Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Kimberly Klacik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article move

[edit]

Not sure how the talk pages work, so please don't scream at me.

Change "klacik" on the title to Klacik for proper grammar. --Wikilife5656 (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not NPV

[edit]

This appears more of a promotion than neutral point of view. I hope someone with more time than me can expand upon it and remove biased elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.33.171 (talk) 11:07, August 23, 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with this. The page is clearly written to present the subject in a positive light. Language such as "wife, mother, and non-profit founder", the entire second paragraph, and the way the article talks about her viral videos and praise from Republicans is not written neutrally. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those statements about Klacik are both factual and sourced. If you feel you can restate them in a more objective manner, please feel free to do so, but a hatnote is unwarranted. - JGabbard (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JGabbard, no, the entire article is from a slanted POV and the tag needs to stay until the article is fixed. I failed to mention that the article puts her opinion of Baltimore as dilapidated as a fact. This article puts forth her political opinions without any consideration of accuracy or rebuttal. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not describe the entire city of Baltimore as dilapidated, although at least half of it could easily be described as blighted, without question. However, it does describe those neighborhoods shown in the video as dilapidated, and they undeniably are. Outlining Klacik's accomplishments does not in itself make the article slanted such that it warrants an additional hatnote. By all means add a "Criticism" section if you wish. - JGabbard (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
although at least half of it could easily be described as blighted, without question. This is offensive but if you're going to make such charged statements, please at least do us the favor of providing an actual source (one that isn't right wing propaganda.) Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I've removed the dilapidated bit since none of the sources actually describe it as such. Praxidicae (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticism" sections also fail WP:NPOV. See WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. Two wrongs don't make a right. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu In an effort to depuff this advertisement, I have removed the quote about her being the first woman to hold state wide office since it's not relevant to the article in the slightest and is factually incorrect. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I did not see that in there. Barbara Mikulski would likely disagree with it as well. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So would the nearly 20 or so women in our state senate... Praxidicae (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, congressional seats (unless at-large) aren't exactly "statewide office". And she certainly wouldn't be the first female (or even black female) congresswoman from Maryland. SecretName101 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the statewide offices are the constitutional offices (Guv, Lt Gov, AG, etc.) and US Senate. And Donna Edwards is a former member of Congress from Maryland. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: You deleted a word because it was unsourced. I added the word back (with a source). You took exception to the word "dilapidated" being used to describe the area of Baltimore where Klacik filmed her video. Please take a moment to read WP:BLUE. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take a moment to read WP:UNDUE and WP:V. also WP:CONSENSUS. Start engaging in discussions before making sweeping controversial edits. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the wording to reflect the terminology in the sources which I have added. - JGabbard (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JGabbard This has been contested. Stop re-adding it and especially with that source, as per WP:RSP it should be given careful consideration before adding and must be attributed to the author. I have removed it again. Do not re-add it until consensus is reached here. Presenting her opinion as fact about an entire city or population is certainly not neutral. Praxidicae (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu You've been active in this article today, what are your thoughts? Praxidicae (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I think this comes across as a campaign advertisement, because that's what it is: devoting that much space to sharing what is in her campaign video without any fact checking is problematic. This is supposed to be her biography. Details on her video belong on the election article, if at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering her own statements aren't even fact checked, I'm not inclined to accept the description from a conservative outlet owned by habitual fact-deniers. Praxidicae (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Baltimore has blight. This is known. We can find reliable sources that talk about it (perhaps even The Dickensian Aspect of it). The issue is that here, it's a WP:COATRACK. Klacik growing up in poverty would be one thing. Just highlighting blight isn't biographical information about the supposed subject of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JGabbard's addition was sourced and appropriate. It should be restored. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected + sanctions

[edit]

Praxidicae, JGabbard, Magnolia677, Muboshgu (picked you four since you have all explicitly reverted someone else's edit): I have fully-protected the page for a week because of the ongoing edit war. I don't especially care who is in the "right" here, you all have been editing long enough to know better. Once you have reached consensus, you may submit an {{edit fully-protected}} request. Separately, I am placing this article under 1RR under WP:AP2 discretionary sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action (which, obviously, won't really matter until the page protection runs out), I will implement an editnotice and log this shortly. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: The issue with the full protection may be that it blocks most users from making any improvements, which will doom this article to deletion in my current deletion nomination. It'd prevent any chance of a non-admin making changes needed to prove notability of the subject, it that is possible. Even though I have my doubts it is possible to prove the notability of the subject, I have my worries about us failing to provide the opportunity for that to even be a remote possibility at all. SecretName101 (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SecretName101, yup, I understand the ramifications of full protection, and it's not an action I took lightly. Regarding proving notability, though, one can still provide sources and such in the AfD without modifying the article itself - it's not as effective as "hey, look, I rewrote the article and now it proves notability," but it's the best I can offer for now. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the 1RR restriction; it no longer appears to be necessary. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 25 August 2020

[edit]

Perhaps mention that Klacik responded to Trump's twitter attack on Baltimore and Cummings by Tweeting "This just made my day." [1] SecretName101 (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies" is POLITICALLY MOTIVATED

[edit]

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies"

The notion that Kim Klacik isn't sufficiently "notable" for a Wikipedia page is nothing more than politically motivated leftist nonsense.

With her widespread current media coverage, Kim Klacik is more relevant than probably +80% of individuals who currently have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them. With her message starting to gain momentum, the political left in the United States wants her silenced to the greatest degree possible. Therefore, any motions made to have this page taken down must be assumed to be politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.75.206 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@73.211.75.206: No it's NOT. This is about Wikipedia policy, not partisanship. Your accusations are meritless. If you are confused why this article is being considered for deletion, you need to familiarize yourself with several of Wikipedia's policies.. See Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Recentism. We commonly use the "ten-year test", which asks, "Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?". This figure may have a flash-in-the-pan second of semi-relevance, but are they truly notable in and of themselves and in ten years will there be anything written here about them remotely notable? There is a valid argument that she strongly fails that test. Also, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This includes that Wikipedia is not "a newspaper". This policy states that, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." SecretName101 (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@73.211.75.206: If you wish to contest its deletion, you should see that all are free to participate in its deletion discussion. But please have a valid rationale. SecretName101 (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This person holds the record for the most viewed congressional advertisement of all time in the United States, that alone gives them significance.

Nate Rybner 21:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs)

@Naterybner: Most-viewed congressional ad as recognized by what source? SecretName101 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that her ad alone is not grounds for her having a page, though it absolutely contributes. I am a supporter of maintaining her page, since she is a firebrand who I do not believe is going away anytime soon, and I would rather have the page maintained than deleted and re-created later. That being said, neutrality problems must be addressed immediately, and I don't think it is politically motivated to say so. (I also want to remind everyone that this is not a discussion for the Talk page as much as for the articles of deletion.) PickleG13 (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the son of biracial parents and a Republican I wish to support the existence of the Kimberly Klacic page.RichardBond (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardBond: First of all, there's a deletion conversation where you can voice your argument for retaining it. But why do you see your politics or ethnicity as at all relevant to this? The discussion of its deletion or retention should be based upon wikipedia policy, not personal politics or preferences. SecretName101 (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Klacik is currently a well known public speaker and is likely to remain so even if she doesn't get elected. What I have found over twelve years is that politics enters decisions on notability on Wikipedia constantly. There is however an effective bias against Republicans. I wanted to show that there are editors who recognize that Kimberly Klacik is notable if not as an elected official as a professional public speaker.RichardBond (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes

[edit]

Firstly, can we get "Kimberly Klacik (born January 19, 1982) is a nonprofit founder who won the Republican nomination in Maryland's 7th Congressional District special primary on February 4, 2020" changed to "Kimberly Klacik (born January 19, 1982) is an American politician who..." It's standard form to have nationality followed by occupation as the first thing in the lead.

Secondly, this is problematic: In 2013, Klacik founded Potential Me to assist underserved women with workforce development. Assisting close to 200 women become gainfully employed, 30 percent went on to obtain financial independence. As the non-profit grew, she employed women re-entering the workforce. This statement is sourced to her campaign website and has some poor wording and sentence structure. This either needs to be deleted or revised with an appropriate secondary source. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted since there is evidence that this isn't entirely accurate.[2] Praxidicae (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see the notorious video exhaustively examined in Snopes Jim.henderson (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But how else would we maintain this as a raging advert for her campaign if we included any criticism or fact checking?! Praxidicae (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you see room for improvement, by all means, do it. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At that time, I was refraining from changing the article because of the pending deletion. Now I'm staying out of it from a distaste for putting my time into rapid back and forth editing. Eventually the storm will calm; meanwhile others with a taste for riding a storm will ride it. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I do not know how this talk page works. However, I signed up for wikipedia to include a picture of Ms. Klacik on her wiki page. At this point, she has spoken at the RNC, been featured as a guest multiple times on cable news, and from a quick Google News search, she has articles about her from NY Post, The Hill, The Baltimore Sun, Fox News and The Washington Times. She is notable due to her news coverage to date. And, she is notable for being part of an emerging wave of African-American Republican politicians in the United States. She is not some random person running for Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki899 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwiki899: Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Klacik -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the topic of notability @SecretName101: - Did you not see my edit summary? I don’t understand how having a template for notability when there is an ongoing deletion discussion is helpful. The issue of notability is being discussed there and will be resolved there. How can the template possibly benefit Wikipedia? Or is it meant as a scarlet letter? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 22:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El cid, el campeador: Because such templates are NOT to be removed until the notability dispute is resolved. And you have admitted that, as of now, it has not been resolved. SecretName101 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me why having the notability tag on this article (at the same time as an AFD template) is productive and promotes the purposes behind the notability tag? The purpose of the tag is to promote maintenance and improvement, not to serve as a red flag to readers that the article is flawed. Please see WP:IAR; it is not WP policy to blindly follow procedural rules when common sense tells us otherwise. But the point is practically moot as the AFD should be closing soon - just think about my point. I understand your POV. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 11:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability revisited

[edit]

El_cid,_el_campeador summarized this edit with It's written in a way that is trying to establish notability and should be revised further to be more neutral. Unspecific is more neutral? I misread Courthouse News and only mentioned the two claims in the paragraph preceding Courthouse News's findings but "those claims" could refer to all four: Klacik contends that her company Potential Me assisted “close to 200 women [to] become gainfully employed, thirty percent went on to obtain financial independence.” “As the nonprofit grew, she employed women reentering society and quickly found out what it took to manage payroll and helping families thrive with opportunities she helps create,” according to biography published on Klacik’s campaign website. Courthouse News could not substantiate those claims. That's not "some claims." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to language like "Fox News described her as Republican strategist in 2019 and reported on her critique of Elijah Cummings". It's trying to establish notability by saying that Fox News had coverage of her. The article needs to be reworded to move away from just making a list of times Fox or some other news org talked about her. Re the Courthouse News piece, I don't find it particularly helpful to quote each campaign claim. I think it's more succinct to just say that Klacik made claims, and that the org could not corroborate some of them. It's not a big issue but just throwing quotes around does not feel like the best solution. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it is improper to add comments like "Which claims? Seems to me they were the ones your edit removed" into a live page, viewable to anyone reading the article. Let's not let personal feelings get into the way of building an encyclopedia. I have no idea why you are being uncivil with me. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 17:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention to be uncivil, and I don't think my comment was. I was following the example of another editor which caused me to specify the claims. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC) What about your comment ("Please avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. I see no reason to be uncivil. Let's discuss on the talk page instead of adding personal notes into the article space.")? What point was I trying to make considering that I added a "clarify" note without editing the wording of the sentence? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1rr

[edit]

I'm unfamiliar in practice with 1rr, I reverted an IP for this but meant to restore further back, as this ip also violated NPOV and removed sources here and that isn't what the sources say. Praxidicae (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now the same IP, locating to Middle River, Marylandself promo much? has added more unsourced promotional nonsense. Can this either be protected or the 1rr lifted? It makes it possible to maintain neutrality when IPs aren't forced to engage in discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had reverted the first edit of the IP address, and now they're reinserting the unsourced stuff. If any admins are watching this, maybe consider blocking the IP address and restricting editing on this page? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top donors to campaign

[edit]

From January to June 2020, the top donors were Anne Johnson and Charles Johnson with $16,800 each, according to the North Baltimore Journal’s report on FEC filings for that period. Does anyone have any info on whether the donors are Ann and Giants owner Charles B. Johnson who previously donated to Cindy Hyde-Smith of "front row at a public hanging" fame and to a SuperPAC that aired a racist political ad? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous walk?

[edit]

We have summarized the Snopes description of the circuitous walking route depicted in the famous video, but we have failed to supply a direct quote for our statement that the video says it was one continuous walk. Have I failed to examine the video (in Youtube) carefully enough? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Courthouse News edits

[edit]

@Rwils, Praxidicae, and Muboshgu: Rwils left a message on my talk page asking for advice regarding a recent edit war, where Rwils removed the following and was subsequently reverted:

In a report, Courthouse News concluded that Klacik's non-profit filed only one tax return since 2013, reporting a revenue of under $7,000 and expenditures under $3,000, for providing clothing to 10 people.[1] The report further found that some of Klacik's claims on her campaign website about Potential Me could not be corroborated.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Ericson Jr., Edward (April 28, 2020). "A Mail-In Experiment in Baltimore's 7th Congressional District". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved September 4, 2020.

My own opinion is that Courthouse News is a reliable source, and details about expenditures by Klacik's non-profit are notable. However, the second sentence, which states that some of her expenses "could not be corroborated", should be removed per WP:SPECULATION. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The journalist wrote, "Courthouse News could not substantiate those claims." What part of WP:SPECULATION are you citing for removing the second sentence? -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP about a person running for political office, and like most politicians, she has posted a bunch of stuff on her campaign website (a 100% primary source). Along comes a journalist who reads her 100% primary source website, and "cannot corroborate" some of the claims made on her 100% primary source website (financial claims, dog's name, height and weight). Then along comes Wikipedia, who writes, "this would-be politician said stuff on her campaign website, which is a completely unreliable source we almost always try to avoid, and a journalist could not corroborate the stuff on her campaign website, so we will include all of this on her Wikipedia biography". A sloppier edit in violation of more BLP policies would be hard to find. All that's missing are some "scare quotes". Magnolia677 (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good, some talk page discussion. Looking at it more closely than I did yesterday, yes, the "could not be corroborated" sentence is troublesome. Its way too vague to be helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677:
  1. You didn't answer my question: What part of WP:SPECULATION were you citing?
  2. Where are you coming up with "dog's name, height and weight"?
  3. I don't see how a reliable third-party assessment of a candidate's claims is a BLP violation, and I don't think you've made that case at all.
-- Pemilligan (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox suggestion

[edit]

While Klacik lost very badly in both of her races for Congress, she nevertheless serves on the Baltimore County Republican Central Committee. That is an elected position, and seems like it should be in the page's infobox. I want to know folks' thoughts on this. I would add this myself, but I also can't tell when she was elected, what her official title is, or any other details. PickleG13 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen central committee listed in any other BLP articles. If you want to include it, she's listed in the 2018 primary results and not in the 2014 primary results. On November 12, 2018, (six days after the election) she tweeted, "Time to change my profile. Officially a member of the Baltimore County Republican Central Committee." -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pemilligan! Just added it now. It seems like a logical thing to do, since it at least explains partially her place within the GOP and why she has come to prominence in this election. PickleG13 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure. For instance, with Cook County, Illinois articles, I've never seen anyone's position as a Cook County party committeeperson listed as an office in their infobox, despite also being an elected party position. SecretName101 (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we need to discuss this further. SecretName101 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that being on the central committee doesn't belong there, it's not a meaningful elected position (it's barely an elected position, in the same way that being elected a community association president is an elected position, technically by the word elect but not elect in the broad or Wikipedia sense.) Though this just says she's a member, so even more useless. CUPIDICAE💕 13:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove...

[edit]

Please remove Klacik was born Kimberly Bray on January 19, 1982, it's redundant and silly since it's in the lead and sounds ridiculous. Praxidicae (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Items in the lead generally NEED to be repeated within the body of an article. Especially if they appear without citation in the lead. SecretName101 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: since you INSIST it does without that sentence, tell me where there is prose with all that information located in the body of the article, and where is there otherwise citation backing it. The lead and body are TWO different things. You are supposed to have information in the lead be supported by what the body of the article says, after all. I'm not going to start a edit war over this, but I believe you are mistaken. SecretName101 (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at featured articles like Angelina Jolie and Hillary Clinton, as well as good articles like Michelle Obama, Rihanna, Cher, Miley Cyrus and Bill Clinton. They have similar sentences in their early life sections mentioning the maiden/birth name and dates of birth. SecretName101 (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, with those examples of good and featured articles having similar sentences, I feel rather firm in my belief I am correct. Going to restore this sentence (or something similar) to the article. SecretName101 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 election results

[edit]

Klacik received approximately 12,000 more votes than the last Republican to run in a regular election: The number appears to be incorrect. According to the Washington Post, the tally as of today is 237,084 (71.8 percent) for Mfume, 92,825 (28.1 percent) for Klacik. The numbers for Cummings in 2018 were 202,345 (76.4 percent), for Richmond Davis 56,266 (21.3 percent). The total number of votes in 2018 was 264,438. For 2020, it's 329,983 so far, with 91% of the ballots counted. Compared to 2018, that's 36,559 more votes for Klacik, 34,739 more for Mfume who spent (what - 90 percent?) less than Klacik. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that whole section because it was based upon opinion pieces from Griffith and Rodericks. Rodericks just flat out lied about the number of votes that Klacik got in relation to Richard Davis. Klacik got 36,559 more votes than Davis. So, this is why we can't use commentary pieces (opinion) to support facts. People don't tell the truth in their commentaries. Rodericks was just making up numbers about Klacik's campaign for whatever reason and Wikipedia should not repeat the opinions of some political hack. And, the information was reported in Wikipedia's voice that is was factual when it wasn't even close to factual. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CharlesShirley, you claim to be removing POV from this page, justifiably so in some cases. In other instances you use the POV claim to remove reliably sourced content, presumably because it is negative; it was restored by another editor. You’re also inserting POV with misleading edit summaries. Here are some examples:

  1. [3]: You changed "Klacik centered her campaign on Baltimore's problems, she performed worse in the city itself than she did in the suburban parts of the district" to "She performed better in the suburban parts of the district than in the city itself." Fixing poor word choice? Hardly. You just removed the part you didn’t like, i.e., Klacik campaigning on the city’s problems and the city residents not buying into it.
  2. [4]: The video went viral. It’s important context to say who made it, especially since Klacik mentioned "the mastermind" behind her video very publicly. (The link to the tweet is also provided in the Snopes article.) Benny Johnson was fired by previous employers for plagiarism in one case and promoting a conspiracy theory in another one.
  3. [5]. According to your edit summary, you "calmed down more POV pushing editing" but all you did was delete pertinent context. This after you inserted POV-pushing of your own ([6] "Klacik asked Mfume if he was scared to debate her since Mfume turned down six requests to debate.") Klacik’s tweet wasn’t responding to Mfume, Mfume’s tweet was responding to hers.

BTW, some of your editing is just sloppy:

  • [7]: "Mfume stated in a late-September Twitter post in which he argued she lacked familiarity with Baltimore, pointed out that she does not live in the city, and that a widely-viewed campaign advertisement of hers had misspelled that city's name." Mfume stated what?
  • [8]: "In a late-September, Mfume argued that she lacked familiarity with Baltimore, does not live in the Baltimore, and she had misspelled the city's name."

As for Rodricks flat-out lied - what was the tally on 4 November when he wrote the commentary? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was and still is a lie. Sorry. Facts are facts. 14,000 votes is way, way off 38,000 plus change. The amount of votes that Klacik got in relation to Davis is not even close, so his comments about Klacik are false and the article is marked commentary. We can't use commentary (opinion pieces) to support supposed factually information. He commentary is not appropriate for the support of facts in the article. And his comments are not useable because he made up numbers. Facts are facts. Fact: He made up numbers. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a source that specifically states such things, it's WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae That is simply not true. It is quite simple. The article used to say, before I fixed it this: "Kacik appears to have only received 12,000 more votes than the last Republican to run in a regular election in the district, Richmond Davis, who received 56,266 votes in 2018." There are tons of reliable sources that point out that Klacik got 92,825 votes, which is 38,102 more votes than Davis. The article was blatantly misstating how many votes Klacik received and the article's source for this false piece of information was an opinion piece by Rodericks. I removed it as misleading and false. The article has reliable sources that tell the correct number of votes Klacik got. The commentary was and is false and it was removed. It is a false statement to state that if 20 reliable sources point out that Klacik got over 92,000 votes and we quote ONE souce that claims falsely that she only got 14,000 votes, then that is original research. That is simply not true. I would remind you to do your research please. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the math lesson, I'm capable of the basics here but it appears you didn't bother to read what was said and that's not even the issue. You're changing the tone to erase anything that isn't flowery praise for Klacik in favor of editorializing and synthesizing what sources actually say. None of them say anything about Rodricks, so that's irrelevant but your addition that Mfume was "scared" to debate her is simply not supported. Stop. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also restored the content as discussed here, CharlesShirley and wanted to remind you that this article is subject to a 1RR restriction. Praxidicae (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the purpose of comparing 2018 to 2020 results for this congressional district? One election was held in "normal times" and the other during a pandemic. Are there sources comparing 2018 to 2020? If not, it's definitely WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not compare the two. The commentators from Baltimore did, Rodericks. Not me. Please do your research. I removed the silliness. It should have never been in the article. It was irrelevant, just like you point out and it was false. And it was based upon a NON Reliable Source, a commentary from a guy named Rodericks. Some editor got mad that I removed it. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I am not engaging in WP:SYNTH. That is a crazy statement. Baltimore Sun commentator, Rodericks, made the comparison between 2018 and 2020. I did not do this. That is a false premise. So do your research and try to figure out what is going on. I removed Rodericks false and stupid comparisons. The other editor, Space4Time3Continuum2x, was complaining that I removed Rodericks comments. Rodericks comments were and are false. Klacik got way more votes that 14,000 votes and the article was repeating this false claim, which was supported by an opinion piece, who was flat out making up numbers. As Wikipedia editors we are not supposed to state "facts" in the article based upon an opinion piece, especially there are literally hundreds of websites that repeat and state the actual election numbers obtained from valid sources such as the Maryland Secretary of State. The article was not doing that. The article was repeating an opinion piece. I fixed it and pointed out that Rodericks was flat out wrong and Wikipedia should not have ever quoted him. Some editor did not like it. You don't have a reliable source that says Klacik only got 14,000 votes. The article should not have ever said that. But it was out there for over a month. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work and then when I take it down (because it is false and misleading) some editor says something to the effect, "Well, it was true for fifteen seconds during the counting process." That logic is like saying fifteen minutes after the polls close, well, President Trump is only going to get 140,000 votes because that is what he has right now. We can't post what a candidate has for about twenty minutes after the polls close and post on Wikipedia for a month, as if that is final number. It is false and misleading. Space4Time3Continuum2x Space4Time3Continuum2x did not like me calling something false and misleading when it was, then too bad. She did not just get 14,000 votes. She got over 92,000 votes and she received way more than Davis and the article should had never said otherwise. It was false and misleading. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only dropping in on this discussion, so I'm not fully aware of the details nor am I suggesting that I am. However, opinion pieces can be used as reliable sources for any facts that they impart, so, if Rodericks was giving verifiable information about Klacik's vote totals, that's valid. His (or her) opinions about it aren't. Also remember that 2018 was a midterm election and 2020 was not, so naturally both party nominees will receive more votes in 2020 than 2018. Raw vote totals are not as important as percentages. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Look, everything you just stated it true. But none of it applies to this discussion. Rodericks claimed in a Baltimore Sun opinion piece that Klacik got 14,000 votes (raw vote total, not percentage). He also claimed (incorrectly) that Klacik got a raw vote total less than Richard Davis did in 2018. Once again, this is not true. New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN (on and on) report that Klacik got 92,825 raw votes, which is 38,102 raw votes more than Davis received in 2018 (56,266). Rodericks provided these false numbers to support his argument that Klacik did not do as well as Davis did in 2018. That is his opinion and he has a right to it, but as editors of Wikipedia we should NOT repeat his false numbers as if they are true. They are not true. Klacik did not get just 14,000 votes. We have hundreds of reliable sources that indicate that she got 92,825, which of course is more than the 14,000 that Rodericks falsely claimed and is more than the 56,266 Davis received in 2018. Also, we should not quote a commentary (opinion piece) if reliable sources that are NOT opinion pieces exist, which they do. I agree with you that comparing 2018 and 2020 makes no sense because of the greatly different situations, but that is what Rodericks did and he misstated that raw vote totals while he did it. I just removed the whold discussion because it was based upon a commentary (opinion piece) and it was using false numbers to support his POV. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Just to follow up on your point about raw vote data versus percentages, I did do some original research, from Wikipedia, and looked up the percentage and raw vote totals for all of the previous Republican challengers in District #7 for the last ten years. I am no way going to put this information in the article. I am just pointing out how the Baltimore Sun commentator Rodericks was way off base. He claimed Klacik only got 14,000 votes, which is demonstrably false and misleading. After the votes were fully counted Klacik got 92,825 raw votes or 28% against Mfume. It is the best showing by any challenger, Republican or otherwise, to the Democratic incumbents, Mfume and Cummings. It is the best showing by either raw vote totals and by percentage over the ten year period. It might be the best showing for more years than ten, but I grew tired of looking them up. But ten years clearly proves the point that Rodericks false claims should not be in the Wikipedia article. Just because someone has an opinion does not mean that Wikipedia should repeat it, especially if it is false. The results are as follows,
2020 general 92,825 28% Klacik
2020 special 38,102 25.1% Klacik
2018 56,266 21.3% Davis
2016 69,556 21.8% Vaughn
2014 55,860 27.2% Vaughn
2012 67,405 20.8% Mirabile
2010 46,375 22.8% Mirabile -- CharlesShirley (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this discussion here about more than just Rodericks' piece? If the author of that opinion piece got the results wrong, it's all the more reason not to use it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is about then? The section is entitled "2020 election results". I deleted extensive quoting from Rodericks about Klacik's performance, which was an opinion piece, not a straight news article. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are grossly misrepresenting your edits, CharlesShirley. Explain this removal of sourced content and editorializing the rest of the content. Praxidicae (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can explain that quite easily. You need to explain why you removed the FACT that Klacik challenged Mfume to a debate six times and six times he refused to debate her. This is documented fact, supported by a reliable source. You are the person that removed that fact. You are also the person who responded to my removal of Rodericks false infomation with some silly warning about "original research" which of course was silly and wrong. It was not "original research" by any stretch of the imagination. Klacik did not get just 14,000 votes. That false statement was in the article for over a month. It was clearly false, with hundreds of reliable sourcesk, which the opinion piece by Rodericks was not, reporting that she received 92,825 votes, a total much larger than Richard Davis, which is the claim that Rodericks falsely claimed. You made the false claim that I was engaging in "OR" and "Synth" and other BS. Now, you are making the false claim that my edit putting the FACT that Klacik challenged Mfume to a debate over and over again in the article was some how wrong. You don't even explain why it is wrong, you just demand that I explain it. Ok. Klacik has been widely reported--in reliable sources--not political hacks like Rodericks that she has challenged Mfume over and over again. FOX Balitimore says that Mfume refused their offer to host a debate over and over by saying that Klacik did not live in the 7th district, even though living in the district is not required under federal election law or even Maryland law. You removed my factual, reliably sourced addition. So how about you explaining why you removed it? Why are removing reliably sourced facts from the article? -- CharlesShirley (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You removed an entire section of sourced content and have yet to explain it. I told you why I reverted you; you editorialized and synthesized the sources. If you would kindly chill out with the angry diatribes, you'll get more responses and engagement. Praxidicae (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae No, I don't take advice from editors that engage in discussions where you and Space4Time3Continuum2x call Klacik and Omarosa Manigault Newman "tokens", which is derogatory, disrespectful language that borders on worse. The exact wording is as follows: Seems fairly obvious that she’s not seriously running for office. She’s applying for Omarosa’s job as Token Black Woman at the WH or a paying job on Fox. Either way, she’s got the mandatory look down. Sorry that I repeated such horrible, nasty talk, but how else can I call you and Space4Time3Continuum2x's behavior and attitudes to the carpet? This wording needs to be removed after we come to a way to fix this BS talk and POV editing. Afterward there is some kind of resolution of this horrible, disrespectful BS then we can just point to this edit: Space4Time3Continuum2x's token comment and comments on their "looks". Why didn't you tell your fellow critic of Klacik not to engage in such horrible talk? I guess since you didn't tell Space4Time3Continuum2x to cutout the disrespectful talk then you clearly agree with it. You and Space4Time3Continuum2x probably shouldn't be editing this article whatsoever since both of you have a hatred and antipathy toward the subject. Why are either of you discussing Klacik's looks or Omarosa's looks? And why are assuming that they are just "tokens"? Why are using Wikipedia to comment on their looks? You should disengage and stop using the article to attack the subject. Your intentions from your comments are clear. Who put you two in charge of who and who isn't a token? Who put you in charge to discuss Klacik and Omarosa looks? Why are either one of you judging the subjects on their race? And why are working so hard to put false and defamatory information in the article? Whatever you answer is it doesn't look good. Please work to have these horrible, disrespectful comments about Omarosa and Klacik about their looks and race removed from Space4Time3Continuum2x talk page. Those comments go against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be for. And both of you should stop editing the article since there is a real animus issue toward Klacik's and Omarosa's "looks" and status. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to thoroughly read WP:NPA right after you back up your claims here that I've ever said anything about her looks much less judged her for her race. If you don't, my next edit to you will be taking this to ANI to deal with your personal attacks. Thanks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were no personal attacks. I quoted a discussion between you and another editor and asked a series of questions you should answer. We can put an end to this by having you work with me to get the other editor to take down the discussion on that editor's talk page and then we can remove it here. It was an inappropriate discussion that you have not distance yourself from and you have not asked the other editor to take it down. You should make that effort right now. The comments do represent a disrespectful attitude that has no place in Wikipedia. Are you arguing that talking about Klacik as a "token" and about her looks is an acceptable topic for Wikipedia? -- CharlesShirley (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you outright accused me of saying something I never once did and now you expect me to be another editors keeper? Get out of here. Redact it or go to ANI. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Four pings? M u s t. b e. i m p o r t a n t. Seems to me that your beef is with me, not with Praxidicae. There was no discussion of anyone’s looks, and I did not make any "horrible, disrespectful comments." (Four horribles and one nasty - are you channeling Trump?) If you don’t like opinions I stated in passing on my Talk page, stay off it. (What were you doing there in the first place since you obviously weren’t there to talk to me? Rhetorical question.) Kindly point out on subject's page where I showed "hatred and antipathy" or "attacked" her or inserted "false and defamatory information." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kimberly Klacik article. If there are issues with what other editors have written on other pages, take it up there, not here. -- Pemilligan (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong answer. The hatred and antipathy shown toward the subject of this article in the mutual discussion between two editors to this article is very concerning and indicates that there an animus toward the subject of this article that is coming out in the editing process. It must addressed here and in all other required places until the problem is fixed. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pemilligan is exactly right. Comment on the content, not other editors. "So-and-so said X, but it's wrong" should be at most a three-paragraph section. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marital status

[edit]

Klacik stated on Twitter that she has been single for three years.[9] I can't find a reliable source that confirms this though. Is her say-so enough to update the article? gobonobo + c 02:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. natemup (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kimberly_Klacik&oldid=1223939650"