Wikipedia for its approach to its article about Barack Obama received international attention.[4][5]" There is a while section on it. Mention in theopening defining paragraph is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.116.81 (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist leader

Sometimes life is just too funny for words. I love this new addition,[4] although it's probably a bit TMI as a WP:WEIGHT issue. Perhaps this works best as a section within the Brüno (film) article, or as a stand-alone article. Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikidemon. Perhaps it does have a weight problem, or maybe a mere wordiness problem. Please feel free to pare it down somewhat (or build up other sections?). Let me take a stab at it too. And perhaps it should in part also go on the Bruno page, as you suggest. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to know whether the "Brüno movie" section, which is longer than some of the articles about it (e.g. this "Bruno May Have Manufactured His Villain" article) is an attempt to coatrack some of the film's recent notability (such as it is) onto Klein or what.

I thought of blockquoting the whole thing here for discussion after plucking it out of the article but I think Wikidemon's link serves that purpose. — Athaenara ✉ 16:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I just removed 2 paragraphs. That should help. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of it may belong in the article about the movie, or on a discussion board about anything and everything connected to Klein in any way, however tangential, but it's way over the top for this bio. — Athaenara ✉ 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, that's a little harsh! Why not just trim it back to size? Klein's involvement in the matter is noteworthy, at a minimum. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Athaenara, please reconsider your removal of the entire section. The threat against Baron Cohen became news precisely because Klein reported it. That is significant for this Aaron Klein wiki page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider this. Klein was part of the news. Others reporting on the threat reported it came in a statement from the terrorist group directly to Klein. Example. I'm not saying a blog is newsworthy, I'm just showing you an example of why the deleted edit may be newsworthy for this page, at least with further pruning. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Klein via WND is NOT a reliable source. Until a RS publication decides to pick this story up and report as fact what Klein is reporting it should be left out of wikipedia. Take for example the link LegitimateAndEvenCompelling just posted, "It's with terrorists. WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein has announced that he received a statement from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades". That does not indicate what Klein announced is true, it only that it is true Klein announced it. For all we know Klein could have just made up the whole conversation. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why I gave about a half dozen sources. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=103797] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Are none of them reliable? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Only one of those sources mention Klein, and that's WND. I don't think anyone is doubting the veracity of this story, but you've done nothing to show that this is a notable event about Klein. By all means, it should be mentioned in the Bruno article, but it doesn't belong here. AniMate^draw 06:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am doubting the veracity of the story. The first link you give is the fringe WND. The second is a Baltimore Sun blog which is just a link to a HuffPo story. The Third is that HuffPo story, which does not definitively state Klein is telling the truth, and it is HuffPo. The LaLate news looks like a poorly put together blog. The next one is hotindienews which [10] is "an alternative voice to mainstream media" so it is not a RS unless otherwise shown to be. The final one is a wsj BLOG which links to WND. So yes, none of them are reliable! TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 09:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's why we work together as a community. I'll see if I can find something better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have run into this problem with some things that I have thought of adding to articles. I sort of realized that if you have to really search for something in a RS but you find tons of unreliable sources it probably means its not worthy of inclusion. Just my $6. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Legit source found

Okay, folks, I believe I have now found the reliable source needed.

"'Bruno' Turns Sacha Baron Cohen Into Potential Terrorist Target; Palestinian Group Linked to Terror by U.S. Reportedly Furious at Comedian for Unwanted Role in 'Bruno,'" by Luchina Fisher, ABCnews, 16 July 2009, highlighting mine:

"It might be a threat, it might not be," Aaron Klein, the WorldNet reporter who broke the story, told ABCNews.com. "Every terrorist threat should be taken seriously."

Okay, folks, I think that's the missing link. Read on in the article. Klein is quite significant in the article. His interviews with terrorists figure prominently. Bruno is a number one hit movie, at least this week. Terrorists have made threats against the actor. Klein is the one who made that story news. ABC News is a reliable source. I no longer see why the information should not be included on Klein's wiki page, citing to this ABC News source.

May I go ahead and add that in now? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No objsections here. The truth and verifiability are not an issue for me (my own opinion, not trying to generalize), and I think the material is encyclopedic - it adds to our understanding of Mr. Klein. So the only issue that remains is whether reliable sources see this as relevant and worth reporting. It's hard to tell because WND is in the business of generating publicity and sometimes they do that on their own without anyone else noticing. But if a reliable source says this is worth reading, then I would agree. Wikidemon (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Other opinions? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Klein is a large part of that ABC News story:

Per ABC News -- Klein said Al Aqsa, a militant group classified by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization loyal to the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party, claims to have disbanded over the last two years but maintains a Web site, continues to take responsibility for terrorist attacks and has released several official statements including threats against Israel.

According to Klein, who is based in Jerusalem and has covered terrorists since 2005 and wrote the book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists," Al Aqsa is furious for being included in a film which deals with homosexuality.

"These are terrorists who are fundamentalist Islamists," he said. "They are offended by Hollywood in general," he said. "They are against feminism, gay rights and abortion."

"Once I asked them what would they do if found out one of their members was a homosexual," Klein added. "They said they would cut off his head. That's what they think of that issue." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.240 (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Note the parsing of their words. "Klein said" ... "According to Klein" ... "he said". The simple point is they do not confirm the story, and thus we still do not know if it is true. What we know is true is that ABC said these things - we still don't know if it is true that Klein talked to those people. He has no credibility, and his organization has no credibility. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 10:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds harsh. You are saying he has no credibility in the face of his being in ABC News and now a mainstream newspaper reporting on him as a credible source. Hmmm. Whom to believe -- ABC News/The Plain Dealer or TharsHammar? Hmmm. Well, good thing Wiki rules control the playing field.

Here's another reliable source: http://www.cleveland.com/people/index.ssf/2009/07/sacha_baron_cohen_may_be_a_ter.html --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think TharsHammar is saying Aaron Klein made up the story out of whole cloth. Where's the evidence? From where I stand, TharsHammar makes things up about Aaron Klein. It almost seems as if there is a personal animus TharsHammar has against Aaron Klein.

What with TharsHammar's veiled argument that Klein is outright lying to ABC News, should consideration be given to removing his comment for violation of BLP or biography of living persons or whatever that is? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a real possibility. We know from the Wikipedia affair that Klein has printed claims he knew to be untrue. The whole thing is murky (but if you keep a positive outlook, it is truly funny and pretty harmless, or at the very least bizarre). Cohen for his part is deliberately deceptive, that's his schtick. If we can't test the plausibility and veracity of sources here on the talk page there's no point having a talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, but there's a difference between testing sources and calling the guy a liar. Further, the Wikipedia thing is a matter of perception; a minor thing blown up out of proportion; a thing all reporters do anyway as a rule. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not necessary to make any doubts about the reliability of the source any bigger than it is. The concern is whether this particular story is adequately supported by sources, and given the nature of Klein's publication and his column we would probably want a mainstream source of some kind to corroborate it rather than taking his word for exactly how it went down. I don't think it's reasonable to think he made it up out of whole cloth - it's pretty clear something happened. Per BLP we should be respectful, even here on a talk page. I just don't think it rises to the level of removing people's comments... Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification what I said was Aaron Klein and WND have no credibility, I did not say they are liars. What I am saying though is we cannot rely on what they say to be the truth. You will notice other RS publications taking the same approach by hedging their verbiage to indicate "according to Klein this happened", not this happened. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thars, that is called standard journalism. Regardless, Klein is now part of the 'Bruno'-terrorist story. Some mention on his Wiki page is warranted. Even if with the language of "according to Klein." Perhaps a few sentences. This is not just a story Klein reported. It's a story he is part of, even offering his opoinion of the threats to ABC News and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.240 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A note regarding Thars - an objective review of this user's posts on Klein finds him to be strangely biased almost to the point of launching personal attacks against Klein. Seems he is here with an anti-Klein agenda. A further review of Thars' user page might offer at least some explanation. Thars proudly proclaims:

• This user knows that FOX News is not Fair or Balanced.

• This user is a liberal and doesn't understand why Americans have demonised the word.

• This user is a Left-Wing Capitalist and doesn't any contradiction in it.

• This user is sick and tired of Religion trying to hijack the government and wants stronger separation of church and state.

• This user voted for hope and change, not country first.

Thars, while you should not be judged at all for your political beliefs, they are the polar opposite of the publications Klein writes for. As well, you proclaimed yourself a proud supporter of Obama, while Klein has done reporting agqainst Obama. Is it possible YOU are judging Klein because of your political beliefs? This should not be allowed on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.240 (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to the point please? People of all political beliefs and persuasions are free to edit the encyclopedia. Klein's credibility level is in question to anyone who followed the Wikipedia incident, and the general tone and political biases of him and his paper are obvious from even a short examination. That means we have to be careul about uncorroborated statements, but if the statements themselves become news that's very interesting. He clearly has a lot of moxie, and gets into interesting situations as a journalist that become encyclopedic. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand

While it's clear that eight or six paragraphs are excessive, the question is whether even one is appropriate here. It's not a general encyclopedia's function in a bio of a reporter to include every story by that reporter or every possible bit of media mention. That's for the reporter's CV/résumé. Whether or not Klein's [résumé] needs padding, this bio certainly doesn't. — Athaenara ✉ 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) & 12:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one or two paragraphs is appropriate. At a minimum, the story is definitely interesting/appealing. A major movie star does a hit movie, he's a comedian, a terrorist goes after him due to the movie, Klein breaks the story. That is very interesting. We have the reliable sources to prove it. We are not including every single story Klein does. This one is particularly unusual. Comedians don't get threatened by terrorists every day. We are trying to write a good wiki page. This story definitely belongs on this wiki page. The only one opposing it so far is someone dead set against Klein personally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So you want something like "according to ABC News, Klein broke the story that a terrorist threatened Cohen after Bruno was released"? BTW, don't leave me out, TharsHammar isn't the only one opposing over-inflation of the incident or its coverage. — Athaenara ✉ 23:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't want specific words. Frankly, I think you'll write it better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

One way to do it:

ABC News reported in July 2009 that Klein broke the story that a statement which could be interpreted as a threat against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen was released by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades because they were "furious for being in a film [Brüno] which deals with homosexuality."^[1]

1. ^ Luchina Fisher (July 16, 2009). "'Bruno' Turns Sacha Baron Cohen Into Potential Terrorist Target". ABC News.

Comments from the rest of you? — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this:

Klein broke the story that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades released a statement that could be interpreted as a threat against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen because they were "furious for being in a film [Brüno] which deals with homosexuality," as reported in July 2009 by ABC News.^[1]

1. ^ Luchina Fisher (July 16, 2009). "'Bruno' Turns Sacha Baron Cohen Into Potential Terrorist Target". ABC News.

Slight difference but uses active instead of passive language merely by rearranging phrases, and I changed a which to that. It also puts the Klein activity at the beginning of the sentence, instead of ABC News. The story is Klein, not ABC News. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A second paragraph is warranted since there are 2 stories here - the terrorist threats as well asd the false depiction of a terrorist. Both are dealt with in that ABC News article. Second paragraph suggestion: Klein also interviewed Ayman Abu Eita, depicted as a "terrorist leader" in the hit movie "Bruno." Eita told Klein the film mislabeled him and that the movie's star, Sasha Baron Cohen, conducted the interview under false pretenses. Eita threatened legal action against Cohen and the film's producers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.240 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Two paragraphs are not warranted. Watergate only has 4 paragraphs in Woodwards page [11]. Both of those suggestions sound forced to make Klein part of the story - which we still don't know is true. Maybe the material should go in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades article or in the Bruno article? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 11:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see his point, though. Perhaps we can keep the one paragraph, just give it an extra sentence or two.

Klein broke the story that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades released a statement that could be interpreted as a threat against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen because they were "furious for being in a film [Brüno] which deals with homosexuality," as reported in July 2009 by ABC News.^[1] This threat is based on Klein's interview with Ayman Abu Eita, depicted as a "terrorist leader" in "Brüno." Eita told Klein the film mislabeled him and that the movie's star, Baron Cohen, conducted the interview under false pretenses. Eita threatened legal action against Cohen and the film's producers.^[1]

1. ^ Luchina Fisher (July 16, 2009). "'Bruno' Turns Sacha Baron Cohen Into Potential Terrorist Target". ABC News.

Oops, forgot to sign the last post just above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Found a source from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/17/bruno-legal-movie-markets-faces-ethics.html --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090716/wl_mcclatchy/3273638_1 --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a sentence or 2 here and yet there is a whole section about the 'Wikipedia controversy' on Klein's page. That's what we call a double standard. Anything negative, no problem with length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.240 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That IP comment is not very helpful. Please see WP:AGF. As was discussed before, Klein's gaming Wikipedia to write a story about is by far the most prominent coverage of Klein in the mainstream press. As his primary claim to notability, it gets more attention than things that have only passing news references. The Bruno / Aita threatened lawsuit thing has been getting some solid coverage, but very little if anything connects it to Klein other than Klein's own statements, which were found here in at least one other instance to be wildly misleading. Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with that IP comment, not to the point as it was. That Wikipedia controversy thing here is huge, and yet adding legitimate material is like pulling teeth. The exacting standards used to report anything where Klein appears positively is clearly contrasted with the nearly anything goes writing that makes Klein look silly.

I'm here trying to make a decent page more decent, and the person (people) opposing any positive view of Klein are the ones begrudgingly adding a few sentences on real encyclopedic material.

I am very sorry people have personal grudges against Klein or the political views he promotes, but the pussyfooting around those people on this page is resulting in a totally distorted view of reality. If you people oppose him so much, oppose him elsewhere, not on Wikipedia.

That Wiki Controversy section is huge. I'm going to cut it back, just like people want to cut back on legitimate information about Klein. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's not helpful to accuse the Wikipedia editors here of editing out of political bias or playing wikigames. Talk of double standards, hypocrisy, editing out of agenda, pretty much closes the door on productive discussion on an article talk page of the matter at hand. In Klein's case, as I recall Klein or someone connected with him sockpuppeted for a long time here on this article to add what you might see as positive material. It was self-promoting stuff where Klein would insert himself into some controversy involving other people, by claiming he had some kind of scoop, special angle or interview, media stunt, etc. He would write about it in World Net Daily, then cite himself here in the article and get into edit wars to keep it in. And then you had the Wikipedia hoaxing involving his Jerusalem21 account, which he deceptively claimed to be the victim of the Wikipedia censor cabal, leading to a melt-down on Barack Obama's article, dozens of blocked and banned editors, an arbcom case, some inaccurate mainstream news stories, etc. The discomfort with journalists who manufacture fake Wikipedia controversies to promote themselves is not a political issue, it's a matter of upholding the integrity of the project. He could be pro-Israel, anti-Israel, or a vegetable rights activist for all most people care. The point is, he and his article invoke some serious concerns about project maintenance. The whole thing would not be worth covering under WP:NAVEL, and he would just be another banned editor, except that (at his initiation) it got covered by CNN, Fox News, etc. The promotional stuff got removed for good but a short-ish neutral account of the Wikipedia hoax remains, which is justified by the WP:V and weight policy. Regarding the matter at hand, it seems like good material. It's interesting and encyclopedic IMO. I've given all the reasons why it should remain. The missing piece is the lack of reliable sources showing that Klein had anything to do with this incident. The middle-eastern shopkeeper portrayed as a terrorist leader is unquestionably threatening to sue Bruno, and that news is being reported. But did Klein really have an investigative journalist scoop on this and is he a player in the incident, or is he just self-promoting again? Wikidemon (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've restored the material about the Wikipedia incident, which already represents a consensus and a considerable scaling back in favor of Klein. It's crucial to the incident that Klein manufactured the controversy, that it ended up in the mainstream press, and that Klein (per his unproven claims, deliberately provoking Wikipedia via a proxy) was found to have been the editor who he himself was trying to portray as the victim of censors. It completely misrepresents the incident to claim that it was a simple story of Klein accusing Wikiedia of bias, and Wikipedia denying it. The event was a media stunt, not a criticism of Wikipedia. Not mentioned in the current version are that the reliable sources more or less accused him of journalistic fraud, and that he was sockpuppeting and edit warring fringe conspiracy theories here. If there is any fluff to cut back, it is the two statements by Wikipedia spokespeople which, though reliably sourced (other sources picked them up), true (the spokespeople actually said that), and apt (what they say is fair), are self-serving and not really part of the story. Wikidemon (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"It's crucial to the incident that Klein manufactured the controversy...."

No he didn't. That page was being cleaned on a regular basis at the time -- don't know about now. Even I added totally neutral material, but that too was cleaned off. I felt victimized by people using Wikipedia to promote a political agenda right before an election. I happened to have seen Klein's article on the topic and knew from my own experience it was absolutely true. Indeed that's how I came to edit on this Klein page. That's how Klein finally registered on my radar.

If there was a consensus previously reached, it was by people having a grudge against Klein and his politics or simply in favor of those people they think he opposed. Besides, consensus can be redone if circumstances warrant.

Circumstances warrant. The Wiki Controversy is the biggest section of this Wiki article. That is totally and absolutely out of balance with the reality of Klein's work as a reporter. I am very sorry people personally oppose Klein and the interests he reports but Wikipedia is not here to support people who oppose the people they are writing about.

When I first started here on Wikipedia I had newbie muscles. I edited pages about people/groups with which I had disagreements in real life. I was told again and again to go edit elsewhere for reasons related to wiki policy. Well the same thing should apply here. We've got person after person editing here who can't stand Klein. They need to go edit elsewhere and allow objective editors to have a shot at improving this article.

For example, the edit I just made that was reverted made a significant improvement in the article. And it removed a very specific issue that people who hate him blew up into a big deal that it's not in reality. The suggestion was made that I should work with the community, the very community that can't stand Klein. Yet I am working with the community. After my initial material on the Bruno film was reverted, I have been very laid back and allow people to contribute to a consensus. The result? A few sentences are grudgingly allowed, while it is supposed to be pointed out that Klein made the claims but we don't really know if that's the truth. I have never, ever, seen any other reporter treated with such total disdain and disregard.

I don't know Klein from a hole in the hole, barring what I said above. So that enables me to sit back and watch in amazement as people who totally hate the guy, even calling him a liar, are here editing his wiki page. Really, this is very shocking to see.

Remove any negative info about him? It gets reverted/added back. Add any positive info about him? It gets reverted/removed.

I really am shocked that I see this again and again. Literally, I am the only editor here trying to make this page encyclopedic for Wikipedia. Wikipedia, not TharsHammaropedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That Klein manufactured the Jerusalem21 controversy is beyond serious dispute. It became an issue on the meta pages because the hoax involved disrupting Wikipedia in order to write about it, and the extent of the disruption caused by his accusations was very significant. It became an issue on his article page because he got the mainstream coverage he sought, and that's more of a claim to notability than anything else he's ever done. His other work as a journalist for an out of the way publication, like many journalists working for mainstream and special interest papers alike, just doesn't rise above the notability standards. Were it not for the earlier COI editing, and then the Wikipedia incident, he would not have an article here at all. His journalistic ethics is questioned (though that is not reported in the main space) because he new the claims he was making were false, and what he did falls below any mainstream standard of journalistic integrity - that is obvious from the edit history, and was reported as such by mainstream media. I'm sorry, but if you are going to accuse the editors here of editing out of grudges and other improper motives, this talk page is not the place for it. Complaining that the editors here are acting in bad faith is not going to get them to agree to something they disagreed with before. I support the new material you propose regarding Bruno and the person he called a terrorist leader, and will go to bat for it if you can find reliable sources that connect Klein to the incident. Meanwhile, based on the content, history, and nature of Klein as a source, I do not find Klein himself to be a reliable source as to his own actions as a journalist. Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but you have made my point:

"His other work as a journalist for an out of the way publication, like many journalists working for mainstream and special interest papers alike, just doesn't rise above the notability standards. Were it not for the earlier COI editing, and then the Wikipedia incident, he would not have an article here at all. His journalistic ethics is questioned (though that is not reported in the main space) because he new the claims he was making were false, and what he did falls below any mainstream standard of journalistic integrity - that is obvious from the edit history, and was reported as such by mainstream media."

So a person saying Klein is working for "an out of the way publication" that "just doesn't rise above the notability standards," and "would not have an article here at all" is editing this article. "His journalistic ethics is questioned", "claims he was making were false," "what he did falls below any mainstream standard of journalistic integrity," and the person making these statements is editing this page.

I cannot image it being acceptable for me to edit any page where I made such statements. I cannot imagine, if I made such statements, my credibility as an editor on that particular page not being challenged. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If I said otherwise, I would be wrong. Please, making personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, etc., runs against WP:TALK or some other behavioral guideline. And by doing so you're antagonizing the one editor who is sticking up for your proposed material. If you wish to dispute my eligibility to work here as an editor, please take that to an appropriate forum, not here. I'm done discussing that. As I said, I'll support your material if you can source it properly.Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikidemon, I like you. You are an excellent editor as well. You often help in ways others do not, like me, I just don't know enough. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Observation: LegAndEvCom's claim (diff) of being "the only editor here trying to make this page encyclopedic for Wikipedia" is patently false, as the article's history since its inception and talk archive 1 plainly demonstrate. — Athaenara ✉ 05:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ari Berman quote

I am removing the Ari Berman quote. Here it is:

Klein's methods of "getting terrorists to say nice things about Democrats" were criticized by Ari Berman in The Nation as "questionable sourcing" and part of a "smear campaign."

I am removing this as it is a smear job and not a reliable source.

Let's look at the quote in context http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/14/opinion/main3938453.shtml emphasis mine to highlight the quotes inserted in the Wikipedia article about Aaron Klein:

Despite Klein's questionable sourcing and scandalous accusations, mainstream reporters now call the Obama campaign to ask about Klein's articles. He also reports for John Batchelor, a right-wing talk-radio host for KFI-AM in Los Angeles who has written a series of outlandish columns about Obama for the conservative magazine Human Events and repeatedly pushed the Obama smears on his radio show. According to an e-mail of Batchelor's obtained by The Nation, Batchelor says that information about Obama and Khalidi came via "oppo research."

Even if the false claims about Obama originally emanated from the neoconservative right, the Clinton campaign has eagerly pushed them. Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal has e-mailed damaging stories about Obama to reporters, including a recent article by Batchelor. Clinton fundraiser Annie Totah circulated a column by Ed Lasky before Super Tuesday, with the inscription "Please vote wisely in the Primaries." Clinton adviser Ann Lewis falsely referred to Zbigniew Brzezinski, a critic of AIPAC, as a chief adviser to Obama on a conference call with Jewish reporters. "I can tell you for a fact people from the Clinton campaign are calling reporters and asking them to pay attention to things involving Obama and Israel," says Shmuel Rosner, Washington correspondent for the Israeli daily Ha'aretz. The volume of e-mails about Obama in a given state tends to track the election calendar - hardly a coincidence.

Large American Jewish organizations, like AIPAC and the Orthodox Union, have repeatedly defended Obama. Yet they've had little sway over reactionary elements in both the United States and Israel - including Jewish hate groups - who are eager to keep the smear campaign alive. The website Jews Against Obama, for instance, is run by the Jewish Task Force, which funnels money to the radical settler movement in Israel. (Curiously, John McCain's alliance with Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel, a leading proponent of "end times" theology, and his recent endorsement by former Secretary of State James Baker have received far less scrutiny from pro-Israel pundits. It was Baker, after all, who reportedly told George H.W. Bush, "Fuck the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway.")

So this supposedly reliable source, Ari Berman, not only smears Aaron Klein, but goes on to smear John Batchelor, claiming he "smears" Obama. After criticizing the "neoconservative right" for "false claims," Ari Berman then goes on to attack against the Hillary Clinton campaign as it was constituted at that time!!!! Next comes "Large American Jewish organizations," John McCain, and "Fuck the Jews former Secretary of State James Baker."

No way can a source be considered reliable about Aaron Klein when he attacks Aaron Klein, John Batchelor, the neoconservative right, the Hillary campaign, John McCain, Jewish organizations, etc. Gee, is there anybody he left out?

How in the world did such a biased source get left in this article for so long???

In respect of fellow editor Wikidemon, I have provided details on the reason for the removal. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. With that justification, the removal seems warranted. I could explain my thoughts further if anyone else disagrees, but in general I don't like citing opinion pieces about living people even if merely for the fact that one particular writer has that opinion. Wikidemon (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to Bruno

Klein is now part of the story of terrorist threats against Bruno. Aside from the above mentioned ABC News article, he is also quoted as part of the threats story by other mainstream media, including the London Times and Guardian. See: [12] [13] [14] Isn't it time to add this to his Wikipedia entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He's a journalist. He made a comment about a news item (terrorist threats against an actor.) He's not involved in the story; he commented on the story. No, this does not belong here - but his comments may belong in the Brüno article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, he did not simply make comment about a news item as a journalist. He is the news item -- the terrorist threats were issued through him, which is notable and covered thoroughly in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not take it to Wikinews? — Athaenara ✉ 13:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: the three articles linked above, as well as other articles linked farther above in previous discussions, are pretty much identical and seem to have come from the same press release. — Athaenara ✉ 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Major news outlets like ABC News, London Times, Guardian, do not reprint press releases. Although they may have taken the story from ABC News. Regardless this matter is now mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So, as I was saying ... Wikinews? — Athaenara ✉ 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiNews might work, but this hardly seems major enough for Klein's biography, and Klein isn't the news item. AniMate^draw 21:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unless news organizations start reporting that Klein is collaborating with terrorists and acting as their PR, or until he gets arrested for aiding terrorists, then he is just a columnist covering a story. Maybe a 1 line bit along the lines of "according to World Net Daily columinist Aaron Klein ..." in wikinews or in the bruno / cohen article will do. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I recently found some MSM tying Klein to the story. I'm just too busy to add them in at the moment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not large enough, but anything negative goes in immediately? The terrorist threats are massive. Do a news search under Klein's name. It's an international news story associated with Klein. It is biographical to note it was through him these well-known threats were released. Also Klein is quoted in the stories offering his perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography of Klein, not a CV. You know him, is his biography that devoid of anything meaningful that we should cover stories that Klein has commented on? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Weight is an interesting question here. In most cases we could dismiss an issue that, although reliably sourced and relevant to a person, is so trivial in connection with his entire life that it is not worth mentioning. If the New York Times profiled Klein and said "Monday morning he took his trusty old laptop computer to an Internet cafe to work on an upcoming publication deadline", we would not see fit to report that because such background color, though connected to his career, is unencyclopedic. But we don't have a lot of material on Klein - not too much in mainstream reliable sources about his background, habits, events of his life. He is certainly notable, but mainly for a series of several events, stories, and controversies. There are only a few dots to connect. If his coverage of the Bruno incident rises past the noise, and is one of those very few incidents that gets mainstream attention, I think it makes sense to mention it. I haven't kept up so I'm not sure if that's the case. I do agree that if all we have is Klein and his publisher reporting on himself, we don't have any external confirmation that the event happened (for WP:V / WP:RS) or that it is significant enough to include (for weight purposes). As always, just my opinion... Wikidemon (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that the event happened? It's been reported in over 200 English newspapers, including the London Times, Guardian, etc. With regard to Klein, the ABC News article, here [15] includes additional information about Klein, aside from quoting him:

Klein said Al Aqsa, a militant group classified by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization loyal to the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party, claims to have disbanded over the last two years but maintains a Web site, continues to take responsibility for terrorist attacks and has released several official statements including threats against Israel.

According to Klein, who is based in Jerusalem and has covered terrorists since 2005 and wrote the book, "Schmoozing with Terrorists," Al Aqsa is furious for being included in a film which deals with homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's amazing that the argument for including the lengthy, negative section about Wikipedia controversy in Klein's page (FYI, the section is inaccurate, biased) was that it was notable since it was widely covered. The Wikipedia controversy was mentioned in about 5 mainstream publications. The Bruno story, with Klein's name, is now in over 200 newspapers. And we are debating a possible sentence mention. It is time to bring in unbiased editors to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As well, this is not about "resume building," it is about adding in extremely notable, biographical events. Browse through the Wiki entries of notable reporters such as David Frost or Barbara Walters and see that certain very notable, key interviews conducted or stories first reported are detailed there. The 'Bruno' story is unquestionably notable and it is part of Klein's persona described on Wikipedia of conducting interviews with terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if reliable sources do corroborate Klein's claims, the incident belongs here, and the more weighty the sourcing the more of it should be here. The ABC piece for the most part does not say it actually happened, it says Klein said it happened. Klein saying it happened, by itself, does not make it worth repeating here. However, the ABC piece does seem to endorse Klein's telling of the event by saying (without qualification that it was repeating Klein's claims) that Al Aqsa "released" a statement to World Net Daily, and that Klein "broke the story". If there are are 200 (distinct, reliable) news sources that endorse this as true that would make it all the more appropriate here. The Times and Guardian links, like ABC, do also endorse that Klein received the press release from Al Aqsa. Most of the initial stories simply say that Klein claims it. Please don't accuse editors of operating out of bias - that's an accusation of bad faith. The Wikipedia section is already pared down to the bare minimum necessary to explain what happened, and is not of undue weight given that it is to date Klein's best claim to notability. The main bias to the article is that we're being easy on Klein and deferring to the reliable sources rather than what's in Wikipedia's edit history. The plain truth of what happened is a lot more damning for Klein: he was sockpuppeting in this article to promote himself and on the Obama article to stir up trouble by edit warring fringe anti-Obama conspiracy theories, and when caught he wrote an article about it as if it had happened to an innocent victim not himself who was making reasonable edits. Generating fake disputes in order to cover them as if they were real events is not exactly the height of journalism. Wikidemon (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia section on Klein's page makes it seem like his entire original article about Obama’s Wiki entry being scrubbed was based solely on Klein's researcher’s one edit that was removed, when in fact, Klein documented the same things happened to thousands of similar edits and the reseacher's was one test edit. The Wiki section falsely implies Klein generated a story that Obama's page was being scrubbed of elligibility issues as well as mention of Bill Ayers; but actually Obama's page was being scrubbed by elligibility issues and mention of Bill Ayers. Klein's reseacher did not create the controversy, it was already there. The researcher merely tested it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I dont understand your bar of acceptance into Klein's Wikipedia page. You are saying it can only be there if the event is proven to have happened? That is beyond the bar called for by any other encyclopedic entry in the history of encyclopedias. The event was found so credible it was reported by hundreds of newspapers across the U.S. and Europe. Klein's Wiki entry doesn't need to state as fact that threats were issued, but that Klein reported the threats were issued through him, as noted thoroughly by the mainstream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.121.238 (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If these articles all say "Klein reported he received the threat" then that's what we report. If they all say "Klein received the threat" then we can say that. I can't vouch for "hundreds" but the several links already on this page should be enough to establish that it's a viable issue to include. I've favored adding it from the beginning. I do not wish to re-argue the whole World Net Daily Wikipedia drama, only pointing out that Klein is not considered a reliable source as to events that supposedly happened to him and his paper - with good reason in this case. But he's in the same boat here as most non-mainstream writers. Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to Bruno 2

What about this?

A "terrorist leader" interviewed in the hit movie "Bruno" reportedly told Klein in an interview the film mislabeled him and that the movie's star, Sasha Baron Cohen, conducted the interview under false pretenses.

Klein quoted Ayman Abu Aita, who is labeled in the movie as a "terrorist group leader," as stating he was shocked when he learned the film depicts a homosexual character and contains scenes including full frontal male nudity and graphic sex. Eita threatened legal action against Baron Cohen and the movie's producers.

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades terrorist group reportedly released a statement through Klein that could be interpreted as a threat against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, explaining they were upset their namesake was featured in his film, as reported in July 2009 by ABC News. "We reserve the right to respond in the way we find suitable against this man,” the statement said, according to Klein. “The movie was part of a conspiracy against the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades."

Klein was further quoted by the London Times stating, "These are terrorists. They are against feminism, gay rights and abortion. Once I asked them what would they do if they found out one of their members was a homosexual. They said they would cut off his head.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.59.7 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll need reliable sources to back that up. Like the London Times article. What's the URL? Forgive me if it already appears in the article or in talk. I have been very busy lately and have not paid so much attention to the latest activity on this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ABC News [16]

London Times [17]

Daily Mail [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.104.187 (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they don't get much more major than that. If I wasn't falling asleep, I look more closely. Later then. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added the stuff, edited by me, and with the references inserted. I believe this should fairly meet the existing expectations of all editors. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not four paragraphs where one (if any) would do.

There is no consensus here that it belongs in this article rather than in the Brüno article (has it been added there?) and certainly not at such length. — Athaenara ✉ 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then suggest the appropriate verbiage. And for anyone who does, look at the diffs to get the sources already put in ref format. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did, above—see my posts timestamped 23:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC) and 05:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC). — Athaenara ✉ 07:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole section on the Wikipedia incident, but a legitimate story like the reported threat against a major movie star as reported by Klein should not offend length sensibilities? It really does look odd. The suggestion has been outstanding for over a week and, when finally implemented, is cut out in minutes? That really does look odd as well. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia. The focus on the Wikipedia incident when combined with the defocus on legitimate issues is disturbing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Klein's most significant, sourced, claim to notability is his attempt to hoax Wikipedia by manufacturing a fake controversy so he could write about it. That's all as plain as day, both in the sources and in our own edit history. At that point Klein's veracity is under serious and legitimate question. We simply cannot trust that when he reports somethign, he is being at all straight about what actually happened. We would have to be crazy to do otherwise. Now he claims that a terrorist threatened Cohen. It may be true, it may not be true. But we cannot take his word for it, and the major media's reportage that he said it means nothing beyond that he said it. Wikidemon (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, my recollection at this time is that in the past you have helped on this page. However, this current comment of yours is so over the top that in my mind it crosses the line of BLP violations and may even evidence libel. I strongly urge you to be more careful. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Klein did not "attempt to hoax" Wikipedia by "manufacturing a fake controversy." He reported on a real trend on Obama's page, documented by thousands of deleted edits. He originally failed to disclose one test edit (out of thousands documented) was conducted by his researcher. He disclosed this in an updated article hours after it was released. This doesn't change the substance of his argument but was simply used by pro-Obama reporters to attempt to discredit Klein. With regard to your argument "it may be true it may not be true" - the story that Klein said there were terrorist threats gained worldwide media attention and is notable. We are not reporting there were threats, but that Klein said there were - a story that received far more media attention than his Wikipedia controversy. Your objections, after this has been festering on the discussion page for weeks with no objections from you, seem misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.104.187 (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Klein attempted to hoax the entire world with his shoddy journalistic practices and failure to disclose key information. But Klein was too dumb to get the hoaxing right, or too lazy to make 10 edits on a new account so he could edit the Obama page. Either way he is a hack. THat said, with the Bruno discussion I don't think it is noteworthy that he "broke" this story, what might be noteworthy is that Klein is collaborating with terrorist to spread terror. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, now TharsHammar is on the attack. TharsHammar, this current comment of yours is so over the top that in my mind it crosses the line of BLP violations and may even evidence libel. "Collaborating with terrorists"? I strongly urge you to be more careful.

I think the Aaron Klein hatred by Wikidemon and TharsHammar is in full display with their outrageous statements, especially those of the latter. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't engage in that kind of discussion. I've left a request on your talk page not to make accusations like that here.[19] However, I'll also ask TharsHammar not to make gratuitous complaints about the article subject here on the article talk page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That he broke the story has already been determined as newsworthy otherwise his breaking of the story would not have been reported by ABC News, Londom Times, etc and ABC News would not have profiled him. His involvement with this story is already newsworthy, as determined by the mainstream media and not any Wiki editor's opinion. The only question now is whether editors here are fair or biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.104.187 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

They were giving him credit for doing a job, but that does not mean it meets the noteworthy reqs of wikipedia. If that were so wikipedia would soon become a resume book for small time "reporters", and I use that term "reporter" very loosely when talking about Klein and his ilk. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Klein and his ilk"? TharsHammar, please specify who/what are his "ilk"? Then advise how you are not biased. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Klein duped at least a couple major sources into covering his Wikipedia story as legitimate. They reported his claims uncritically, and did not print corrections even after Klein admitted he contrived the incident - though to their credit, these sources reported it all as a claim / accusation by Klein rather than anything that was actually happening on Wikipedia. If they had investigated what actually happened they would have seen through it as quickly as the admin (now Arbcom member) who blocked Klein's account for disruption and sockpuppetry. So we're left with two articles that are ostensibly reliable sources that report claims that are clearly untrue and, thankfully, several later reliable sources that get the story right. Unlike Wikipedia, terrorist organizations don't have edit histories online so we can't truth check Klein's claims about Bruno. But the claims have the same ring to them, they just don't sound rational or credible. This time we have a few dozen major sources picking up the claims, not just two because... well, just because. Probably the public finds Sasha Cohen and terrorists a lot more interesting than Wikipedia. Whether his story is true or not, he's clearly found a way to gain a little notoriety by exploiting a characteristic of modern journalism, that on slow news days newspapers will print sensationalist claims. I'm not sure that makes them any more notable though. Maybe we just have dozens of junky sources this time instead of just two. Wikidemon (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

These attacks on Klein continue unabated. I do not know how to stop what may be libel. Will some administrator please get involved? HELP! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest. It's not libel, and BLP certainly does not stop us from dealing with editors who cause disruption to articles as Klein did both here and at Barack Obama. Wikipedia handles sockpuppetry, COI editing, etc., as a behavioral matter on talk pages and metapages. Klein's misadventures on Wikipedia were his own doing, and are embodied in his public statements and the edit history of the Jerusalem21 account. It is only reasonable that this invites some scrutiny about his other claims to be doing investigative journalism. That's what the talk page is for, evaluating credibility of sources, including claims by article subjects about themselves.Wikidemon (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you have an absolutely clear bias as evidenced by your double standard. When it comes to the claims that Klein misrepresented Wikipedia, you are willing to take the word of such second-rate sources as Wired and Defamer, which reported on the subject. This even though Klein's original article, still visible, talks about a trend of Obama's page - thousands of edits and not just Jerusalem 21. But when it comes to the terrorist threats, you are not willing to take the word of the mainstream media, including such notable outlets as ABC News and the London Times, which surely looked into Klein's claims instead of parroting them back. We are not even trying to enter Klein's claimed terrorist threats as fact, just the reported fact that Klein said the terrorist issued a statement. And yet you oppose this. You are clearly biased and should not be editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.132.168 (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoever said I oppose it? I won't respond to the rest of the nonsense or personal attacks but I'm okay with a modest mention that Klein claims to have received a communique / threat directed at Cohen. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon - do you want to then suggest a text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.132.168 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll come up with a proposal in several hours. I think the story is fascinating and makes a nice addition to the article. I'll probably start from LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's proposal and just simplify and shorten it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think any mention of this incident needs to reflect that Ayman Abu Aita isn't necessarily considered a terrorist and has threatened legal action and not murder. Not sure why Klein hasn't reported that. AniMate^draw 20:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll check on what the sources say and try to be as faithful and straightforward as possible. It's interesting that Cohen called him a terrorist as part of his schtick, and that Aita objected, although some of this is more relevant to the Bruno film than Klein's involvement in it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why has Klein not reported that? He isn't a reporter, it is not his job to report accurately. The first 10 articles on his organizations page are about Obama's birth cert. That tells you all you need to know about the organization, and as a result how much credibility we should give to Klein's "reporting". TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to Bruno 3

Wow, we are once again evidencing how editors here are jumping to conclusions. Not only did Klein report Abu Eita is not a terrorist, actually it was Klein who broke that story! See here: [[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=103797]]

To quote Klein's article:

A "terrorist leader" interviewed in the just-released hit movie "Bruno" is fuming mad, telling WND the film mislabels him and that the movie's star, Sasha Baron Cohen, conducted the interview under false pretenses....

Aita, however, is not exactly a terrorist. At least not anymore.

Aita is a representative of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party to the West Bank town of Beit Sahor, which is a satellite of Bethlehem. Aita also is a board member of the Holy Land Trust, a nongovernmental organization promoting Palestinian rights and commitment to nonviolence.

Aita served in the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades from 2000 until 2003, after which he did a two year stint in Israeli prison on accusations he was involved in shootings against Israeli soldiers operating in Bethlehem. Still, according to Israeli security sources speaking to WND, Aita, while a member of the Brigades, once worked with Jewish state officials to return two Israeli reserve soldiers who had gotten lost in Bethlehem.

Also, Klein's original reporting that Eita is not a terrorist was noted thoroughly by the mainstream media, with credit to Klein.

Now (Thars) let's stop the personal attacks on Klein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.225 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

From August March 2006, Klein and his WND cohort strove to use this bio as a reflection of their own coi view of what makes Klein notable (cf. this talk page archive 1 and my archive 4). Wikipedia biographies are meant to be neutral, not self-serving for the subject (Wikipedia is not a soapbox).

Since mid-July this year, when an eight-paragraph version of the Cohen/Brüno/Al Aqsa material in question was first added to the article (diff), LegAnEvCom and the 79.* anonIP seem to have formed a sort of caucus in a similar vein and at considerable length on this talk page (Wikipedia is not a forum).

Whatever notability the story does have may be pertinent to articles about the actor, his movie, and Al Aqsa. I don't know why LegAnEvCom and 79.* haven't pursued that, or, if they did, what the result was, but as AniMate pointed out weeks ago, Klein is not the story. — Athaenara ✉ 07:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Klein is the story. Why? He is the one and only source for the story, and the main stream media so state. Since the underlying story is notable, Klein's noted involvement in it is notable on Klein's page. This is especially true where there is an entire section on Klein's interviews. An interview that produces a threat against an actor of a hit movie is certainly notable.

I am not in any "caucus." I am seeking to make the article encyclopedic. The people who really can't stand Klein, even calling him a terrorist collaborator in violation of BLP, have distorted the truth, such as by blowing the Wikipedia story all out of proportion and claiming the underlying story Klein was reporting was simply not true. It was true, you can look at the diffs yourselves for verification, Klein used a standard journalistic technique to conform same for himself, and I was a victim of what Klein reported. I experienced what Klein reported, and he reported it accurately. That is how and why I first came to edit here, not because of any "caucus." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[your paragraph 1] That "Interviews" section is there because Klein socks added it, originally calling it "Exclusive interviews" (see early article history).

[your paragraph 2] That's quite a conflict of interest you have. — Athaenara ✉ 19:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear on what you mean. Please specify. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Klein's published account of the editing situation he triggered on the Obama page was not only completely inaccurate, it was faked. The Jerusalem21 account was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, which is where things stand today. You made it clear at the time on the Jerusalem21 talk page that you did not think Klein did anything wrong as a Wikipedia editor, despite Klein's published account of using it as a proxy account and deliberately triggering an edit war there by adding fringe birther material sourced to his own publication so he could write an expose about it. You're welcome to your opinion on that but it goes flat in the face of behavioral policy and the mainstream of editors here on Wikipedia. It's not technically a WP:COI for an editor with a bone to pick about a behavioral incident to be defending the real-life individual who misbehaved on Wikipedia, on the talk page of that individual's Wikipedia article, but it does raise some questions. Meanwhile, we have an IP account that looks to be from the same source as all the other Klein proxies / socks arguing here and making accusations. This doesn't make for a very productive editing environment. We may want to just take a break here and continue under normal editing process down the road. Wikidemon (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I agree completely. Just let me assure you that the edits I make are for Wiki reasons, not for pushing any agenda one way or another by me or anyone else. If it is true that an editor is editing here in violation of some rule, that I oppose as much as you. However, if my edits, which are made to the best of my ability in compliance with wiki rules, somehow align with the edits in the past or present of a banned editor, that should not negate good edits in any way. Indeed I have contributed in positive ways on this page and have swung some consensus my way here and there. Thank goodness, for example, that AniMate and Wikidemon are both concerned about BLP violations, as I first raised and took heat for. Like the last stuff I added. I made it clear I was thinking of adding it and asked for objections, then, seeing none after 3 weeks or so, I added it, only to hear from Athaenara that the edits were substantially similar to edits by the sock puppet in the past. Well I'm sorry but they were good edits, mine that is, well sourced, and I waited for comments a full 3 weeks or so to actually add the material--by no coincidence, it was removed within minutes even after weeks of inactivity on this page. And here we are.

So I am happy with the normal editing process, like when something was proposed and weeks went by before it was added. It was only after that that the personal attacks in possible violation of BLP began streaming in, again. And here we are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Bruno-related content fits and should be added, and I'm okay with condensing it at the request of those who don't want to make too much of it. I also agree that your content proposals and editing are helpful. We can all have differences of opinion both about the editing process, and about events outside of Wikipedia, and still get together in a positive way to edit articles - that's what it's all about. So what I was planning to do was propose a shortened version of your most recent four paragraph treatment, say a single longer paragrah without the quotes. A few people think it shouldn't be added at all, but I think we'll have consensus for a straightforward mention. Now if we can only get back to the subject of editing things. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Go for it. Perhaps in a new section. Bruno 4? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. It may take me a few hours to get around to it... real life intrudes. Hopefully we won't have any more interruptions here. Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Will the message get to Athaenara? He's still attacking me for "talk page disruption" and for acting "in concert" with sock puppets. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks against Klein

Editors, we must review the previous recent submissions of TharsHammar to this page and determine whether any of his suggestions should be given any weight.

In just his last few comments, TharsHammar outrageously accused Klein of collaborating with terrorists. A libelous charge.

Then, TharsHammar wrote Klein was "too dumb." Now, TharsHammas wrote Klein "isn't a reporter."

This is the kind of editor allowed on this page? How is this allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.225 (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially an open forum, and anyone can say anything. It is not Wikipedia's fault in any way. That said, Wikipedia does have a certain set of rules. People can say whatever they like, but what they say may be against the rules. Then, depending on the circumstances, various remedies are available to stop the rule-breaking comments. Some rules have a ratcheting up effect to control the person's rule-breaking statements, and others allow immediate action. It depends on the circumstances.

One circumstance is whether a person is living or not. If the person is living, derogatory stuff may be removed immediately, deleted right off the Talk page, for example. In this Talk page, I see a number of comments that may violate that rule, but I'm not sure I'm experienced enough to make that call. That was why I called for "HELP" on this page. It's still needed. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stay on track and not use this page to make accusations about other editors? This is not the place, and if we go down that path the current effort to discuss a proposed article addition will probably degenerate to the point of paralysis. TharsHammar is not exactly the only editor whose editing here is subject to question. I don't understand the relevance of calling Klein "dumb" but his effort create a Wikipedia hoax was truly clumsy. Regarding his credentials, I don't think it's necessary to speculate on whether we should call him a journalist or not but he is clearly out of the mainstream in advancing discredited fringe "birther" theories, and has not applied the standard journalistic practices to his efforts. That is relevant to the content of the article, because when a journalist viewed as a reliable source self-reports what they observe as part of a news and analysis piece we can often report that without an in-line attribution - for example "students threw rocks at the embassy". In Klein's case we would have to say something like "Klein said [or "reported" if you wish] in an article in World Net Daily that students threw rocks at the embassy". We don't need to prejudice the reader with a judgment about its veracity, but we do need to make clear it is Klein making the claim, not a reliable source. Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

IP, it is most likely you are Klein. He knows what goes on in his wikipedia page, he reads this. Your IP traces to the same service and the same town that he used to edit this page and turn it into a puff piece. I said he collaborated with terrorists because he did, and I explained how above. I was pointing that out in discussing how we should frame the incident where he helped the terrorists to terrorize Cohen. As far as him being a reporter goes, If someone hires me to hit objects with a bat that doesn't make me a baseball player. The rag he works for is not a legit or reliable news source, and Klein's writings there cannot be considered reporting. He writes for a publication - that by doesn't make him a reporter, that makes him a writer, and we should classify him as such here. Oh, and Legit - if you think what I did is against wikipedia policies, put up or be quiet. You know the venues to report me, go ahead and report me, I will respond to your false allegations in the appropriate venue if you or anyone else decides to take it there, until that time this is the last I will comment on your comments on the tenor my comments - so don't fill up this talk page with your false allegations. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, your valiant efforts to restrain TharsHammar to act within Wiki policy have failed. Is there anything else that can be done? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

LegAnEvCo, please dial back on the drama. — Athaenara ✉ 02:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Athaenara, TharsHammar says something potentially libelous against the subject of this page. I point it out. Wikidemon tells TharsHammar to tone it down [20], TharsHammar does not tone it down, then I make a simple two sentence comment asking for Wikidemon's further help. My simple comment has nothing to do with "drama." Is your request that I voluntarily drop any opposition to noncompliance with wiki policy? You have made no similar request to TharsHammar so I can only assume my simple request is somehow worse than calling someone a terrorist collaborator, etc.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not your "two sentence"s to which the Wikipedia:Drama essay applies but rather your many posts (some 40% of the nearly 80 kb total above), which have become increasingly strident in tone. — Athaenara ✉ 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? I could hardly be more laid back. Even when challenged by TharsHammar to report him I don't. ("Oh, and Legit - if you think what I did is against wikipedia policies, put up or be quiet. You know the venues to report me, go ahead and report me....") Instead I politely ask Wikidemon, "Is there anything else that can be done?", I don't even respond to TharsHammar, and I'm "increasingly strident in tone"? Some guy says the subject of the page is a terrorist collaborator, a clear BLP violation, and my simple efforts to control that are considered "increasingly strident in tone"?

By attempting to get people to comply with Wiki policy, I am attempting to get editors to work collaboratively to improve Wikipedia. People who use this Talk page and even the main page to repeatedly attack the subject of the page are not acting in accordance with Wiki policy. I am one of the few trying to curtail such behavior. Apparently I have been completely unsuccessful in that the subject of the page continues to be attacked again and again, no one does anything to help (although Wikidemon has tried a little), while I am cast as "increasingly strident in tone".

Help is definitely needed on this page. The problem here is not my calls for assistance, rather, it's the attacks continuing unabated against the subject of the page and now spreading to those trying to prevent those attacks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If help is needed, isn't a better option going and soliciting for help rather than just stating that it is needed. Take this to the administrators incidents board if you feel editors are behaving in an offensive manner. If you just want to focus on content issues, take it to the biographies of living persons noticeboard or the content noticeboard. If you just want outside opinions, file an request for comment. If you're unwilling to do anything other than complain, I would suggest you stop complaining. AniMate^draw 05:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

AniMate, thank you. I did not know what to do. You have provided succinct, comprehensive direction. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This doesn'thave to be a big deal. Ideally we settle down and work on the article. Things said on this talk page are meta-comments internal to Wikipedia editors about how to build the encyclopedia, and ought to be directed to that purpose - nobody except active Wikipedia editors is likely to read this stuff and even there it gets archived and forgotten pretty quickly. What we think about Klein and his participation on Wikipedia is neither here nor there in the article space beyond the brief mention in the article. The immediate task at hand is whether and how to write about Klein's reported interactions with Ayman Abu Eita over the Bruno film. Opinions will vary on exactly how to do it, but it's pretty clear that if we're going to have an article about Aaron Klein this is one of the facts of this phase of his writing career that should be covered. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. TharsHammer has raised a legitimate question about the identity of the unregistered editor, which may be worth checking out, but again, that does not have to be an issue on this page where we're just trying to get the article in good shape. Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, but some of what has been said here steps a little too far over the line into BLP violation territory. While more leeway is given on talk pages, we still have to treat the subjects of our BLPs with dignity, even if we hate everything they stand for. AniMate^draw 06:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, AniMate, and I have begun to act on your suggestions [21]. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that an administrative report would only acerbate things. One couldn't address those comments outside of the substance behind them, and a number of other issues on this page. BLP is not the only issue in play here. Best to de-escalate things. Wikidemon (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Eita or Aita

Anyone notice people say Aita or Eita? Which is it? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's Aita. When I google the Eita spelling, the first results are the Aita spelling. Ah, the perils of switching between two alphabets. AniMate^draw 06:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought someone was going to propose the text for the 'Bruno' section? Wikidemon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.225 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruno paragraph

Let's use this section to work on the Bruno paragraph to replace the four removed ones having three reliable sources.

Here are those paragraphs:

In April 2008, a "terrorist leader" interviewed in the hit movie "Brüno" reportedly told Klein in an interview the film mislabeled him and that the movie's star, Sasha Baron Cohen, conducted the interview under false pretenses.

Klein quoted Ayman Abu Aita, who is labeled in the movie as a "terrorist group leader," as stating he was shocked when he learned the film depicts a homosexual character and contains scenes including full frontal male nudity and graphic sex. Aita threatened legal action against Baron Cohen and the movie's producers.

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades terrorist group released a statement through Klein that could be interpreted as a threat against Baron Cohen: "We reserve the right to respond in the way we find suitable against this man." "The movie was part of a conspiracy against the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades."

Klein stated, "These are terrorists. They are against feminism, gay rights and abortion. Once I asked them what would they do if they found out one of their members was a homosexual. They said they would cut off his head."

Let's go from there. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion:

In April 2008, a "terrorist leader" interviewed in the hit movie "Brüno" reportedly told Klein in an interview the film mislabeled him and that the movie's star, Sasha Baron Cohen, conducted the interview under false pretenses. Klein quoted Ayman Abu Aita, who is labeled in the movie as a "terrorist group leader," as stating he was shocked when he learned the film depicts a homosexual character and contains scenes including full frontal male nudity and graphic sex. Aita threatened legal action against Baron Cohen and the movie's producers. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades terrorist group released a statement through Klein that could be interpreted as a threat against Baron Cohen: "We reserve the right to respond in the way we find suitable against this man." "The movie was part of a conspiracy against the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades."

Okay, that's my suggestion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I already see the first ref has the wrong URL. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. I'm having trouble getting the refs straight.... --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. Don't have the time to work on this further right now. Ah, but that's why we work together collaboratively. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruno paragraph references

Ref 1 is NOT from the Bruno paragraph section. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not WP:NPOV because it labels the group a terrorist group, and it violates WP:BLP by labeling the man a "terrorist leader". TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you actually arguing the al-Aqsa Martys Brigades, responsible for every suicide bombing in Israel since 2005, is not a terrorist group? Anyway, you can write "declared terrorist group" or "terrorist group according to the U.S. state department." Second, with regard to Eita, the paragraph does not call him a terrorist. It accurately states the movie labeled him a "terrorist leader." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.225 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What TharsHammar said is irrelevant anyway. The BLP policy applies to the particular person whose page is on Wikipedia. In this case, Aaron Klein. What is said about other people may violate other policy, but not BLP. Further, TharsHammar has a track record of calling Aaron Klein a "terrorist collaborator" and of spending an enormous amount of words and time to repeatedly besmirch Aaron Klein. He has been warned about potential BLP concerns by me, AniMate, WikiDemon, possibly a number of others. His credibility on this Aaron Klein page is near zero, except to the extent that there are others here who similarly have made repeated efforts to besmirch Aaron Klein, just not to the extent of BLP violations.

So, 79.178.103.225, I would not get too concerned about statements from TharsHammar. A guy who says calling a terrorist group a terrorist group may violate Wiki POV rules, and who instead says the reporter reporting on the terrorist group is himself a terrorist collaborator, and who says this in violation of BLP policies, among others, that's the kind of person who has zero credibility.

So I do not agree with you, 79.178.103.225, that we should say "declared terrorist group" or "terrorist group according to the U.S. state department." Any why not call "Eita" Aita? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting terrorist in quotes is not terribly encyclopedic to begin with because it implies a lot of vague stuff without actually saying it, regardless of how clear it is that it is true. I think this particular issue goes away if you spell it out. Instead of In April 2008, a "terrorist leader" interviewed in the hit movie "Brüno" reportedly told Klein in an interview it could better be worded In April, 2008, Klein reported that Ayman Abu Aita, who had been interviewed by Sasha Baron Cohen as part of the Bruno film, told Klein that .... Anyone who wants to know about the al-Aqsa Martys Brigadesal-Aqsa Martys Brigades can follow the links to that article. We don't need to repeat their history of terrorism on each article where the name appears. As a matter of article organization, that would be like repeating all of Ben Franklin's inventions and other accolades every time his name appears. The only reason terrorism is at issue in this article is that Cohen called him a terrorist and part of the alleged incident was that he denies it in the course of making a terrorist-sounding threat. Classic irony that. Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, except when using only the month and year, a comma is not used between them. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is someone going to add the Bruno section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.103.225 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the section. Honestly, I did not see this comment of yours until just now, after I added the comment.

I incorporated all of Wikidemon's suggestions, then more in the spirit of his suggestions. Like I removed calling Al Aksa a terrorist group and simply wikilinked them, as is normal for Wikipedia, as Wikidemon pointed out. He's right. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Made a small adjustment - deleted that Eita was shocked and sued because the film depicted homosexual sex. Instead, he was shocked and sued because the film depicted him as a terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.145.167 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that's right? He was probably offended by both (though at the risk of editorializing, I'm not sure how anyone from al-Aqsa would be surprised at being called a terrorist. Perhaps it was upset at being the brunt of a prank. Wikidemon (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)