Talk:Ken Klippenstein

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject of the article has been referenced numerous times in existing Wikipedia articles. QRep2020 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are plenty of cited third-party sources in the Reference section already. I did not add the reference about Ken's supposed net worth and agree that it should not be featured. QRep2020 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with you re: the speedy deletion, I maintain that this article still ought to be a candidate for deletion due to Wikipedia:BIO. Writing for major publications does not constitute notability by itself, nor does a few citations of his work, and an interview from a relatively minor website. His FOIA work does not constitute notability, because it has not been written about at length on Wikipedia or off-site. Had he national awards for this work, it would be notable. But he hasn't, so it isn't. (for example, a google search for "Ken Klippenstein foia" returns 4 of the subject's tweets, and then the interview you cited. His journalistic work surrounding FOIA is not notable. Murrell B (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. All that is required for subject-specific notability of a person is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The reference set for this article meets those guidelines. QRep2020 (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty, going down the reference list to refute that.

1. This is coverage of a story written by Klippenstein, not coverage of Klippenstein. The MSN article is a tertiary source. Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Tertiary it is fine to use this source as confirmation that Klippenstein is a genuine Washington correspondent for the National, but it does not meet the standard for indicating notability. This is because it does not provide any research regarding Klippenstein himself, rather his work.
2. This entry is a database (tertiary source, again) listing Klippenstein's contributions. Again, this list is fine for what it is being used to prove, but it does not constitute notability because it is not "significant coverage" or a secondary source.
3. The talent page https://tyt.com/about/talent does not even feature Klippenstein, you clearly had to find this source elsewhere. And again, the profile of a minor contributor to a television program does not constitute significant coverage, nor is it to be considered intellectually independent of Klippenstein (he probably provided his own bio).
4. This is the only source that I would consider to be meeting the standards laid out in Wikipedia:BIO because, it is a relatively significant, and probably independent of Klippenstein.
5. Again, a citation isn't coverage of the subject.
6. Two sentence bio. All journalists have these, and they are usually hastily written and not to be considered scholarly sources.
7. Citation is not coverage of a subject. If this were a profile or interview of Klippenstein about his work, it would maybe scrape past. But it isn't.
8. This is basically the same as the previous item. Both are tertiary sources.
9. This is another summary of the same topic as item 1, which is more noteworthy than this one because MSN is (kind of) a national publication. WKSU serves only a small metropolitan area within Ohio.
10. Borderline, but an article about a twitter beef, in which Klippenstein is the minor party, doesn't scream "significant coverage."

Only one of your citations is reliable and independent of the subject, this does not constitute "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." Saying "All that is required for subject-specific notability" betrays the fact that "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" is a high standard, let alone " [...] reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," which your citations do not adequately meet. I apologise for the formatting, I have no idea how to indent numbered lists. Murrell B (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

#1: It's coverage of him elaborating on his existing writing - the article speaks to what Ken said in an interview afterwards. It's more than what you've painted it as.

#3: https://tyt.com/about/talent/5XgzR7Jw4MIc8IWuOkeM0g. I don't know why Wikipedia is having trouble resolving that in a citation reference.

#10: How is he the "minor" party? It's a flame war between the two of them and arguably Ken is the instigator.

You seem to be making judgment calls about what is "kind of" and "maybe" of significance. The guidelines say present multiple independent and reliable sources that are significantly about the topic, not significant by some "objective" standard - there are more than one on the list that are independent, reliable, and frame Ken as a significant element of the story at hand. QRep2020 (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

#1 Exactly, it's a summary. It does not constitute adequate sourcing re: Klippenstein's biography. It also does not constitute notability because it is a tertiary source citing, in the words of Wikipedia:BIO "trivial coverage."

#2 I'm not raising a question regarding the existence of that page, but the significance of it, being that it isn't even listed on TYT's website in an accessible fashion.

#10 It's a minor twitter beef that is not newsworthy, whether or not an unreliable website made an article about it.

They also definitely don't say significantly about the topic. Wikipedia:BASIC unequivocally and unambiguously, says "significant coverage," not "significantly topical coverage." The good faith assumption is that you've simply misread the notability standards, so I'm going to submit a decidedly un-speedy RFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrell B (talk • contribs) 08:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. Klippenstein is a prominent-enough public figure to warrant inclusion. He has 291,000 followers on twitter. Not only are there his reported stories, but there are a number of news stories that report on his reporting. That said, the picture that is currently on the page almost certainly needs to be deleted -- there's no information about copyright/creator permission, let alone useful metadata like when the photo was taken.Emoprog (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to elaborate for a moment on the controversy section to explain why it should be included. I can understand why, at first blush, an online argument doesn't appear to satisfy notability/inclusion requirements. Here, though, Musk broadcast his insult, in retaliation against a journalist highlighting his social connection to an accused human trafficker, on a platform that had 30+ million followers. That's not the same non-notable message as a random tweet sent by your average CEO. Wikipedia already contains several accounts of Musk's controversial tweets in recognition of their notability. The most relevant example would be the Thai rescue cave diver tweets that resulted in a libel case. His tweets that led to being fined by the SEC are also discussed at length. Certainly it isn't the case that every little spat of Musk's will meet WP:N, but here there was reporting on it. And it directly followed a journalist discussing Musk's social connection to accused human traffickers. That's similar enough to the previous two examples to warrant mention. Emoprog (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. Ken's FOIA work in situations like the cited Miami New Times article about propaganda film creation in US detention camps directly led to the prevention of that event. That's only one example, but it sounds like this is more of a sourcing issue than a reason for article deletion. If anything, this article seems like a candidate for a cleanup or notability tag instead of immediately jumping to deletion. Atm153 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. There are a plethora of articles of people from the 1800s with two sentences only. This guy has way more information available and is well respected by the media. He is frequently cited on TYT and Rising with Krystal and Saagar. This article could be cleaned up but to suggest he isn't notable is malarkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.106.121 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. Klippenstein has written for The Nation, The Young Turks, The Daily Beast and The Intercept. His articles have been featured in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other mainstream media outlets. Klippenstein’s was leaked FBI documents regarding “Black Identity Extremists” and the Iron Fist program was read into the Congressional record in October 2019. Klippenstein has broken many exclusive stories and he is obviously notable. Bethsquire (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

keep This article needs cleanup for sure, but is fairly clearly of a level of notability that merits keeping. It is obviously unfortunate that there has been such vandalism on the page, but it seems obvious that this will not be a persistent problem. WZibell (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kenklipper.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kenklipper.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Signal number added

I am noting here that I have added Klippenstein's Signal number because it appears on almost every profile of his and is therefore clearly intended to be public knowledge. QRep2020 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's public information if its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. This serves nothing but promotional value for Klippenstein and should be removed per WP:NPOV. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I edited Ken's DOB because the year was wrong. I was on mobile when I saw an error and couldn't remember my login so I made the change on the year Ken was born and signed my name to the edit. I understand that as his attorney, the conflict means perhaps I shouldn't be making edits to his page, but on something simple like his year of birth I thought it would be ok. Ken was born February 1, 1988. He was not born in 1989. This information comes directly from him. Bethsquire (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm personally not particularly familiar with WP:COI nor do I want to be. If your client feels like it's a must that his birthdate be included in the article then I'd ask about the best way to proceed at WP:HELPDESK, but that's only because I don't have a great answer for you and WP:HELPDESK is my personal fallback. Some other editor my have a better answer for you. Brycehughes (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Beth appears to have tried to fix the birthyear, not introduce it. I do not see what the issue is here. QRep2020 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The birth year is in dispute, the edit was reverted but another editor, and moreover it is not sourced. WP:BLP: we need a reliable, preferably secondary source for this. The article is not ruined by not having the birth year there until a reliable secondary source is found. Brycehughes (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is Ken stating his age in January 2020: https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1223036518803046400 . Does it really require an interpretation, i.e. a secondary source, or can we drop the pedantry and allow it as a primary source for his age and birth year? QRep2020 (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's some controversy (and I don't believe there is here), I am of the opinion that this is good enough to substantiate it for the article. Thanks for this. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep: WP:BLPSELFPUB. But do we have a source for the birthday? Brycehughes (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• sigh* https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1223653038252011520?s=20 Bethsquire (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia: so tedious even FOIA lawyers find it exasperating... Brycehughes (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

photos

I noticed a photo I took of Ken and uploaded to my flikr (public domain) was used for his wiki briefly and then deleted as somehow belonging to Berkeley. I did not give Berkeley rights to the photo nor did Ken. It's a photo I took and if anyone were to assert rights to it, it would be me. It's for the public and I would hope that it would be part of this page. I stripped the exif data from it before posting for privacy purposes but can repost to my flikr with the exif data if I actually have to prove that I took the photo and would be the only one able to assert a right to it. Bethsquire (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beth. You uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate website from Wikipedia and maintains its own policies, culture, etc. The Wikimedia Commons administrator who deleted your photo is Elcobbola, so I would start by asking them on their discussion page at Commons, which you will get to if you -->click here<--. You can use the same login at Wikimedia Commons as you do here at Wikipedia, as they both fall under the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella, and in fact you should not have to log in again. The name of the deleted file in question is "Ken Klippenstein.jpg", and you should reference that in your query there. Brycehughes (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ip vandalism

Ive requested semi-protection on this page due to ip vandals editing the page Teenyplayspop (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)