Talk:Aaron Klein

message: Klein's article may have felt right to you but there's no doubt it was substantially untrue, and intentionally so.  As the Wired article makes clear, that is not standard journalistic practice.  It is questionable to begin with for a journalist to go undercover to sabotage a media site in order to report on that site's response.  Most serious journalists report on events that actually exist rather than creating their own events in order to write about them.  Granting that there is a subset of "investigative journalists" that does engage in breaching experiments, those journalists must disclose that they are talking about their own experiences.  Klein did not, in a situation where any reasonable journalist would know they should.  That is simply untruthful.  Journalists at mainstream publications who do that are fired, and their bosses resign.
I understand that some legitimate editors on the Obama page sincerely believed they were being persecuted by a pro-Obama cabal.  But that's not what happened in the Klein incident.  When a journalist is caught red handed faking a story, we can't ignore that just because we feel it rings true.  We can't and shouldn't post anything in the article that isn't sourced to third party reliable publications.  In this case there are sources that say he manufactured a fake controversy, and was caught at it.  We don't necessarily have to include that, but what we shouldn't do is to cover it in a way that lends credence to a false story. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, there was a lot more, see :Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 1#Single purpose accounts 1 and :Talk:Aaron Klein/Archive 1#Single purpose accounts 2 for example. – Athaenara  ✉  07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what is going on on this Klein page, like saying Klein was "caught red handed faking a story" when that is only WP:POV, is directly related to this: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Rages on Wikipedia, by Haviv Rettig Gur, The Jerusalem Post, 16 May 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Israel-Palestine articles are a very murky contentious issue here, and I'm not comfortable with a lot of the editing, or the tactics of the outside professionals who are trying to influence content here, on either side.  However, there is not a whole lot of overlap among editors in that corner of Wikipedia and those active on the relatively more calm Obama articles, where this particular incident took place.  Some of the same editors trying to add birther stuff to Obama-related articles were also trying to add stuff about Obama supposedly "palling around with terrorists" (in Sarah Palin's words), one of those suppose terrorists happening to be a Palestinian-American professor.  That's about it.  WND itself was promoting all of that anti-Obama material but the common thread here was Obama, not Israel.  As for Klein being caught in the act of faking a story, other than the term "red-handed", which comes from a newspaper that reported on the incident, its a factual description of what happened and does not express anyone's particular opinion.  A number of people were offended by the misleading description of Wikipedia and disruption that followed, without regard to the particular politics of the people responsible.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious.  What do you mean by "outside professionals who are trying to influence content here, on either side," and can you provide a few examples? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I should have made that broader - there is a whole industry around advocacy and punditry.  People employed on both sides of nearly every issue, directly as lobbyists and PR agents, or as part of their job description as an academic, journalist, blogger, commentator, etc., to shape public opinion by changing the public record of accepted facts.  Wikipedia is a backwater and only occasionally the target.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The Manchurian President is by far Klein's most reported work, even more than the "Wikipedia" controversy. It was on the NY Times bestseller charts for eight weeks and was widely covered by the mainstream media, including the NY Post, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.
Here is proposed section, which is trimmed to basic information:
"The Manchurian President" reportedly tells the story of  "a powerful politician [Obama] whose true past has been intentionally obscured, and who has become a vehicle for implementing a hidden radical agenda."  The book alleges that Obama has ties to "communists, socialists and other anti-American extremists."  
Klein's book spent eight weeks on the NY Times bestseller list and topped multiple other bestseller charts.   
According to reports, some members of the news media, including from publications such as Time and Newsweek, reacted harshly to the announcement of Klein's book, with multiple reporters sending expletive-laden e-mails to the author's publicist saying they did not want to receive a copy.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.117.199 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording sounds promotional, and is far too generous to Klein's claims.  They're a baseless conspiracy theory, and ought to be reported as such.- Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ignore the personal attack but if that continues, I and others will probably not wish to engage in conversation here.  Klein has been promoting conspiracy theories and, occasionally, fabrications.  Conveying this in a matter of fact way is the only way to write an accurate, bias-free article.  We write about conspiracy theories here, we don't endorse them as serious criticisms or viable claims.  The book's title, the claim about communists, hidden past, etc., are very much in line with some of the "birther" stuff, which Klein also promotes.  Facts 2 and 3 are correct and should be reported, but what's missing is why he angered mainstream respectable reporters so much that they curse and refuse to read his work.  They consider it such bunk that it's not worth their time to consider.  It's not "hard hitting", a reportage "story", a serious allegation, or anything like that.  It joins the long parade of mass market books disparaging the President for a radical conservative audience.  We can say that if we can find a source, but the cure for covering an individual so far out of the mainstream that mainstream sources ignore him is not to imply undue credibility by including only statements by the few generally sympathetic sources that do pay him heed. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, we're done here.  WP:NPA covers interaction among Wikipedia editors, and unless you're another WP:SOCK of Klein I'm not saying negative things about any editor here.  I don't approve the adding of the material, and my hunch is that the other editors here generally would not approve either.  I cannot find any mainstream sources, and the sources proposed don't support the proposed content.  So I conclude that the details of the book are simply not notable enough to merit mainstream coverage or, for that reason, coverage here.  If you do wish to engage in discussion at some future point, please keep it WP:CIVIL and stick to the facts.  It would also help if you register an account, and use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to Manchurian President 

message: Can the web links be formatted into "regular" citations? I'd probably screw them up and I am also pretty lazy. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ask a dumb/embarrassing question.  What does "ce" mean as in your history comment? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External links in body of article vs citations.

message: The section entitled, "Article criticizing Wikipedia" has three paragraphs.  It suffers from WP:UNDUE.  The last two paragraphs could be removed to bring about compliance, with perhaps the addition of a single sentence +refs that will make the remaining paragraph even better.
I know many have discussed this in the past.  At that time the incident had just occurred and tempers were hot--I think some of the proponents have even been permanently banned from Wikipedia.  Time has passed and that single incident is simply no longer of great significance.  It has way too much weight on this wiki page.  It's even about Wikipedia so it looks like we are all taking note of an issue otherwise not noteworthy if we were not on Wikipedia as Wikipedia editors.  It needs to be trimmed.
:Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
Who agrees?  Who thinks the other editors who previously were involved in the topic should be asked to comment? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would argue for expanding other sections, not for removing well-sourced material added by consensus.  I have a hunch that this is still Klein's primary notability, and that most of the other stuff is a product of self-promotion: primary sourcing of Klein's material for one, and passing references for another, e.g. so-and-so [alleged terrorist], appearing on Klein's radio program, said x.  There's an inherent problem here, in that writers, commentators, and media personalities are known mainly by their work, which is a primary source as it concerns them.  Major reliable sources generally do not write about the media world, they just don't navel gaze like that.  So we only get solid coverage from media watchdogs and pundits (who are often partisan and unreliable for factual claims), from the occasional blurbs that introduce articles and guest editorials, or else when something extraordinary happens, as with the "wiki-fiddling" story.  If we open the floodgates to consider every media piece that a person produces, or that references their work, to add to the weight of their sources, then these would swamp the few tidbits of information that are actually about them.  If we keep them shut, then it is often very difficult to get much biographical information even about well known people.  - Wikidemon (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article criticizing Wikipedia section is WP:UNDUE 

message: The radio show last week was in world headlines again. See below. Think we should add it?
Appearing on Aaron Klein’s WABC show, comedy legend Jackie Mason ripped President Obama saying that the White House’s 2011 Hannukah celebration – which took place 20 days before the holiday- was a photo opportunity and a fraud. The story went viral. Read about it in:
The Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/barack-obama-jackie-mason-hannukah-275417
The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/jackie-mason-rips-obama-on-hanukkah_n_1159289.html
Politico http://www.politico.com/politico44/2011/12/comedian-rips-obama-over-hanukkah-108147.html
International Business Times http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/270220/20111220/hanukkah-2011-mason-obama-limbaugh-early-celebration.htm
UK Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076688/Comedian-Jackie-Mason-rips-Obama-Hannukah-saying-hit-just-photo-op.html
Alternatively, how about instead a sentence or two about how the show is routinely used to break news, including in mainstream news sources.  This link documents how news tidbits aired on the show are almost weekly referenced by media, crediting Klein's program. In other words, a brief description of the media attention.
See: http://kleinonline.wnd.com/media-buzz/
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.231.109 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaron Klein radio in the news 

message: I'm an Editor on the israeli Wikipedia. I saw this article about Mr. Klein and I noticed that there has been a mistake. I know Mr. Klein personally and know that his date of birth was August 29th, 1978, so I changed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SegevAfriat (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: so you're saying that if tomorrow the media will say that Obama is 100 yo, you'll update the wikipedia page regarding it? you have any idea of how many lies and things went on the mainstreem media and later was found as untruth? here in israel if we want to know something about a person we may ask others. you can contact Mr. Klein himself through WND or his personal manager (Lisa something...) and ask them. The fact that I know Mr. Klein personally is much more credibal than what the news tells about him. Aaron Menashe Klein was born in august 29th 1978, that's a fact. you can't change it. it's not like he's britney spears, who's birthday party is a huge world wide matter- his birthday is more of a personal issue being celebrated by his friends and family and no more than this. I trully believe that "reliable sources" and "news media" not always shakes hands... if you know what i mean...SegevAfriat (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of birth 

message: Good grief, you would think this Aaron Klein person was the most famous guy on the planet as long as this article is.  This guy is an obscure Internet writer, not a candidate for US president and leader of the free world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.183.6 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any article that is worth doing is worth doing well. There are articles about far more obscure topics here, for example complete lists of the characters and episodes of cult anime franchises. One thing that may contribute to its length is that the subject of this biography, directly and through his organization, seems to have added a lot of material to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Aaron Klein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091022093420/http://www.nationaljournal.com:80/njonline/no_20091016_7283.php to http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20091016_7283.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090313002036/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aaron Klein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/26224523/another-socialist-czar.htm#q=aaron+klein
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199589258&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010034113/http://corner.nationalreview.com:80/post/?q=MTY3MDA2M2YzZmNhYWU3ZmFiNDYyZWNlYTgwYWVhYmY= to http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTY3MDA2M2YzZmNhYWU3ZmFiNDYyZWNlYTgwYWVhYmY=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aaron Klein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305065412/http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=54157 to http://www.wabcradio.com/showdj.asp?DJID=54157
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101211706/http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2306E1FD-A88C-4C24-A9B1-34BB2847F9F4 to http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2306E1FD-A88C-4C24-A9B1-34BB2847F9F4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080710211948/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_563184.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_563184.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/social-media-bots.html
Aaron Klein, a radio talk show host and the Jerusalem bureau chief for Breitbart News, bought at least 35,000 followers from Devumi, according to records. A Times analysis found that the majority of his followers were bots, as demonstrated by the unusual patterns seen here.
Xardox (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aaron Klein bought at least 35,000 fake Twitter followers. A majority of his followers were bots.