Talk:Kimberly Klacik: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:39, 25 August 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kimberly Klacik article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Maryland Start‑class

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by El cid, el campeador (talk · contribs) on 18 August 2020.

Article move

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

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]

Magnolia677 this is the second article you're edit warring on today. Do you actually read talk pages or do you just tell others to use them? Praxidicae (talk) 20:39, 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]

JGabbard Please stop adding non-neutral and unsupported language. Things like "some of the many run-down city streets" are wholly inappropriate. Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 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

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 (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]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :::::::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. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::::JGabbard's addition was sourced and appropriate.  It should be restored. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 21:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
+== Fully protected + sanctions ==
+{{u|Praxidicae}}, {{u|JGabbard}}, {{u|Magnolia677}}, {{u|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 {{tl|edit fully-protected}} request. Separately, I am placing this article under 1RR under [[WP:AP2]] discretionary sanctions (which, obviously, won't really matter until the page protection runs out), I will implement an editnotice and log this shortly. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 01:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)