Talk:Kyle Kulinski/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Three best sources

• What are the three best sources for meeting the WP:GNG, for being independent (not an interview of Kyle), being secondary source comment about Kyle (not facts and data, but qualitative opinion on him), and being published in a reliable source? I've already assessed this as passing the GNG, but it seems to have disappeared behind a paywall. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, perfect timing, I was just talking about this a couple sections up. Please see the section "Draft Resubmission" for details. Here's a summary:

• Here's an archived version of the Santa Clarita Gazette page, to get around the paywall. [1]
• I suspect this Jacobin piece meets WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. [2]
• Here are some other sources of varying quality: [3][4][5][6]

Since you're a new page reviewer, you probably have a pretty good feel for GNG, so looking forward to your thoughts. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

At User_talk:Trackinfo/Kyle_Kulinski#Evaluating_notability I have already evaluated "yes" for your first dot point, "no" for your second, and as for your third dot point, I am frustrated by your inability to count to three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Dot point 3#1 https://www.inquisitr.com/5819757/kyle-kulinski-trump-soleimani-whims-psychos/ No. This is not about Kyle, it is about what Kyle is talking about.

Dot point 3#2 https://www.inquisitr.com/5829381/kyle-kulinski-sexism-elizabeth-warren-dancing/ No. This is not about Kyle, it is about something Kyle said, and the author comment does not turn the focus back onto Kyle.

Dot point 3#3 https://www.inquisitr.com/5913483/kyle-kulinski-wikipedia/ No, you don't get to be Wikipedia-notable due to a story about your Wikipedia article failing Wikipedia-notability. Wikipedia needs external sources, from a distant perspective, to start the article.

Dot point 3#4 https://www.good.is/features/kyle-kulinski-sanders-trump No. It does not discuss the subject in depth. All I read it saying about Kyle is that he is "a popular figure in progressive politics". Suggested minimum comment on the topic that has been suggested for even considering has been "two running sentences" or "100 words". This article does not make that tiny threshold for in depth comment on the subject.

This remains on the edge. If you can find a singe new source (not already listed at User_talk:Trackinfo/Kyle_Kulinski#Evaluating_notability, which is independent of Kyle, is in a reliable publication, and makes at least two running sentences of comment about Kyle, then I'll move it to mainspace myself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I am frustrated by your inability to count to three. No need to be snappy. You'll notice my tone was positive and excited to be working with you. Ah well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please try to take my grumpiness with a hint of humour, and I'll try to be less grumpy. I did go carefully through the four sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

For reference, my choice of three sources, and some notes.

Three references

1 https://santaclaritafree.com/gazette/opinion/the-passion-of-kyle-kulinski "The Passion of Kyle Kulinski"

   https://web.archive.org/web/20200128034416/https://santaclaritafree.com/gazette/opinion/the-passion-of-kyle-kulinski

While attending Iona College, he majored in political science, graduating in 2010 with a bachelor’s degree. During his college days, he started the YouTube channel called “Secular Talk,” where he would give his analysis of the political landscape in America.

In 2012, Kulinski dedicated himself to “Secular Talk” 

Kyle is very intelligent and he can dissect political policy in a very smart manner that is easy to understand. 

“Secular Talk” has grown immensely popular over the past decade, currently reaching over 750,000 subscribers.

Kulinski is a proud progressive liberal and he makes it clear that his show leans very heavily to the left

Kulinski despises moderate Democrats

Kulinski was one of the founding members of the Justice Democrats.

Kulinski is brash and in-your-face. ... He fearlessly says what he believes is right — while giving facts, statistics, data and research to back up his points.

2 https://vc.bridgew.edu/grad_rev/vol5/iss1/8/

  PDF:  https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=grad_rev  

Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci

Gramsci called this method of revolution, waged not on the battlefield but in the hearts and minds of people, a “war of position”

Gramsci identifies the “organic intellectuals,” working-class individuals, who have taken up the mantle of cultural leadership within the proletariat.

best known and most divisive of the new organic intellectuals is Cenk Uygur. Uygur , “The Young Turks,”

Another of the new organic intellectuals is Kyle Kulinski, founder and host of YouTube’s “Secular Talk.”

Kulinski produced “Secular Talk” as a passion project in his spare time between classes, and his ability to articulate his own unique brand of social and political commentary in an engaging manner soon attracted a loyal contingent of followers (“About,” The Kyle Kulinski Show).

“tune in for unapologetic and stimulating

talk "

In advocating against self-marginalization, Kulinski performs a core function of the organic intellectual, forging alliances between disparate factions of the working class to establish one ideologically cohesive unit, something Gramsci called a “historic bloc”

Kulinski is critical of Clinton’s remarks because they serve to hastily burn ideological bridges rather than build them,

3 https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/03/kyle-kulinski-bernie-bros-secular-talk-joe-rogan-youtube "Kyle Kulinski Speaks, the Bernie Bros Listen"

With over 800,000 subscribers and nearly 670 million total views on YouTube, selling a progressive agenda

Kulinski’s fiery rhetoric, razor-sharp class instincts, and knack for withering takedowns sets him apart from his peers.

He records his show not in Brooklyn or Los Angeles, but in a studio he built himself in his modest Westchester home.in the suburbs

very first episode of Secular Talk, posted to YouTube in spring 2008 

And by the end of 2009, Kulinski’s show ...

The show was mostly a hobby at that point, with only sporadic new videos for the next couple of years.

The end of Obama’s first term, however, was the turning point — both for Kulinski and many other young millennials who’d put their faith in the president.

“I got disillusioned with the mainstream left when I saw that at least half of the people kind of shut their brain off and went along with Obama,

In late 2012, he put on a tie and flooded his channel with videos — a new recording nearly every day,

In 2015, he hit a hundred thousand subscribers. After just two years of “mostly talking to myself,” Kulinski was earning a living from Secular Talk.

Only a few weeks later his father passed away in hospice care, joining the estimated forty-five thousand Americans who die annually from lack of health insurance.

“It finally clicked a year later — my dad was actually one of those people that if he had the ability to just go to the doctor and didn’t have to worry about the bill, he almost certainly would’ve done it a hell of a lot earlier,” he says. “And maybe you could have caught the cancer in like stage two and stopped it.”

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces

Will that Santa Clarita Gazette source give us any problems for being an "opinion" piece? I've heard an admin say that opinion pieces are not reliable sources before, and argue that they are WP:PRIMARY. Just playing devil's advocate here to hopefully strengthen our arguments. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Novem. The GNG requires secondary sources, which squarely includes opinion pieces. They include analyse and any form of transformation of the facts. Opinion pieces are often not reliable for the facts, which is why a mix of primary and secondary sources is needed. Primary sources should be reliable for the facts, and secondary sources are needed for what the article says about the facts. Secondary sources are needed for the context. This article/draft was in no lack of primary sources; it lacked secondary sources, and especially independent secondary sources. Making a connection between an opinion piece and the facts is the goal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• GNG requires independent, secondary, reliable, sources. I'm of the opinion that the Santa Clarita Gazette & Free Classifieds passes "independent", passes "secondary", fails "reliable". However, while my vernaculars tend toward multiple meaning more than two, I think, in this case, the other sources are sufficient. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ryk72, I will be happy to defend the source on the basis that it makes no claims of dubious veracity. It's main purpose is to demonstrate that someone has published comments on him. It is a debate that may or may not be played out at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• The Santa Clarita Gazette appears to be an unsecure site. Are you sure you want to use this as a source? --NoMagicSpells^talk 14:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the newspaper went out of business and somebody stole their domain. I've edited the article to use the archive URL, [7] –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the “original” link as well. There’s no benefit in keeping it. Unless you guys are spammers with nefarious intentions! Also who’s photo is the scary guy with the stetson? Are you sure the site wasn’t hacked replacing Kulinski’s photo? Finally do we need to end the sentence with “with an easy-to-understand, proud, brash, and in-your-face style.” It’s a SYNTH of separate descriptions. I think ending the sentence at “liberal standpoint” is fine. --NoMagicSpells^talk 15:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I cut ", with an easy-to-understand, proud, brash, and in-your-face style". Comments on his style should come from multiple sources to be worth including, and even then, probably not in the lede. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Shows and affiliations

Could someone please help with an explanation and a timeline connecting the following:

1. "Justice Democrats"

2. "The Kyle Kulinski show"

3. "Secular Talk"

4. "The Young Turks"

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe This is how I would draft it:

JACOBIN PARA REDRAFTED (then move original para into “Early Life”)

Kulinski’s disillusionment at the end of President Obama's first term in 2012, including healthcare issues impacting his family, helped shape his political views and led to him to set up Secular Talk on YouTube achieving 100,000 subscribers in 2015.

EARLY LIFE

Kulinski was born and raised in the New York City suburbs of Westchester County, New York. He graduated from New Rochelle High School in 200 and Iona College in 2010 with a bachelor's degree in political science and a minor in psychology.

Jacobin published a profile of Kulinski entitled "Kyle Kulinski Speaks, the Bernie Bros Listen" in March 2020, describing his humble basement beginnings in spring 2008, and later his 2012 disillusionment with the end of President Obama's first term. This led to a surge in activity that resulted in achieving 100,000 YouTube subscribers, and the ability to make a living from Secular Talk in 2015. Kulinski reflects that his father's demise due to inadequate healthcare helped shape his political views.

CAREER

Secular Talk

Kulinski is the host and producer of The Kyle Kulinski Show on his YouTube channel Secular Talk, an affiliate of The Young Turks network. He started the YouTube channel in 2008 while studying as a political science student at Iona College. As of January 2021, his show had 955,000 subscribers.

The Kyle Kulinski Show

In 2012, Kulinski began publishing videos full-time, and started broadcasting on BlogTalkRadio as The Kyle Kulinski Show.

He spends a lot of time studying all the major issues so he can give a complete breakdown of everything for his audience. Kyle is very intelligent and he can dissect political policy in a very smart manner that is easy to understand.

— Eric Goldin, Santa Clarita Gazette

Justice Democrats

Kulinski—alongside Cenk Uygur, Saikat Chakrabarti and Zack Exley—co-founded the Justice Democrats in December 2016. Uygur and Kulinski resigned from the group in late 2017.

Let me know what you think. --NoMagicSpells^talk 16:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Updated as per comments in section below--NoMagicSpells^talk 09:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

AFC soon?

We've got our WP:THREE in the lead, and we've trimmed out many of the bad references, including all the YouTube and Twitter references.

• If we really wanted to burn this to the ground, we could trim out the self publish sources (Blogspot, Medium, Secular Talk's about page) and the unreliable sources (Inquisitr). Do we want to trim these out?
• Are we ready for AFC yet? I'm thinking we can AFC soon.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. However you guys also need to read the article properly and FULLY, again and again, and not rush it and just read the paras you’ve amended.

• For example, “Iona College” is mentioned four times; studying “political science” three times; and him attending “New Rochelle High School “ can’t be found in the cite provided .
• Also ensure the cites match what has been written. If you can’t cite it then remove the statement. For example, “Kulinski is known for his opposition to social and economic conservatism, extreme religiosity, corporatism, political correctness, and the white supremacy movement.” Where are the citations that say this?
• Avoid WP:PUFFERY remarks like “humble”. This isn’t a hagiography.
• Ensure the links you keep are not dead. —NoMagicSpells^talk 09:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  NoMagicSpells, thanks for the feedback. I just went through and reduced Iona College repetition, and removed the word "humble". I'll wait until others chime in before I go trimming unsourced and poorly sourced content, we may not even need to do that to pass AFC. AFC may just evaluate us on GNG. Do you have a specific example of a dead link? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae Thanks. Please look in the “Politics positions and recurring critiques“ section, second para, look at the end of the sentence ending “...shifted to the far-right” --NoMagicSpells^talk 10:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. AFC isn’t needed. Unsalting of the mainspace title is needed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  SmokeyJoe, the message left by the salting administrator (Muboshgu) was Repeatedly recreated: Use WP:AFC if you want to publish again. [8]. However, if we want to try reaching out to the protecting admin directly, that could be an option as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I’ll do the AfC accept. The salting admin needs to be asked to unsalt. If he declines there’s RfPU, followed by DRV. I’m pretty sure it’ll get to mainspace, where it might be AfD-ed for the real discussion. I think enough of the weak sources have been cleaned out. It’s not a slam dunk, but the three best sources are there, and the rest is much better than it has ever been before. Are we ready? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ready. Although maybe wait for a few more comments before proceeding. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ready If other editors don’t have further comments, please go ahead. --NoMagicSpells^talk 12:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ready I reworked the lede yesterday to clean out some redundancy. I think its good. Trackinfo (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ready While some of the prose could use work, and I am not inclined towards attributed opinion in lead sections; the draft, particularly the sourcing, is sufficiently different from the last submission that I think: a) resubmission is not disruptive; b) resubmission stands a good chance of success. A big thank you to all of you who worked on it. - Ryk72 ^talk 21:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Request de-SALT of Kyle Kulinski

User:Muboshgu, you create-protected Kyle Kulinski 20:10, 2 February 2020, ~ 1 year ago. Since then, at User talk:Trackinfo/Kyle Kulinski and then here, we have thoroughly analysed the available sources, and now have completed the following of advice at WP:THREE. As an AfC reviewer, I accept this draft. Would you please de-salt Kyle Kulinski? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, are you sure about that? The current version doesn't look very different to me than the article that was deleted a year ago. The top of this talk page says that this draft is looking for significant coverage of biographical detail, and the draft only has that (high school, college) cited to a primary source. Which are the supposed "three best sources"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You know what, don't worry about that. I would rather remain neutral on this subject from hereon, so I think the best thing for me to do is un-salt, allow it to be moved to mainspace, and watch as a likely fifth AfD runs its course. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately, we have to note that the three best sources are references 4, 5, & 6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems weak to me, but it's not up to me (at least, not me alone). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I just re-ordered the lede paragraphs to put the best sources first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good, then it has a chance. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I added the first paragraph thinking we were writing to inform the public, not to put sources in a particular order. I guess we can worry about that after the inevitable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (5th nomination). Trackinfo (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping User:Sandstein, closer of the last AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, thanks, but I have no opinion. Sandstein 09:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, would you please unprotect Talk:Kyle Kulinski and move this talk page to there? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I accepted the draft, moved it to mainspace, and reviewed the new page. It is ready to be defended at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, it was another admin who salted the talk page, which must be why it didn't go with the main page. It's unsalted now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In mainspace

The article is now in mainspace, and is being edited. I think it is quite unfortunate to see that the best quality references have been buried, and low quality references only are now used in the lede. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RE an above thread above, "I added the first paragraph thinking we were writing to inform the public, not to put sources in a particular order. ... Trackinfo (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)"

I think some more care needs to be taken here with regard to perspective. This is a borderline-notable biography. There is little independent commentary. Care must be taken that Wikipedia does not assume the role of "inform the public". Wikipedia is support to only cover what others have covered, WP:PSTS is the policy, and use of primary sources for informing the public borders onto NOTPROMOTION. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe If other editors aren’t aware of what you are trying to achieve, I think you can avoid these edit issues by having “summary sentences” that follow WP:MOS guidance. You need to put summaries of each WP:THREE paragraph with anchor references (e.g. ref name="Jacobin") into the lede/lead. Here’s a suggestion para for the lead that includes all three significant sources:

He has been described as one of the “new organic intellectuals of YouTube”, and able to “dissect political policy in a very smart manner that is easy to understand”. Kulinski’s disillusionment with President Obama's first term and inadequate healthcare leading to his father’s death helped shape his political views.

Let me know your views regarding this suggestion. --NoMagicSpells^talk 06:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Not bad. Just throwing this out there... another option is to put our WP:THREE in a banner at the top of the talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the other format fitted better. The red infobox is just too distracting. Knowing that the YouTube info can read clearer the way I had it was better.Kinsley Bottom (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Kinsley Bottom, thanks for your comment. In case anybody is wondering, these are the edits in question, which I reverted. Happy to get some second opinions on this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the red YouTube infoboxes, but that's just me. Mottezen (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Red is the default color of Template:Infobox YouTube personality, so if you find it too distracting, it would be better to suggest changes to the template itself rather than to individual articles which utilize it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

De-affiliated with TYT?

The sources given do not actually provide any information that Kyle is no longer affiliated with the Young Turks or that there's policy diversion between the two. Elishop (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

He did have some kind of incident with Cenk Uygur. He talked about it in his podcast. Also I found this with some quick googling: [9]. But yeah, hard to cite to secondary sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to find a good quality source for this. Uygur said on his show that "Kyle is no longer part of the network", but he said this in a segment which was not uploaded to YouTube on his channel, and it's not great when the best source we have of him saying this is some random account's reupload of it.

Kulinski has also said "I left the TYT network", but he said this in an interview with another YouTuber. In terms of quality, this is probably a step above some random person commenting on the feud between Uygur and Kulinski, but still not the best. I will note that Kulinski didn't mention policy differences when he eventually commented on it.

An article to cite would be nice, but if all else fails, I suppose this bit of infobox-tier biographical information is the sort of thing we could use a primary source for, even if that primary source ends up being a clip from YouTube (as much as I'd hate to cite YouTube).

I previously cited the TYT YouTube page's "Channels" tab because it showed that Kulinski's Secular Talk channel no longer appears under the "TYT Network" group, but this is admittedly a weak source.

All of that said, I will remove this unsourced information from the lede of the article, but keep a CN tag in the infobox. Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the sort of uncontroversial information for which it is completely OK to cite WP:PRIMARY sources directly.Mottezen (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Should really find secondary sources for things on Wikipedia. If a secondary source cannot be found, that often indicates that it is WP:UNDUE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

True rule of thumb. This case is an exception. His membership in TYT is part of every RS coverage we have on him before the split, so we need to clearly note that he is no longer part of the network on wikipedia. We can source one of his tweets or YT clips for this per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Mottezen (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding a BLP issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Krystal Ball / Kyle Kulinski. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)