Talk:David Kernell

"David Kernell" appears in 156 000 hits on google and appears in 2000 reliable sources only counting those tracked by Google News. Hobartimus (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, take into account that he could fall under WP:BLP1E (living persons famous for one event) if he "remains a low-profile individual" after the event, and this page then could be merged into Anonymous_(group)#Illegal_access_of_Sarah_Palin.27s_Yahoo.21_Mail_account. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was really funny :))), merge "David Kernell" into anonymous :), being known by your real name worldwide hardly makes you "anonymous" :). That aside this is covered at multiple articles 4chan Anonymous (group) if the event had an article about the hack itself maybe there. Hobartimus (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also we do not want to stretch the definition of "one event "to the point where we try to merge separate events that are weeks and months apart into "one event" that would lead us into territory where "person is only known for his involvement with politics, delete" type arguments. Hobartimus (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be redirected to his father's page, Mike Kernell, as the Sarah Palin article discribes an event, rather than a person. The article created for Mike Kernell directly mentions his son's name.Constitutionguard (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using a person's name to direct to an article that speaks to a particular incidence identifies that person directly with the directed article and the incident. This is against the policy of wikipedia, which states that articles can not be generated about living people for one event. This link should be removed.

Your point above is a good point -- articles here are not supposed to identify a living person solely with a particular incident, which is the justification you're using to insert the information here. But the same problem is present in this article, because the only information we are covering so far about this person is the email incident. Our policies governing biographies of living people states very clearly that Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. This would argue for him not having an article, and properly being a redirect to the article on the event. Do you have some evidence that he is more widely notable than for the email event? If not, then this needs to remain a redirect, as does David kernell. — e. ripley\^talk 13:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence I have will be forth coming as I should have the court testimony within a couple of days to use as evident to support my information. The email intrusion is of little interest when one considers the constitutional issues that have arisen. I have added this back on with the beginnings of the constitutional issues that I hope to explore. Please bear with me and wait for consensus. It is truly a work in progress.Constitutionguard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

But the court case is related to the email incident. That means it does not support notability beyond the email event, which is what is required for this person to have his own article. There is simply no way that this person is notable beyond the email event, and therefore, no reason for him to have his own article. In any case, as I noted in the other spot, it's been nominated for deletion so perhaps it'll be a moot point. — e. ripley\^talk 11:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it will not be deleted rather modified. The official court records supporting his notability beyond the main event, will not be available until next week. He is notable beyond the event because of the government's over response to the act. The federal government spent massive amounts of money on this case. He was never offered a plea bargain and now faces the maximum penalty for a crime that is rarely prosecuted. If he goes to jail, many will consider him a political prisoner. This will be of public interest, discussion and legal evaluation. The scope of the palin article is too narrow. Deleting all his name variations and redirects is productive and supports the ethics of Wiki, but a new article using court documents as support should be generated perhaps called, Constitutional Challenges of the David Kernell Prosecution, or some other name of equal meaning. 216.79.66.58 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your statement contains lots of ifs and supposition that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Once the trial is done and there is some kind of legal or analytical scholarship that meets WP:RS then perhaps that's something an article here could explore, but for right now it's just a lot of original research and opinion, neither of which are appropriate here. Additionally, court records are primary soruces, which are inferior to secondary sources, generally speaking, per our sourcing policy -- precisely because there's too much opportunity for using them to reach novel syntheses of information that's not backed up by third-party sources. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the potential for the trial to have some kind of constitutional impact? — e. ripley\^talk 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One further note: This discussion should really be happening at Sarah Palin email hack, not here, since this is likely to end up being a redirect, per the AFD. I have copied portions of this discussion there. — e. ripley\^talk 02:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out http://circuit6.blogspot.com/2009/07/computer-searches-fourth-amendment-and.html. Toward the end of the article –“I believe that the Kernell case might present an excellent situation for the Sixth Circuit to address the parameters of the 4thAmendment in the digital age, and the district court's actions in this case bears watching.” And later in the article “Maybe Mr. Kernell's case will give them the opportunity to do so, judging from the nature of his motion to suppress. Regardless, I believe this is an issue that is going to be addressed by higher courts in the immediate future, and the defense practitioner needs to take a second look at warrants that simply identify a 'computer' as the object of the search. POSTED BY RICHARD STRONG AT 9:58 AM. “That is one reference I could quickly come up with. Fact is that the trial is over. So is the email intrusion. The court documents are most factual record we have of what really happened in this complex situation. They are not open to interpretation, they are not novel. What comes from the court documents, the motions and decisions too are factual. The rulings of judges are factual. Unfortunately news reports fall short of correctly reporting the facts, this leads to misunderstanding and possible slander. Constitutionguard (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion focused at Sarah Palin email hack. I'll copy the discussion there again. — e. ripley\^talk 11:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to be complete I have put it on the deletion talk page. I think that is what Wiki policy is. All this copy pasting seems redundant.Constitutionguard (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seem as though your narrow interpretation of Wiki purpose stifles information transfer and open discussion. Stay simple ? Most articles that I read on Wiki would fail that test. Perhaps you underestimate the level of intelligence of people, or their ability to distinguish fact from political manipulation. The Palin article uses news media account to make factual assertions that just are not true. The sworn court testimony is the only way to correct these mis reports. There is little need to elaborate or manipulate testimony. Why would you limit the truth...in any form ? The cornerstone of a wiki article is that it is written by the collective. I am sure that any gross over statements will be edited out by those that have references to support the truth. Constitutionguard (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standard for including information is verifiability, not truth. It's not our job as humble Wikipedia editors to determine the truth or falseness of a claim, we only recount claims that have been made -- provided, of course, that claim is made in a reliable source and complies with our neutral point of view policies. I strongly encourage you to read these core policies and get a better understanding of what is and isn't appropriate here before proceeding. — e. ripley\^talk 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message about not copying things over to the David Kernell discussion delete page. I though I was helping since you were copying the discussion to the Sarah palin email hack page. Sorry. I am not having this discussion in terms of editing so I will confine my comments in the future to the deletion talk. Thanks for correcting me. Constitutionguard (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'm sure this is just confusing. You need to confine your arguments about content to the article talk page space. It's not appropriate to continue a content discussion at the deletion page. — e. ripley\^talk 18:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]